Loading...
pc_05 26 2005subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 26, 2005 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock Gary Langlais Jeff Yates Robert Stebbins Norm Floyd Mizan Rahman Bill Rector Jerry Meyer Fred Allen, Jr. Darrin Williams Chauncey Taylor Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 14, 2005 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MAY 26, 2005 OLD BUSINESS: A. Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1477), located on the East end of Isbell Lane, West of County Farm Road, North of Two Rivers Park. B. Sage Meadows Apartments Revised Site Plan Review (S-1229-B), located on John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive. C. Fletcher Short-form PCD (Z-6985-A), located at 8121 Jamison Road. D. Centennial Bank Revised Short-form PCD (Z-6406-A), located at 12211 West Markham Street. E. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-20-04) in the Pinnacle Planning District at the Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road from Single Family to Suburban Office. E.1. Ludwig Complex Long-form POD (Z-7771-A), located on the Northwest corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road. F. Pintura Subdivision Long-form PD-R (Z-7812), located on the North side of Kanis Road, just West of Kirby Road. NEW BUSINESS: I. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Kanis Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1484), located South of Kanis Road, just East of Michael Drive. 2. Viewpointe Office Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1485), located North of Cantrell Road, just East of Sam Peck Road. 3. Gamble Road Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1486), located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road. 4. The Ridge Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1487), located North of Pleasant Hill Road and West of Vimy Ridge Road. Agenda, Page Two II. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 5. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-03-02) in the West Little Rock Planning District in the 7900 Block of West 5th Street from Single Family to Suburban Office and Public Institutional. 5.1. Capitol Place Addition Short-form POD (Z-3969-B), located at 7919 West 5th Street. 6. Hunters Green Revised Long-form PD-R (Z-4451-C), located at 79 Hunters Green Circle. 7. Springtree Drive Revised Long-form PD-R (Z-4969-B), located on Springtree Drive at Yarberry Lane. 8. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-20-05) in the Pinnacle Planning District at the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and the entrance to Little Rock Christian Academy from Public Institutional to Mixed Office Commercial. 8.1. Highway 10 Development Company Short-form PCD (Z-6079-G), located North of Cantrell Road at the Little Rock Christian Academy entrance. 9. College Station Wash and Shine Center Short-form PCD (Z-6168-K), located at 4022 Fraizer Pike Road. 10. The Village at Rahling Road Revised Long-form PCD (Z-6323-K), located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and Rahling Circle. 11. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-04-02) in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District at the 5100 block of A Street from Single Family to Multifamily. 11.1. Hillcrest Vista Apartments Revised Short-form PD-R (Z-7350-B), located at 5100 A Street. 12. Miracle Development Revised Long-form PCD (Z-7351-B), located at 8021 Stagecoach Road. 13. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-12-03) in the 65th Street West Planning District at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road from Light Industrial to Commercial. 13.1. Talley Centre Short-form PCD (Z-7508-A), located on the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road. Agenda, Page Three II. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONT.) 14. Dunn Short-form PD-R (Z-7815-A), located at 1406 South Battery Street. 15. Nuniss Short-form PD-O (Z-7835), located at 6500 Mabelvale Pike. 16. Fair Hills Circle Short-form PD-R (Z-7837), located on the Southeast corner of West Markham Street and Fairhills Circle. 17. Rush Engine DBA Triumph of Arkansas Short-form PCD (Z-7838), located at 4100 South University Avenue. 18. Summit Heights Condominiums Short-form PD-R (Z-7839), located in the 300 Block of North Summit Street. 19. McIntyre Short-form PCD (Z-7840), located at 21924 Highway 10. 20. Davis Forestry Short-form POD (Z-7841), located at 1000 Asbury Drive. 21. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-15-02) in the Geyer Springs West Planning District Planning District between the 9600 and 10000 blocks of Baseline Road from Single Family and Mixed Commercial Industrial to Mixed Use, Suburban Office, and Community Shopping. 21.1. Carter Baseline Road Long-form PCD (Z-7842), located North of Baseline Road, just West of Herrick Lane. 22. Metropolitan Bank Revised Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-5097-I), located just south of the Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway intersection. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1477 NAME: Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the East end of Isbell Lane, West of County Farm Road, North of Two Rivers Park DEVELOPER: Charles Hinson 24 Isbell Lane Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Civil Design Incorporated 15104 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.66 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 2563 LF (Private) CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private street. 2. A variance to allow a reduced street standard for the private street (14-feet of pavement with no curb). 3. A variance to allow the development of Lots 4 and 5 with a 15-foot front building line. The applicant is working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant submitted a request dated February 16, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1477 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005) Mr. James Dreher of Civil Design was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated February 16, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant is still working to resolve issues related to concerns raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting held February 10, 2005. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was not present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was still working to resolve issues related to concerns raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting held February 10, 2005. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has indicated the flood study has been completed and approval has been received from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the wastewater collection and treatment system. Staff has not had time to review this information and request the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the flood study had been completed and approval had been May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1477 3 received from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the wastewater collection and treatment system. Staff stated they had not had time to review the information and request the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1229-B NAME: Barrow Road Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: On the West side of John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive DEVELOPER: WTH Development 8503 Asher Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 13 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F. CURRENT ZONING: MF-12 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated February 4, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing to allow additional time to review the current site plan and possible revisions to the approved site plan. Staff is supportive of the deferral request to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a request dated February 4, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing to allow additional time to review the current site plan and possible May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1229-B 2 revisions to the approved site plan. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant and the City have not resolved the issues related to the proposed revocation of the PD-R portion of the site. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant and the City had not resolved the issues related to the proposed revocation of the PD-R portion of the site. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The Board of Directors will make a determination as to the revocation request for this property at their May 17, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the June 9, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the Board of Directors had adopted an ordinance revoking the PD-R zoning on a portion of this site at their May 17, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the June 9, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6985-A NAME: Fletcher Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 8121 Jamison Road DEVELOPER: Erica Fletcher 8121 Jamison Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: acres NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family with a CUP for a manufactured home ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Single chair beauty salon VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant is working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a of May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6985-A 2 recommendation deferral to the Commission. Staff requested the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not provided staff with the additional information requested from the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not provided staff with the additional information requested from the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has filed to contact staff with the additional information necessary to complete the review process. Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration and refiled when the survey of the property is completed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to contact them with the additional information necessary to complete the review process. Staff presented a recommendation the item be withdrawn from consideration and refiled when the revised survey of the property was completed. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6406-A NAME: Centennial Bank Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 12211 West Markham Street DEVELOPER: Centennial Bank 8201 Cantrell Road, Suite 265 Little Rock, AR 72227 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72221 AREA: 0.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-C ALLOWED USES: Automobile Dealership PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Automobile Dealership, C-3, General Commercial District and O-3, General Office uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 17,626 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 2, 1997, rezoned the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PD-C and established Parkway Motors PD-C Short-form located at 12211 West Markham Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at their October 30, 1997, Public Hearing. The proposal included the creation of a commercial lot with one building and twenty-nine parking spaces. The intended use was auto sales allied with an automobile dealership, which was being developed across West Markham Street. The site included vehicle access from Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby’s Cafeteria. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing the rezoning of this property originally approved for an automobile dealership to PCD to allow the redevelopment of the site as a branch bank facility. The applicant is also requesting the allowance of an automobile dealership, C-3, General Commercial District uses and O-3, General Office District uses as alternate uses for the site. The applicant’s cover letter indicates the building will be remodeled to accommodate the bank along with minor site revision. The cover letter states the service driveway will be widened to allow two drive-thru lanes. An ATM machine will be installed in the east parking lot and a new one-way drive will be extended from the eastern parking lot to allow patrons to exit on to Entergy Court from the ATM lane. The applicant states Entergy Court is a quiet street with very little traffic. According to the applicant the driveway will allow the site to function more efficiently for the new owners. The applicant’s cover letter also states customer parking will be mainly in the western parking lot. According to the applicant, the eastern lot will be primarily employee parking, thus eliminating turnover in these spaces on a regular basis. According to the applicant the application will provide a quiet use for the redevelopment of the property and fit nicely within the surrounding neighborhood. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a developed site with a single building and a parking lot. The site was used by an automobile dealership, which is relocating to the Colonel Glenn/I-430 area. The site is located near the intersection of West Markham Street and Chenal Parkway, a commercial node. Across the street is an automobile dealership. To the northwest of the site are Home Depot, Target and the Sears Tire and Battery Store. To the south of the site are the Entergy offices and maintenance storage yard for Entergy. To the east of the site is the Rock Creek Shopping Center containing a mixture of commercial uses. West of the site is a strip retail center containing a mixture of commercial uses including eating establishments. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Birchwood Neighborhood Association, the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association, the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed right-of-way dedication does not meet standard for a commercial street. The right-of-way dedication width required is 60-feet. 2. The proposed site plan does not provide sufficient room for stacking of vehicles at the teller lanes and will result in blocking of the parking area or main access lanes to Entergy Court. 3. The proposed driveway cut is too close to the existing driveway. In addition, the existing grades would make it impossible to meet standard grades for a commercial access. 4. A right-turn in, right-turn out island should be provided at the intersection of Entergy Court with West Markham Street to address an existing safety problem. Contact Traffic Engineering, Bill Henry, at (501) 379-1816. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow for use of a vacant building as a bank. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 4 Master Street Plan: Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial and Entergy Court is shown as a Local Commercial Street on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and its primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. A Local Commercial Street provides access to adjacent properties. Entrances and exits off the Minor Arterial should be limited to minimize negative effects to traffic and pedestrians on Markham Street. Since Entergy Court is considered a Local Commercial Street, additional right-of-way, paving, and landscaping may be required. Markham Street may require dedication of right-of-way or street improvements. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure goal listed two objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is to “Maintain an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems within the neighborhood, so as to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment.” The second objective states: “Ensure that roads are improved in a manner that is supportive of all modes of transportation (walking, cycling, automobile, public transit and truck) and help to minimize the conflicts between the various modes.” In the event of sidewalk or roadway improvements around the site the non-vehicular infrastructure will need to be preserved or improved. The Traffic and Transportation goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bike, and vehicular traffic in, around, and through the neighborhood,” with an Action Statement “Improve traffic flows and safety in the area.” Traffic on this section of Markham Street averages approximately 20,000 vehicle trips per day, above the service volume of a Minor Arterial. This development should be designed to have minimal effect on Markham Street Traffic. Landscape: The proposal submitted reduces the width of the on-site buffer along Entergy Court to less than the nine-foot minimum width allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. However, it does meet with Landscape Ordinance minimums. The plan submitted deletes all interior landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to revise a previously approved PD-C for an automobile dealership to PCD to allow the site to redevelop with a branch May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 5 bank facility. Staff stated the applicant was also requesting to utilize the site with O-3, General Office District uses, C-3, General Commercial District uses to and maintain the allowance of an automobile dealership for alternative uses for the site. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide details of the traffic circulation through the site and how the indicated teller lanes would not block the customer parking. In addition, staff questioned if the indicated parking along the eastern portion of the site would work based on the narrowness of the area. Staff questioned proposed signage and details concerning the proposed ATM machine with regard to canopy covers and logos. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed right-of-way dedication did not meet standard for a commercial street on Entergy Court. Staff stated the right-of-way dedication width required was 60-feet. Staff also stated the proposed site plan did not provide sufficient room for stacking of vehicles at the teller lanes and would result in blocking of the parking area or main access lanes to Entergy Court. Staff questioned the proposed driveway cut stating it was too close to the existing driveway. Staff questioned the existing grades stating it would make it impossible to meet standard grades for a commercial access based on the current topography. Staff stated the intersection of West Markham Street and Entergy Court should be constructed with a right-turn in, right-turn out island to address an existing safety problem. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposal submitted reduced the width of the on-site buffer along Entergy Court to less than the nine-foot minimum width allowed by the Zoning Ordinance but stated it did meet the Landscape Ordinance minimum. Staff also stated the plan submitted deleted all interior landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated the approval of the interior landscaping removal would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing few of the issues raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has not provided staff with details concerning the proposed canopy for the indicated ATM machine. The applicant also has not provided details concerning the traffic circulation of the site. The applicant has indicated the existing pole sign will be maintained on the site and building signage will be added to the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 6 building façade. The existing pole sign is 19-feet in height with a sign area of 24 square feet. The applicant has indicated building signage will be added seven feet in width and three and one-half feet in height. The building signage will be placed on three sides of the building, all of which have street frontage. The applicant has not addressed staff’s concerns with regard to the eastern most drive located on Entergy Court. Staff does not feel the topography of the site is such that the applicant will be able to meet the standard grade requirement of the ordinance for a commercial driveway. In addition the applicant has not addressed staff’s concern of the stacking within the proposed site. Staff feels with the current drive-through configuration there will be automobiles waiting in the drive-thru lanes blocking the indicated customer parking located on the western side of the building. The applicant has not added any interior landscaping to the proposed site plan. The applicant will be required to seek a variance from the City Beautiful Commission concerning the reduction in the landscaping. Staff has concerns with the site redeveloping without the allowance for interior landscaping. Staff feels the site should redevelop with adequate interior landscaping to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. Although, staff is supportive of the allowance of the site being redeveloped staff feels the applicant may be trying to over-build the site or utilize the site with a use that is not appropriate based on the current configuration. The indicated site plan does not allow for traffic flow and circulation based on the current design, nor does the site plan address staff’s concerns with regard to the proposed driveway grade and configuration. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 7, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A 7 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff for consideration. The applicant has worked with Public Works staff to address their concerns with regard to access and stacking on the site. The applicant has indicated reduced landscaping on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated a portion along Entergy Court with a reduced landscape strip of six feet and a reduced landscape strip along a portion of West Markham Street. The applicant has indicated existing paving will be removed in this area increasing the landscaping at the intersection of West Markham and Entergy Court. The applicant has also indicated four parking spaces near the intersection of West Markham Street and Entergy Court, which will be forced to back into the entrance drive. Although staff has concerns with this configuration the applicant has indicated these spaces will be designated as employee spaces which typically do not turnover a great number of times per day. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested reduced landscaping in this area and the indicated parking. The applicant has indicated the back out space along West Markham for the lobby parking at less than the typical minimum ordinance requirement. The site plan indicates a landscape strip of three feet. The ordinance typically requires a minimum of nine feet of landscaping. The applicant has indicated they will work with staff to design the turn- around, which will incorporate landscaping within the area to increase the appearance of landscaping while still allowing maneuvering room. Staff is supportive the indicated landscaping in this area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the reduced landscape strip adjacent to Entergy Court and the eastern driveway and of the existing reduced landscape strip adjacent to West Markham Street. Staff stated the reduced landscaping would also require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District Location: Northwest Corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads Request: Single Family to Suburban Office Source: Gene Ludwig, White-Daters, Inc PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office. The Suburban Office category provides for low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility . A Planned Zoning District is required. Staff is not expanding the application since the land Use Plan in this area was reviewed within the last two months. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is located in the city’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, undeveloped, zoned AF (Agriculture and Forestry District), and is 4 acres ± in size. R-2 (Single Family District) and AF land represents a majority of the land zoned around this property, and is developed with several single family homes and ranches on large, rural, lots. Less than a mile north on Pinnacle Valley Road at the intersection of Beck Road is an area zoned C-1 that was a law office but is now a burned out structure. Further north is a more dense housing pattern consisting of several single family homes fronting Pinnacle Valley Road near the entrance to Maumelle Park on R-2 land. West of Maumelle Park and adjacent to the Arkansas River is an area of land zoned C-3 (General Commercial District) and MF-12 (Multifamily District) for the Little Rock Yacht Club. Immediately south of the property is a single family home with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for operation of a guest house. About a half mile southeast of the property and on the opposite side of the Little Maumelle River is land shown as R-5 (Urban residence District) developing with large lot single family homes surrounded by land mostly vacant R-2 zoned land. Immediately southwest of the property is undeveloped land zoned R-2 followed by OS (Open Space District) representing the Little Maumelle River floodway and additional AF lands. Also southwest of the property is a recently constructed group of fourplexes zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). West and northwest of the property lies a large amount AF and R-2 lightly developed with several farms, ranches, and homes on large lots. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: No Land Use Plan amendments have been approved within the last five years within a 1-mile radius of the application area. Recently (January 20, 2005) the applicant’s property was the subject of a Land Use Plan amendment encompassing a larger land area for a change from Single Family to Mixed Use. That application was denied at the January 20, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. The applicant’s property is located in an area shown as Single Family at the intersection of pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road and is surrounded by land shown as Single Family with an area shown as Park/Open Space immediately west of the property recognizing the Little Maumelle River and its floodway. Northwest of the property is a small area shown as Commercial at the Northwest corner of Beck and Pinnacle Valley Roads. MASTER STREET PLAN: Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and County Farm Road is shown as a Collector. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Pinnacle Valley Road has special design standards north of County Farm Road that call for a 32 foot wide paved area that includes two traffic lanes and two six foot shoulders. Also required area two foot green shoulders and with a ten foot utility corridor and open drainage ditches. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements. The intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads is currently a 90 degree intersection. Any improvements to the intersection should enhance the through movement of Pinnacle Valley Road. A Class III bikeway is shown on Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. A Class III Bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. PARKS: Less than a mile north of the property is the Corps of Engineers Maumelle Park. Maumelle Park is 100 acres ± in size and located on the banks of the Arkansas May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 3 River. Also nearby is Pinnacle Mountain State Park which attracts many visitors daily. The City and County jointly operate the lightly developed Two Rivers Park approximately two and a half miles east of the application. The level topography and rurally developed land in the area has made this area a popular for bicyclists whose destinations are these parks and the rural countryside. Less than a quarter mile north of this property is a proposed Sports Complex that has been approved by the Planning Commission. This sports complex would be a private sports facility. The decision has been appealed to the Board of Directors by local residents. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The area is in the city’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and generally characterized by a scattering of single family homes on large lots and an abundance of undeveloped land and pasture land. This land was part of a Land Use Plan amendment in January of 2005. That application (LU05-20-01) was requesting a change from Single Family to Mixed use and represented approximately 35 acres in the area. This application is of smaller size (5 acres ±) and less intense use. That first proposal would have potentially allowed commercial, office, and multifamily development on the property. The new application will only allow for the office component and only allow for it in a much smaller location. Staff has concerns about the potential problems associated with addition of an office use to an area were city sewer service is not available. With this area being about five acres in size and not adjacent to the city limits annexation is not immanent. Any sewer for an Office use would require a septic system. The septic requirement could keep development at the intersection at a minimum. If annexed in the future, the area could support more intense uses city sewer service could be a possibility However, even if the Little Maumelle Sewer Treatment Plant is built nearby it is would be hard to provide service to the north side of the Little Maumelle River because it would require pumping and crossing the river. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 4 The property in question is low in elevation and is located in the 100 year flood plain for both the Little Maumelle and Arkansas Rivers. FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps Map indicate that this property is in the A12 Flood Zone which characterize the area as an “area of 100-year flood, base flood elevations, and flood hazards are determined.” The Future Land Use Plan has shown the property and surrounding property as Single Family and Park Open Space mainly to recognize existing conditions and partially because of the elevated flood risk for the area. The Little Maumelle River floodplain extends west of Pinnacle Valley Road all the way to the Little Maumelle River. Approximately one quarter mile west of the County Farm and Pinnacle Valley Road intersection is out of the floodplain. A change to Suburban Office in this area could result in dense and higher dollar value development, increasing the amount of monetary property damage in the event of a flood. A change to the Suburban Office category would require a review of the development on this property through the PZD (Planned Zoning District) process which could minimize effects to neighboring properties, assure scale and massing that would be compatible with adjacent properties, and address potential floodplain issues. The area surrounding the property has an abundance of park acreage. Combined the Corps of Engineers Maumelle Park, and the city and county Two Rivers Park contain almost 370 acres of parkland. Furthermore, about three miles northwest of the site is Pinnacle Mountain State Park, approximately 2000 acres in size. The rural character and collection of large parks in the area attracts numerous visitors to the area for recreational activities. This property is adjacent to a popular recreational bicycle loop that accesses Pinnacle Mountain State Park via Pinnacle Valley Road. Addition of increased use intensity at the intersection could lead to increased traffic potentially harming bicycles on the Pinnacle Valley Road bicycle route. This change could also spur an expansion of higher intensity uses which might create a decline in the area’s rural and park- like nature. Southwest and south of the property, and on the opposite side of the Little Maumelle River, areas shown as Single Family and Low Density Residential have been developing with single family homes, higher density homes, and several fourplexes. Primarily the development has been occurring on Rummel Road and near Pinnacle Valley Road. These developments have all been on the south of the railroad tracks and on the opposite side of the Little Maumelle River. Part of the reason for the development southwest of the property is because of the difficulty of running sewer lines across the railroad and river. In the west Little Rock higher intensity areas are shown at improved Arterial intersections or adjacent to Arterials. In this case Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road are unimproved Minor Arterials and Collectors, respectively. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 5 With this property being cornered by a minor arterial on two sides it is consistent with its placement. In order for this to be a fully functional area of high intensity uses, road improvements would be necessary, including increased turning radii at the intersection. Currently Pulaski County is in the final planning stages of improving and realigning the Pinnacle Valley Road Cantrell Road intersection. Preliminary designs have been developed to improve Pinnacle Valley Road north from Cantrell to the City Limits but no funding is currently available for the road improvements beyond those at the intersection. These improvements may be a catalyst for development along Pinnacle Valley Road. At the present time the Pinnacle Valley area is developed in a rural fashion. Addition of Suburban Office to the area could result in denser development not compatible with adjacent land uses. Most importantly the Suburban Office category could allow for office complexes that are focused on a regional market, not a local market. Since Pinnacle Valley Road has special design standards north of County Farm Road any type of intensification in the area might not be appropriate. The Suburban Office category could increase non-local vehicles in the area and create unnecessary traffic which could reduce the rural quality of the area. use in the area should be in keeping with the rural and recreational nature of the general vicinity. Introduction of new uses with their differing traffic patterns and other needs would add demands to the area which it may not be able to meet or handle. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Walton Heights- Candlewood Neighborhood Association and River Valley Property Owners Association. Staff has received two comments from area residents. None are in support of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change not appropriate because intensification of the area is premature and infrastructure in the area is lacking. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has revised his site plan which has resulted in a different location of a proposed office complex. The new location places the office uses further from the intersection of County Farm and Pinnacle Valley Roads resulting in a larger area (approximately 24 acres) proposed for change to Suburban Office. Staff still has concerns that a Suburban Office designation may not be in character with the surrounding rural area. A change to Suburban Office could result in construction of more intense office uses or office parks at this site. The floodplain issues and sewer issues still remain, and Staff does see how adding additional area as suburban office will resolve any of those issues. Additional area being shown as Suburban Office could increase the amount of developed and paved area at the location possibly increasing runoff to adjacent properties or the Little Maumelle River. Showing additional Suburban Office at the intersection could result in requests for more office zoning resulting in additional area traffic, additional businesses utilizing septic systems, and greater non- residential use. While the current zoning proposal is for one office on a small part the area, the Land Use change is for a large area which could result in more development in the future. Staff still believes that the change is not appropriate because the new proposal would add the potential for additional office uses in a rural area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James made a presentation of item E.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item E. Gene Ludwig, the applicant spoke in favor of the zoning application and stated that his zoning application was more important to him than the Future Land Use Plan application. He continued that he did not care if the land use plan was changed. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04 7 Several citizens and neighbors spoke in opposition to the zoning application. See item E.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Ludwig Long Form Planned Office Development. A motion to defer item E and E.1 to the July 7, 2005 meeting and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes, and 0 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771-A NAME: Ludwig Complex Long-form POD LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road DEVELOPER: Gene Ludwig 8501 Pinnacle Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 37.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: AF – Agriculture and Forestry ALLOWED USES: Single-family, Agricultural uses and recreational uses PROPOSED ZONING: POD and R-2, Single-family PROPOSED USE: Single-family and Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. 1. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for approval a proposed rezoning to PCD at their January 20, 2005, Public Hearing. The Little Rock Board of Directors denied the request at their February 15, 2005, Public Hearing. The proposal included the development of this 37 acre tract with three proposed uses including a two story law office (9000 square feet), a two story single-family residence (8000 square feet) and two separate garage areas to house a concrete pumper truck business with 18-20 trucks (13,200 total building square footage). The applicant May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 2 proposed the development as a compound with all parking located internally and screened entirely by the buildings and walls. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to rezone the site to POD to allow the development of four acres of this 37 acre tract with office uses and rezone the reminder of the site to R-2, Single-family to be held for future residential use. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 would contain 44,600 square feet of office space in four buildings. The buildings are proposed as two story buildings. The applicant has indicated this would allow him to have his office on the hard corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road with additional speculative office space. The applicant has indicated the architecture of the office lot would be similar to the original application request or the Kentucky Horse Farm Style Architecture with all parking internal to the site. The site plan includes the placement of a single sign eight feet in height and not to exceed 100 square feet of sign area. The site plan also includes the placement of a 30-foot building line adjacent to the roadways. The site plan indicates the site lighting will meet dark skies standards. The applicant is also requesting the rezoning of the remaining 33.78 acres from AF, Agriculture and Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant has indicated the rezoned property will allow for future single-family development. The applicant is not requesting a preliminary plat application for the single-family portion at this time. The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to the roadways. A proposed Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-20-04) to change the site from Single-family to Suburban Office. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and has been used in the past as pasture. The area around the site is rural in nature and contains single-family homes and small farms. Three parks are located in the general vicinity; Two Rivers Park, Maumelle Corps of Engineers Park and Pinnacle Mountain State Park. County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road are two lane roadways with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The River Valley Neighborhood Association, the Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Pinnacle Valley 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. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road. 3. Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a five foot sidewalk, with the planned development. Special design standards apply to Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open ditches. For the east-west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, add an additional travel lane per standard details. 4. This property is outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary. No grading permit or storm water detention facilities are required by the City. 5. Obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County. The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on the plat for flood hazard areas. 6. Public Works would support a five year deferral of street construction of the office development site, but not for final platting of the residential lots. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Easements are required to serve the proposed development. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 4 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection based on hydraulic modeling to be performed by Central Arkansas Water. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. 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: Outside the service boundary, submit comments from local volunteer fire department which serves this area. County Planning: 1. A driveway permit should be obtained from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department (340-6800). 2. A Permit for Development in the Floodplain and an Engineering “No Adverse Impact” Certificate should be obtained from Pulaski County Planning and Development (340-8260). 3. Show all proposed and exiting drainage structures on the proposed site plan. 4. Provide copies of NPDES Permit and Clearing Permit for the County’s records. 5. Indicate owners and uses of adjoining parcels. 6. Show the boundary of the development. 7. Indicate the limits of the floodway in relation to the parcel. 8. Delineate wetland areas; if none exist, so state. 9. Provide construction details for proposed fencing. A variance will be required for the construction of fencing located in the floodplain/floodway. 10. Provide the finished floor elevation for all proposed structures. 11. Provide an erosion control plan. 12. Contact the Corps of Engineers, if you have not done so. 13. Show all building setback lines. 14. The survey must meet minimum standards. 15. Note: “Development shall meet the standards of the City of Little Rock and Pulaski County.” 16. All work in the right-of-way will require a permit from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 5 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a POD (Planned Office Development) for four office buildings and a rezoning of AF zoned property to R-2, Single-family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office for four acres ± at the northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-20-04). The residential element of the development is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and County Farm Road is shown as a Collector. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bikeway is shown on Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: In addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings (or in the general areas) will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and western perimeters. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the site was previously reviewed by the Commission for a commercial compound containing residential, office and concrete pump trucks. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 6 Staff stated the applicant was now requesting the development of an eight lot plat containing residential and office. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process and requested Mr. White provide the total square footage of the office in the general notes section of the proposed site plan and provide the proposed building lines for Lots 1 – 7 on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan, which would typically require a 35-foot building line for residential lots. Staff stated non-residential development would typically require a 45-foot building line when located in the County but within the Planning Boundary. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and a dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated a 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way would be required at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road. Staff requested the applicant provide the design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Staff stated construction of one-half street improvements, including a five foot sidewalk would be required. Staff noted special design standards applied to Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open ditches. Staff stated for the east-west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, an additional travel lane per standard detail was required. Staff stated Public Works would support a five year deferral of street construction related to the office development site, but not for the final platting of the residential lots. Staff noted the property was located outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary and no grading permit or storm water detention facilities were required by the City. Staff stated County comments would apply and noted the applicant would be required to obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County prior to development. Staff stated the minimum Finish Floor elevation was required on the plat for flood hazard areas. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated in addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings was required. Staff stated a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, was required along the northern and western perimeters of the office site. Staff also stated an irrigation system to water landscaped areas would be required. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 7 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has revised the site plan to remove the residential portion of the request and is now requesting a rezoning of 33.73 acres of the site from AF, Agriculture and Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant is also requesting a POD zoning on the hard corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road to allow 3.48 acres to develop with 44,600 square feet of office space. The site plan includes the placement of a 30-foot building line adjacent to the roadways. The Subdivision Ordinance would typically require a 45-foot building line for properties located outside the City limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction for non-residential development. The revised site plan indicates required right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. The applicant is however, requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The area is rural in nature and staff feels the deferral request will have a limited impact on the adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated landscaping will be added to the site to meet current City Code. The applicant has indicated building landscaping will be installed between the building and the public parking areas. The applicant has also indicated screening will be placed along the northern and western property lines with either a wood fence, dense evergreen plantings or a wall. The applicant has indicated irrigation will be provided to water landscaped areas. Staff is not supportive of the proposed development. Staff feels an office use on the site is not appropriate for the area. In addition, staff feels the placement of such a large square footage of office buildings on the site is out of character for the area. Staff stated with the previous application they would support an office use on the property if the use was directly tied to a residential component. The site plan indicates the development of 44,600 square feet of office on this site contained in four office buildings. There is no residential component proposed. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the remainder of the site to R-2, Single-family to allow for future residential development, independent of the office uses. The applicant has indicated general and professional office uses for the proposed buildings. Staff feels this is an intense office development, which potentially would generate a great deal of traffic to the area. Staff is comfortable in supporting a single user office with a primary residence located on the site. Staff does not feel this would generate the same traffic demand as the proposed development. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 8 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 7, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff for consideration. The applicant has indicated the development of the site with 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 square feet of residential space. The applicant has indicated the residence will be maintained as a caretaker’s residence or the owner’s home. The applicant has indicated the development will be gated and the overall design is similar to the previous proposal which includes buildings of white with green metal roofs; a style which is compatible with the “Kentucky Horse Farm” theme that has been used by other newer development in the area. Ranch style fencing will enclose the property as a whole as well as line the driveway and encircle the compound. A single driveway will provide access from Pinnacle Valley Road on the north/south leg of the roadway. The applicant is requesting a deferral of street improvements for 5 years or until adjacent development. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to permit an intense office use at this site. Staff previously indicated support of an office/residential development but the support was based on the residential use being the primary use of the site and the office uses as a secondary use. Staff feels the development of this site with 30,000 square feet of office space and intense development for the area. The area is predominately residential and public/quasi-public uses. Staff feels the development of this site with an intense office use will negatively impact the river valley area, which has retained it rural character. Staff does not feel the office use as proposed retains the rural character of the area. Additionally, staff is concerned about the impact of a proposed intense office use that would generate a great deal of traffic on substandard county and city streets. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Gene Ludwig addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he was revising the application reviewed by the Commission at their January 20, 2005, Public Hearing to remove the pumper truck operation from the proposed site plan. He stated the current proposal included the placement of 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 square feet of residential space. He stated his desire was to relocate his office to the new site. He stated his previous office was located on the corner of Beck Road and Pinnacle Valley Road and burned. He stated he could not clean the site because there was an insurance claim still pending and until the claim was settled he could not remove the debris from the site. He stated his long-term goal was to add a residence to the site in a separate location. He stated he had worked with staff to minimize their concerns but could not get a number of the square footage they would be comfortable with. He stated staff would not give him a number they felt was appropriate for the development of the site. Ms. Regina Norwood addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighbors were not support of commercialization of the area. She stated she felt staff had made the right decision to not support the request. She stated Mr. Ludwig had a site zoned appropriately for his office and had elected to not rebuild. She stated the proposed development resembled a business complex and not a law office. She stated she felt if the development were approved this would trigger additional rezoning in the area. Ms. Brenda Norwood addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the site plan had changed from an industrial site to a commercial site. She questioned if the applicant intended to live on the site. She stated Mr. Ludwig had stated he was a friend to the community but she did not feel he was treating the area as a friend would treat a friend. She stated there were three parks in the area which generated a great deal of out of town traffic. She stated the question visitors asked the most was when was the burned building going to be cleaned and replaced. She stated it was important to preserve the City’s green space. Mr. Louie Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was north of the site and he did not feel the indicated location was appropriate for a commercial development. He stated he felt the former location of Mr. Ludwig’s law office was an appropriate location for a non-residential use and felt he should rebuild on that site. Mr. Bianco stated he had talked to Mr. Aday and in his last conversation Mr. Aday was opposed to the request. He stated if Mr. Ludwig wanted a home and to run has law firm from his home then the residents would not be opposed to the request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 10 Mr. Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she did not live in the area but did visit the area for recreation. She stated the area was an oasis and did not need to be ruined with commercialization. She stated recently she had heard Bob Whites in the park. She stated after research she found the Bob White population was down by 62 percent due to development. She requested the Commission deny the request. Ms. Nancy Lott addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated Mr. Ludwig should rebuild on the site he owned, which was currently zoned appropriately for a law office. She stated the neighborhood was currently preparing for a spring-cleaning and beautification. She stated the burned building was not a beautiful sight. She questioned why Mr. Ludwig had not removed the debris from the site. She stated she understood insurance claims but the building had burned in September of 2004. Mr. Bryan Dietz addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the area was a family community and should not become a commercial area. Mr. Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he wanted to second the previous comments. He stated his home was across from the new building and the proposed development was not appropriate for the area. Mr. Herb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated a 30,000 square foot building was one-half a city block. He stated the building would hold up to 210 workers. He stated this was not a typical law office. He stated the logical response was the development was not appropriate for the area. He stated if the Commission felt a change was necessary then they should review the Land Use Plan to determine where changes were necessary. He stated it was rare to find a delta area in such close proximity to an urban area. Mr. Ludwig stated he did intend to clean the site but was waiting until all claims were settled. He stated he did own other property in the area but the indicated location was the most desirable location for an office use. He stated his design plan was similar to current development patterns in the area. He stated there was more opposition to the previously approved sports complex than to his current request. He stated he was willing to limit the number of proposed signs. He requested guidance from the Commission concerning the total square footage that would be acceptable. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the total square footage. The Commissioners indicated the proposed square footage of the office in relation to the proposed residential square footage was not consistent. The Commission stated the previous proposal included the development of an 8000 square foot residence and a 9000 square foot office building. Mr. Ludwig questioned if the Commission would be willing to allow the residence on a separate location on the site at a later date. The Commissioners stated staff’s concerns were that the development May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A 11 proposed was an office development and not a mixed-use development with the office and residence complimenting each other. It was stated with the current proposal the development appeared to be an office development with the residence secondary. Mr. Ludwig indicated the allowable uses under AF zoned property. He stated a golf course, day camp, swimming pool were all allowable by right. He stated one proposal included the development of several five-acre lots. Mr. Ludwig stated his proposed use was not as intense as one of the by-right uses. He stated the current request included the development of 30,000 square feet of office space. He questioned if 20,000 square feet of office space was acceptable to the Commission. The Commission indicated the previous proposal included uses that complimented each other. It was stated if Mr. Ludwig proposed the construction of an equal residences then the development would not be out of character. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the character of the development. It was indicated the proposed development was out of character with the area. Mr. Ludwig requested a deferral of his request to meet with staff to address their concerns. A motion was made to defer the applicant’s request to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-7812 NAME: Pintura Subdivision Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the North side of Kanis Road, just West of Kirby Road DEVELOPER: Chris Olsen 7 Woodbrook Court Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 6.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Residential subdivision containing townhouse and patio home development VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Kanis Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the development of a new residential subdivision containing an attached single-family development and townhouse condominium units. According to the applicant, the property will be developed into fourteen residential lots of approximately 5600 square feet in area. The applicant has indicated there are two tracts proposed within the development that will be developed for townhouse condominiums, Tract A and Tract B, which will be subdivided and owned under a horizontal property regime. The applicant has stated the patio homes will be May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 2 owner occupied. The applicant has also stated there will be 25 townhouse condominiums developed. The applicant states five are to be developed on Tract A and 20 on Tract B. The site plan indicates Lots 1 – 14, the attached single-family homes, will be developed in the first phase along with Tract A. Tract B will be developed in the second phase. The applicant has stated the owner/developer agrees to dedicate sufficient right- of-way and construct one-half street improvements to Kanis Road per the Master Street Plan. The site plan indicated dedication necessary to increase the right- of-way to 45-feet from the centerline of Kanis Road and to increase the width of the current pavement to conform to standards for a minor arterial. The site plan also indicates all internal streets will be held as private streets. The site plan indicates all main drives will be curbed and guttered whereas alleyways and services drives will not be constructed with curb and gutter. The applicant has also indicated all stormwater detention storage will be on-site. The applicant has stated they are aware the site does not currently have sewer service. The applicant is working with Little Rock Wastewater to extend a sewer main line to Kirby Road. The owner will then extend the line at their expense from Kirby Road to the property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains several out buildings and a manufactured home. The site has a scattering of trees and slopes from north to south. Other uses in the area include Baker Elementary School to the south, a gun shop, apartment units and office uses. To the north of the site is the Parkway Place Subdivision a single- family neighborhood. To the east of the site is property with single-family homes which appear vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Parkway Place Property Owners Association, the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 3 2. Provide design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan standard. Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a 5-foot sidewalk, with the planned development. 3. Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to the start of work. Obtain a barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of- way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 5. Storm Water Detention Ordinance applies to the property. The proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan does not address run- off from the southern portion of the site. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). Show approximate finished contours for the site, any walls or terraces, and all storm water flows (Q) into and out of the site. 7. Align the new private street with Baker Lane to the west. As shown, the new street creates a traffic hazard. The supplemental access point would also have to be relocated to provide adequate space between driveways. 8. Regarding the lots with individual ownership, no residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. For the apartments, solid waste pick-up must be provided by a private contractor. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easement, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection based on hydraulic modeling to be performed by Central Arkansas Water. 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. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 4 Fire Department: Maintain a minimum 20-foot driveway and access around the fountain. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) for a mixture of townhomes, duplexes, and single-family homes. The overall density of the application is approximately six dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Single Family land use category. This request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Any entrances and exits to the site should respect existing intersections near the development to help provide smooth traffic flow on Kanis Road. This section of Kanis road is built as a rural two-lane road and half street improvements and dedication of right-of-way will be required. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure goal listed one objective relevant to this case: “Ensure that roads are improved in a manner that is supportive of all modes of transportation (walking, cycling, automobile, public transit and truck)” and help to minimize the conflicts between the various modes. When improvements are made to Kanis Road, it should be done to ensure adequate transportation for all transportation modes. The Neighborhood Involvement Goal lists two objectives related to this application. The objectives area to ensure that neighborhoods are informed of the development activities, and that developers to work together with neighborhoods that may be affected by development. Action statements that support the Neighborhood Involvement goal show a desire for citizen input prior to the Planning Commission Hearing and that plans be posted at the local Public Library and Neighborhood Resource Center. One objective of the Residential development Goals is “To create and maintain well planned residential May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 5 neighborhoods that provide an aesthetically pleasing, unique, healthy, and safe urban living environment,” with action statements calling for support of the landscaping and tree preservation ordinance. In order to provide a quality development within for the area the applicant is encouraged to meet with local residents to discuss the site’s design. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide for the average twenty foot wide land use buffer required along the eastern perimeter nor the average forty- one foot wide land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters. These are average requirements. These buffers cannot be less than nine-feet in width at any given point. Additionally, the proposed on-site street buffer width must average 20-feet and never be less than 10-feet in width at any given point. The Landscape Ordinance requires an average width of nine feet and never less than six feet nine inches. A portion of the street perimeter landscape strip is less than this minimum. A variance of the Landscape Ordinance requirement would require approval from the City Beautiful Commission. A six foot high opaque screen is required along the developments northern, southern and eastern perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings. Staff recommends this screen be a wooden fence or wall. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the development was an attached single-family development and a condominium development in the second phase. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process and requested the applicant provide additional information concerning garbage collection. Staff questioned if there would be a dumpster located on the site, and if, so the location needed to be shown along with a note concerning the required screening. Staff also stated through the PRD requests a minimum of 500 square feet of useable private open space per unit must be provided. Staff requested the applicant indicate the areas set aside for private open spaces on the site plan and requested the applicant indicate the area of the PRD that met this minimum requirement. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant align the new private street with Baker Lane to the west. Staff stated as shown, the new street created a traffic hazard. Staff stated the supplemental access point would May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 6 also need to be relocated to provide adequate space between driveways. Staff stated Kanis Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff requested the applicant provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan standard including the construction of one- half street improvements to the street, including a 5-foot sidewalk, with the planned development. There was a general discussion concerning a deferral of the required street improvements. Staff noted they would not support a deferral on lots that were to be sold but would possibly support a deferral of the street improvements to Phase II until the time of development. Staff stated the lots with individual ownership would not be provided residential waste collection service on the private streets unless the property owners association provided a waiver of damage claims for operation on private property. Staff stated the apartments must provide waste collection through a private contractor. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the plan submitted did not provide for the average twenty foot wide land use buffer required along the eastern perimeter nor the average forty-one foot wide land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters. Staff stated these were average requirements. Staff stated the buffers could not be less than nine-feet in width at any given point. Staff stated the proposed on-site street buffer width must average 20-feet and never be less than 10-feet in width at any given point. Staff stated the Landscape Ordinance required an average width of nine feet and never less than six feet nine inches. Staff noted a portion of the street perimeter landscape strip was less than the minimum required. Staff stated a variance from the Landscape Ordinance requirement would require and approval from the City Beautiful Commission sought if the buffer did not meet minimum requirements. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan addressing most of the issues raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated garbage collection for the townhouse units will be handled by a private waste contractor. The applicant has not indicated an on-site dumpster. The applicant has indicated the private contractor will provide traditional garbage collection through the collection of cans at the curb for the residents. The applicant has also indicated a minimum of 500 square feet of open space will be May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 7 provided for each of the individual units. The site plan includes the placement of green spaces behind each of the condominium units as well as open space in the front yard area. The applicant has revised the site plan to only allow one driveway access to the site. The site plan includes an emergency access point to the site should the main drive become blocked to allow emergency personnel access to the site. Staff is supportive of this configuration. The applicant has also indicated a request for a deferral of the required street improvements until the Phase II portion of the development. Staff is supportive of this request. The revised site plan appears to meet minimum buffer requirements along the northern, eastern and street side of the proposed development. The buffer requirement along the western perimeter of the site does not appear to meet the minimum 23-foot average requirement. The site plan includes the placement of an alley driveway to serve the proposed single-family portion of the development and a ten foot landscaped strip. Staff is supportive of the reduced landscape strip in this area however staff feels proper screening should be placed in this area to protect the abutting residences. The applicant has also indicated the placement of a six foot chain link fence with a vine planting for screening. Staff is not supportive of this choice of screening. Staff feels with the placement of activities in the rear yard area, additional protection should be given to the adjoining homeowners. Staff feels the placement of a six foot opaque fence and landscape plantings in this area would be the more desirable approach to provide screening. Staff feels the plantings will assist in reducing noise to the adjoining properties. Staff is supportive of the proposed development. The applicant has indicated the development of a mixture of housing type on the site in two phases. The applicant has indicated the development of 14 attached single-family homes and 25 condominium units resulting in a density of 6.35 units per acre. Staff feels the proposed development and density are appropriate for the site. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested deferral of the required Master Street Plan requirement until the Phase II portion of the proposed development. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812 8 Staff recommends a six foot opaque fence or wall be placed along the rear property line. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s requested deferral of the required Master Street Plan requirement until the Phase II portion of the proposed development and a recommendation that a six-foot opaque fence or wall be placed along the rear property line. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1484 NAME: Kanis Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located South of Kanis Road, just East of Michael Drive DEVELOPER: Kanis Village LLC 205 Wellington Woods Loop Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: McClelland Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 34087 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 92.29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 277 FT. NEW STREET: 13,269 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park CENSUS TRACT: 24.03 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 20-feet on all proposed lots. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced side yard setback of 5-feet on all proposed lots. 3. A variance to allow double frontage lots for Tracts D, E and F. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 92.29 acre tract into 271 single- family lots and six additional tracts. The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 9470 square feet and 13,269 linear feet of new street. The applicant has indicated two existing ponds will be utilized for detention along with a series of tracts to be held as open space to also serve as detention. The applicant is May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 2 requesting variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced side yard setback of five feet and a reduced rear yard setback of twenty feet on all lots. Please see the Analysis Section of report for additional details of the proposed request. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered tract. There are a number of uses in the area including single-family residential to the south and west of the site. To the north of the site is an area approved for St. Andrews Church. Northwest of the site is a veterinarian clinic. Along Michael Drive a site plan review was previously approved for a multi-family development to construct eight apartment units in two buildings. South of the apartment development is a nursing home located on Michael Drive. Boyle Park is located to the southeast of the proposed development. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and all abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. Centerline is to be based on the realignment approved for the Conditional Use Permit to the north. 2. With subdivision construction plans, provide 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. 3. The location of the intersection of Dorchester Drive should be located to provide adequate sight stopping distance, and should be opposite the approved access location for the Conditional Use Permit located to the north. 4. Kanis Village Drive should be redesigned to meet Dorchester Drive at a right angle. 5. Residential streets should provide a minimum centerline radius of 150-feet (see curve C8 on the plans). May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 3 6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to the property. Locations are shown on the plans for detention facilities. 8. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. 9. Long, straight street lengths encourage speeding. Street layout should provide for traffic calming measures to slow residential traffic such as round- abouts at intersections. Contact Bill Henry at (501) 379-1816. 10. Because of the number of lots served by Kanis Village Drive on this plat, this street should be built to collector standards to West Village Lake Drive. West Village Lake Drive should be extended southward to Dorchester to provide an additional access point. 11. The creek along the southern portion of Dorchester Drive extension will preserve access to the southern tier of lots, without major drainage improvements. 12. Provide easements along lot lines as needed for storm water conveyance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Water main extensions and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 4 CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #3, the Baptist Medical Center route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development, indicating there were additional details necessary to compete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide the names of owners of all unplatted tracts in excess of 2 ½ acres and the names of recorded subdivisions. Staff also requested the applicant provide in the general notes section the reduced setbacks for the rear and side yards of the proposed development. Staff also questioned the total land area of the indicated open space, both covered and not covered with water. Staff questioned if there were any amenities proposed with the proposed development including any areas set aside for playgrounds, picnic areas or fishing piers. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Kanis Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a Minor Arterial. Staff stated a dedication of right- of-way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also noted Kanis Road would be realigned to improve visability in the area. Staff stated the street improvements would be required to match previously approved improvements to the north for St. Andrews Church. Staff also stated the indicated roadway intersecting with Kanis Road should align with the driveway for the church to the north. Staff stated they were not supportive of the deferral of the connection of Dorchester Drive until the fifth phase. Staff stated the development was very intense and a second access point was needed to the subdivision. Staff also recommended the applicant provide some form of traffic calming devices along the long straight stretches to reduce potential speeding within the subdivision. Staff stated Kanis Village Drive should be constructed to collector street standard due to the large number of lots being served from this roadway. Staff noted comments from the wastewater utility. The applicant indicated wastewater had stated a few of the indicated lots were not buildable as proposed due to an existing sewer line located in the area. The applicant indicated during the design phase they would work with wastewater and relocate the sewer line if necessary to make the lots more desirable. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 5 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 May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the total area of open space, both covered with water and uncovered and has indicated there are no amenities proposed as a part of the development at this time. The applicant has indicated amenities such as fishing piers, playground areas or picnic areas will be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association. The applicant has also indicated a 25-foot front building setback and placed a note in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat concerning the requested variances to allow a five foot side yard setback and a twenty foot rear yard setback. The proposed preliminary plat also includes the placement of all property owners names abutting the proposed plat area and the names of recorded subdivisions. The applicant has worked with Public Works staff to address their concern raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has realigned the intersection of Dorchester Drive and Kanis Road to match the previously approved alignment with St. Andrews Church located to the north of the site. The applicant has also indicated interior roadway alignments to satisfy staff’s concerns and added a series of traffic calming devices to slow traffic through the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated Dorchester Drive will be completed to Michael Drive to allow connectivity from the proposed subdivision and the applicant has indicated the connection will be made in the third and fourth phases of the development. The proposal includes the subdivision of a 92.29 acre tract into 271 single-family lots and six additional tracts. The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 9,470 square feet and a minimum lot size of 7,014 square feet. The applicant has indicated the additional tracts will average 81,603 square feet with a minimum tract size of 52,285 square feet. The applicant has indicated two existing ponds will be utilized for detention along with a series of tracts to be held as open space to also serve as detention. The applicant has indicated a total of 5.83 acres is proposed as open space dedicated as green space uncovered, covered with water and detention facilities. The proposed preliminary plat includes the addition of 13,269 linear feet of new street. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request however staff has some concern with buildability of a few of the indicated lots. Currently, there are utility lines and easements crossing the site, which based on the current design render several of the lots unbuildable. Lots 1, 33 – 35, 170 and 208 do not appear to be buildable May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 6 as proposed due to an existing sewer line and easements contained on the indicated lots. The applicant has indicated they will work with the wastewater utility and relocate the indicated lines to allow for development of the indicated lots. Staff would recommend if these existing utility lines are not relocated these lots be deemed open space or incorporated into an adjoining lot and not considered for development. The preliminary plat indicates the development of Lots 244-258 as rear loaded lots. The applicant has not indicated a non-vehicular access easement along the street side, Dorchester Drive, of these lots. Staff recommends a non-vehicular access easement be placed along Dorchester Drive to limit the number of driveway cuts. There is a large drainage channel located on the fronts of the indicated lots and staff feels it important to limit the number of crossings. In addition, the site plan does not indicate any screening along the rears of these lots to protect the adjoining homes from the rear driveway access. Staff recommends the applicant provide a wood fence of a wall along the property lines in this area to protect the abutting homes from the vehicular activity which will be taking place. The applicant is requesting variances from the subdivision ordinance to allow a reduced side yard setback of five feet, a reduced rear yard setback of twenty feet and a variance to allow double frontage lots for Tracts D, E and F. The applicant has indicated the requested variances to allow reduced setbacks along the sides and rears of each of the indicated lots would allow a larger building pad site on the indicated lots. The applicant has indicated the desire is to construct homes in the affordable price range, $130,000 to $160,000, and the exact house plan has not yet been determined. The applicant has indicated with the flexibility to allow reduced setbacks this would allow potential homeowners a large choice of house plans and styles. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant has also indicated a variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots on Tracts D, E and F, adjacent to Labelle Drive and Kanis Road. The applicant has indicated a 10-foot non-vehicular access easement along the Kanis Road frontage to the indicated tracts as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is supportive of this requested variance. As indicated staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to subdivide this 92 acre tract into 271 single-family lots. The applicant is proposing an overall density of 2.9 units per acre. There are several tracts, which have been set aside within the development for both detention and open space to allow for livability within the proposed subdivision. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 7 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends if the existing utility lines are not relocated on Lots 1, 33 – 35, 170 and 208 these lots be deemed open space or incorporated into an adjoining lot and not considered for development. Staff recommends the applicant provide a wood fence of a wall along the property line of Lots 244 – 258 and place a 10-foot non-vehicular access easement along the front of these lots to protect the abutting homes from the vehicular activity which will be taking place in the rear of these lots and to limit the number of driveway cuts along Dorchester Drive. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 20-feet on all proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced side yard setback of 5-feet on all proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow double frontage lots for Tracts D, E and F. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Tim Humphries addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he was not opposed to the development but he was opposed to the lack of buffers. He stated his home was located on the southern portion of the home adjacent to a creek. He stated his request was to allow green space between the subdivision and lots 248-258. He requested the developers leave 10 to 20 feet of green space between the existing homes and the proposed new homes. Mr. Humphries stated he was also concerned with the extension of Dorchester Drive. He stated he had met with the developers and their indication was that staff was requesting the roadway extension but it was not the desire of the developers. He stated his home sat above the proposed development and he would be looking at rooftops as opposed to trees, which was now his view. He stated Kanis Road was not ready for the extension of Dorchester Drive. He stated Kanis Road and roadways in the area should May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1484 8 be widened to handle the additional traffic before the traffic was forced onto the roadways. The Commission questioned staff as to the need for Dorchester Drive. Staff stated the roadway was shown on the Master Street Plan as a connection. Staff stated the roadway was needed due to the limited number of north/south connections in the area. Staff noted Dorchester Drive did have a barricade at the current terminus indicating at some point in the future the roadway would be extended. Staff stated the developer picked the location of the extension. Staff stated the Master Street Plan was general. Staff stated the developers had worked with staff to determine the alignment. Staff stated as long as the alignment was reasonable they would support the alignment. The applicant addressed the Commission on the merits of their request. He stated the developers did not want to bisect their subdivision with the proposed collector street. He stated the alignment was proposed to allow connectivity and still allow desirable lots within the subdivision. He stated the lots on the south were low and would be a challenge to develop. He stated with the requirement of the collector street the developer would be forced to develop the lots to help off set the cost of construction. Mr. Mike Handy addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he felt several of the indicated lots along the southern boundary were not buildable. He stated his desire was for green space abutting his home. He stated in conversations with the developers his understanding was the developers indicated the proposed lots on the preliminary plat because it was easier to remove lots than to add lots in the future. There was a general discussion between the Commission and the applicant concerning the removal of the proposed extension of Dorchester Drive. Staff stated they would not support the removal of Dorchester Drive from the Master Street Plan. The Commission questioned the need for the connection. The Commission also questioned the buildablility of the indicated lots south of the existing creek. The Commission indicated there were too many questions unanswered. The Commission indicated the applicant should consider a deferral to work with staff to resolve the outstanding issues related to the proposed location of Dorchester Drive and the buildablility of the questionable lots. A motion was made to defer the request to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1485 NAME: Viewpointe Office Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located North of Cantrell Road, just East of Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: The Hathaway Group 1001 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 6.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 750 LF CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated May 11, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 11, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1486 NAME: Gamble Road Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Gamble Road DEVELOPER: Davis Properties P.O. Box 241025 Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.22 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District CENSUS TRACT: 42.10 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Gamble Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the subdivision of this 3.22 acre tract of O-3, General Office District zoned property into two lots. The average lot size proposed is 1.79 acre with Lot 1 being 1.23 acres and Lot 2 being 2.34 acres. Proposed Lot 1 has street frontage to Chenal Parkway but does not have driveway access. A cross access and utility easement is being proposed to serve proposed Lot 1. There is an existing building located on Lot 1. The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements. Please see the Staff Analysis and Recommendation for additional details concerning the proposed request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1486 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing medical office building taking access from Gamble Road. There is an apartment complex located to the west of the site. To the north of the site is the Rock Creek Floodway; an area identified on the Parks Master Plan as recreational open space. The area to the east of the site is zoned PCD and is a strip retail center. South of the site are commercial uses located on C-3, General Commercial District zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Parkway Place Neighborhood Association and the Gibralter Heights Neighborhood Association along with all abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan for the construction of Gamble Road for access to the property to the north. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development or obtain a deferral or waiver from the Board of Directors. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for Lot 1 and existing building. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1486 3 be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Care should be taken to protect the raw water line that crosses this property. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contac the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff questioned the Gamble Road right-of-way. Mr. Daters stated the desire was to abandon the right-of-way. Staff suggested Mr. Daters contact the Parks Department. Staff stated the Parks Department had indicated a desire to retain the right-of-way to allow access to parklands located to the north of the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated no grading would be allowed prior to the receipt of an approved grading plan. Staff stated Gamble Road should be constructed to Master Street Plan standard unless the Board of Directors granted a deferral or waiver of the street construction requirement. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the right-of-way dedication to Gamble Road per Master Street Plan requirement but is requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1486 4 The applicant is requesting the subdivision of this 3.22 acre tract of O-3, General Office District zoned property into two lots. The average lot size proposed is 1.79 acre with Lot 1 being 1.23 acres and Lot 2 being 2.34 acres. Proposed Lot 1 has street frontage to Chenal Parkway but does not have driveway access. The applicant has indicated a cross access and utility easement to serve proposed Lot 1. There is an existing building located on Lot 1. Staff is supportive of the proposed lot configuration and the indicated access easement. The indicated lot sizes meet with the minimum required lot size for O-3, General Office District zoned properties or 15,000 square feet and the applicant has indicated a 50-foot access easement sufficient to meet the minimum ordinance requirement for an access and utility easement for non-residential properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested five year deferral of the required street improvements to Gamble Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested five-year deferral of the required street improvements to Gamble Road. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1487 NAME: The Ridge Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located North of Pleasant Hill Road and West of Vimy Ridge Road DEVELOPER: Property Development Group P.O. Box 891 Bryant, AR 72089 ENGINEER: Laha Engineering 6602 Baseline Road, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 59 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 198 FT. NEW STREET: 8500 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 Variance/Waivers: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of 59 acres into 198 single-family lots resulting in a density of 3.3 units per acre. The applicant has indicated a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and 8,500 linear feet of new street. The applicant has indicated a tract along Vimy Ridge Road and Pleasant Hill Road to be maintained by the Property Owners Association to allow for buffering of the subdivision from the adjoining roadways. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot platted building line along the front yard and has indicated side yard and rear yards will meet the minimum ordinance requirement. Please see the Staff Analysis section of this report for additional details concerning the proposed request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1487 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered tract located on the west side of Vimy Ridge Road. North of the site the uses included residential, commercial and industrial. The area to the west of the site is vacant and was previously cleared of trees. The Quail Run Subdivision is located south of the site on Pleasant Hill Road. There is an approved POD located on Pleasant Hill Road to the southwest of the site for a utility contractor’s office. There is a vacant MF-6 zoned property located on the southwest corner of Pleasant Hill Road and Vimy Ridge Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Alexander Road Neighborhood Association, the Quail Run Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and all abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Vimy Ridge 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. Pleasant Hill Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30-feet from centerline will be required. 3. With the subdivision construction plans, provide design of these streets conforming to master street plan standard. Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of these streets. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Locations are shown on the plans. 7. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. 8. The minimum centerline radius of 150-feet for standard residential streets must be provided. 9. Long, straight street lengths encourage speeding. Street layout should provide for traffic claming measures to slow residential traffic. Contact Bill Henry at (501) 379-1816. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1487 3 10. Provide easements along lot lines as needed for storm water conveyance. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, to serve all lots. No detention facilities may be constructed over or near existing sewer mains unless they are relocated. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the application request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff indicated a variance was being requested to allow double frontage lots. Mr. Laha stated his owners had since reconsidered the layout of the proposed subdivision and were now proposing the placement of a tract adjacent to the roadways to act as a buffer between the new homes and the adjoining roadways. Mr. Laha stated the owners were also proposing large areas of open space to serve as both common areas and May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1487 4 detention. He stated the detention areas would only be wet during periods of heavy rainfall, which would allow for recreational space at all other times. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated they had previously met with Mr. Laha and discussed their concerns. Staff stated the redesign of the development allowed for a central entrance to the subdivision breaking the long straight stretches of roadway. Staff stated the indicated right-of-way dedications appeared to be adequate along Vimy Ridge Road and Pleasant Hill Road. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to any land clearing on the site. Staff also requested Mr. Laha contact Public Works staff for street naming conventions. Staff noted comments from wastewater and Central Arkansas Water. Mr. Laha stated he would contact them directly for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the names of abutting property owners, the current zoning of the site and of all abutting properties and the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat area. The applicant has also indicated roadway design as requested by staff. The applicant has indicated three entrances from Vimy Ridge Road. The applicant has indicated a main entrance to the development with two secondary accesses into the development. The applicant has used the internal street network to reduce the long straight stretches of roads to minimize staff’s concern of excess speeding. The applicant has also indicated tracts abutting the roadways to act as buffers from the adjoining roadways. The applicant has indicated these tracts will be utilized as detention and open space and maintained by the homeowners association. With the placement of the tracts in these areas the applicant has eliminated the need for a variance to allow double frontage lots. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant is proposing the subdivision of 59 acres into 198 single-family lots. The applicant has indicated 8,500 linear feet of new street constructed to Master Street Plan standard. The applicant has indicated sidewalks will be placed along the interior roadways and along Vimy Ridge Road and Pleasant Hill Road. The applicant has indicated the majority of the lots proposed will be 70-feet by 100-feet or 7,000 square feet. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot platted building line along the front yard and has indicated side yard and rear yards will meet the minimum ordinance requirement. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1487 5 The proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance as proposed. The applicant has indicated a proposed density of 3.3 units per acre, which is within the allowable density of single-family per the City’s Future Land Use plan. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff indicated the proposed subdivision met all the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Debra Weldon, Deputy City Attorney, stated if the Commission did in fact find the subdivision met all the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance the Commission had not choice but to approve the proposed request. Ms. Weldon quoted Richardson vs. the City of Little Rock as the basis for the approval. Ms. Jan Clements stated she was not informed of the request until she received a certified letter. She stated the developers had been planning the proposed subdivision for some time and should have contacted neighbors for input. She stated the roads in the area were currently taxed and could not handle the additional traffic. She stated there was a water improvement district in the area and questioned if the new residents would be required to pay the improvement district tax. Mr. Bill Westfall addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a resident of the Quail Run Subdivision. He stated Vimy Ridge Road was currently taxed and felt the subdivision should access Alexander Road to enter and leave the subdivision. He stated if the development accessed Vimy Ridge Road then the roadway should be widened to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Benny Robinson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated Pleasant Hill Road was not a city street. He stated the development proposed three entrances in less than one-half mile. He stated traffic problems would be created as a result of the proposed development. Mr. Troy Laha addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developer would widen the roadways as required by the Master Street Plan. He stated curb and gutter would be added. He stated he could not address the concerns of the water improvement district. He stated the developers were proposing the development May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1487 6 of homes 1400 to 1600 square feet in size. He stated this was a market the City was currently missing and felt the homes were a need that was in need of being filled. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - West Little Rock Planning District Location: 7919 West 5th Street Request: Single Family to Suburban Office and Public Institutional Source: Brian A. Tinnel PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the West Little Rock Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office and Public Institutional. The suburban office category shall provide for low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required. The applicant wishes to convert an existing Single Family house into a Real Estate Office Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include an area southeast of the property. This expanded area is located behind two existing Public Institutional uses These changes are to recognize land ownership by the adjacent synagogue. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is developed with one single family home on a mostly vacant parcel of land zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for use as a garden nursery and R-2 (Single Family District) The application area is 4.3 acres ± in size. Immediately north and east of the application area is land zoned R-2 with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for operation of a synagogue. North and northwest of the application is zoned R-2 (Single Family District) partly developed with a single family home subdivision north of Fifth Street and one home on a large lot at the northeast corner of Fifth Street and Sunnymeade Drive. Northeast of the application are lands zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development) and R-5 (Urban Residence District) developed with apartment complexes. Immediately east of the southern portion of the application is R-2 land with a CUP for operation of a church. Further east of the application at Fifth Street and Rodney Parham Road is land zoned O-3 (General Office District) occupied by a senior nursing and rehabilitation center. Southeast, south and west of the property is low lying undeveloped R-2 zoned land alongside land alongside Rock Creek and R-2 land representing the right of way for Interstate 630. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On November 4, 2002 multiple changes were made from Commercial to Mixed Office Commercial; Single Family and Multifamily to Office; Single Family to Office; Single Family to Multifamily; Single Family to Low Density Residential; and Office to Commercial between Interstate 630 and Kanis Road less than one quarter mile south of the site to recognize existing conditions and provide for future development. The property in question is shown as Single Family. Northwest of the application land is shown as Single Family and northeast is shown as Multifamily. Immediately east and southeast is shown as Public Institutional. Along Rodney Parham Road to the east is shown as Multifamily. South and west of the property is shown as Open Space. Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown at the western edge of this property following Rock Creek. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. This bikeway is currently developed and links the links the area to nearby parks, street, schools, and a nearby bikeway. It should not be affected by this application. Master Street Plan: West Fifth Street (Capitol Avenue) is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. West Fifth Street may require half street improvements and be constructed to Local Commercial Street Standards, including a 60 foot right- of-way and 14 foot travel lanes. At the northwest edge of the site is a bridge that is structurally not sound. This bridge may need to be repaired or replaced. Addition of Offices uses to this site would result in assess off of Rodney Parham Road from nearby Sunnymeade Drive and West Fifth Street. This could lead to added congestion at their non-signalized intersections with Rodney Parham Road and increased traffic on local residential streets. PARKS: This property is not located in a park service deficit area. Less than a quarter mile southeast of this application is Kanis Park. Within one mile of the development are two additional parks, University Park to the southeast and May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 3 Weedman Park to the west. Kanis Park is a 46-acre Community Park and University Park is a 27 acre Community Park. Weedman Park is undeveloped park land paralleling Rock Creek on the north side of Interstate 630 between Interstate 430 and the Baptist Medical Center exit. Just west of the application is Henderson Magnet Middle School which has several sports fields that could be utilized for recreation. The Parks Plan recognizes school playgrounds and equipment as park areas.A Class I bicycle trail runs along Rock Creek along the western edge of the property linking the site to Cunningham Lake Road. This same bike path connects with the Interstate 630 bike path which parallels Interstate 630 from Barrow Road to War Memorial Park. This path provides direct access to Kanis Park from the site. The Parks Master Plan does not show any new parks in the area but does indicate potential greenbelt trail continuing northward along Rock and Grassy Flat Creeks. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land Use and Zoning goal is “To maintain the character of homes in the Briarwood Neighborhood,” with an action statement, “Identify rental property in the neighborhood to maintain the character of the neighborhood.” Construction of a large office building in the neighborhood could harm the residential atmosphere of the small neighborhood around the application area possibly leading to an increase in rental properties in the area. ANALYSIS: The application is in unique part of west Little Rock having single family subdivision, open space trails, institutional uses, and apartment complexes. At the intersection of West Fifth Street and Rodney Parham Road is an area shown as Multifamily on the plan. Adjacent to the Multifamily areas are two Public Institutional areas that represent the operation of a synagogue and church. The area proposed for change to Public Institutional area is 1.7 acres ± in size, owned by the synagogue, and accessible only through the synagogue’s property. The expanded area is currently undeveloped and Staff does not feel that single family development is likely because of its limited accessibility and close proximity to Rock Creek. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 4 Traffic concerns could should be a major factor in determining the intensity of uses that would be allowed in this proposed change to Suburban Office. Currently two Local Residential Streets provide access to this area, Sunnymeade Drive and West Fifth Street. A change to Suburban Office in this area could result in a more intense office uses on the site creating additional traffic on the local residential streets. Sunnymeade Drive and West Fifth Street intersect with Rodney Parham Road at areas with limited sight distance (approximately 500 foot site distance at both intersections) . Since speed limits on Rodney Parham Road are 40 miles per hour through this section, and the intersections are not signalized, an increase in traffic entering and leaving the area could result in additional conflicts at the intersections. Vehicles traveling to this site would either use West Fifth Street or Sunnymeade Drive to access the Suburban Office area. Since Rodney Parham Road, the nearby Minor Arterial, runs diagonally southeast and northwest near this location it may be reasonable to assume that Sunnymeade Drive will provide access to the area from and to the north and West Fifth Street will provide access to and from the east. Since buildings along West Fifth Street are not single family in nature and are not oriented towards the street the effects might not pose a great threat on the surrounding uses. However, Sunnymeade Drive is 100% single family in nature and increased traffic could pose a problem to pedestrians, bicyclists, and driveway access. Even more possibly damaging is the thought that people coming and leaving the Suburban Office area could use Cunningham Lake Road to gain access to the Suburban Office area to avoid the West Markham Street / Rodney Parham intersection, or to avoid making northbound turns on Rodney Parham Road. Cunningham Lake Road currently aligns with West Fifth Street but is not joined because of a missing bridge connection. This would result in traffic using Carpenter Drive and Sunnymeade Drive to bypass the missing link. Parts of and Cunningham Lake Drive and all of Carpenter Drive are developed as a single family neighborhood fronting on the respective streets and additional traffic on those residential streets could result in conflicts. Staff believes that this traffic scenario would result if the entirety of the Suburban Office area was developed for office use. This area immediately north of the application is residential in nature and introduction of a Suburban Office use adjacent to an established single family subdivision could result in decline of the neighborhood. Adding Suburban Office at this location may result in additional requests for office on the north side of West Fifth Street. Any addition of Suburban Office in the area would result in the reduction of a Single Family area. Less than one quarter mile south of this property near Riley Road, south of Interstate 630, and east of Barrow Road are areas shown as Mixed Office May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 5 Commercial and also as Office on the plan. These areas were established in November of 2002 to recognize existing development patterns and allow for future office growth. The 49 acres ± of Office has not developed yet and can absorb future demand in the area. Suburban Office also allows for small scale office development such as small professional offices and banks. Along Rodney Parham Road and nearby Markham Street areas shown as Office and Commercial that have vacancies that may be able to support such demand. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Apache Crime Watch, Normandy-Shannon Property Owners Association, Robinwood Property Owners Association, Andover Square Residence Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, South Normandy Property Owners Association, Overlook Property Owners Association, Meriwether Neighborhood Association, Briarwood Neighborhood Association, Pennbrook/Clover Hill Property Owners Association, Twin Lakes "B" Special Improvement District, Twin Lakes B Prop. Owners Association, Twin Lakes "A" Neighborhood Association, John Barrow Neighborhood Association, Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association, Leander Neighborhood Association, University Park Neighborhood Association, and Santa Fe Heights Neighborhood Association. Staff has received five comments from area residents. Two are in support and three are opposed to the change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate to allow intensification with office uses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James made a presentation of item 5.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 5. Brian Tinnell, of McClelland Engineers, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. Several citizens and neighbors spoke in opposition to the zoning application. See item 5.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Capitol Place Addition Short Form Planned Office Development. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-03-02 6 A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, and 2 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5.1 FILE NO.: Z-3969-B NAME: Capitol Place Addition Short-form POD LOCATION: Located at 7919 West 5th Street DEVELOPER: Home Design and Realty LLC 608 Nan Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. 900 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.24 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The site was originally developed as a dairy farm in the 1930’s. Buildings constructed included the family house, a garage, a milk barn and a storage shed. A request to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD was denied by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 17, 1983. The request was to allow 1.4 acres to be used as a storage area for a landscape company including trucks and supplies. The site area proposed for development was located within the floodplain and/or floodway. On May 10, 1984, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 14,669 establishing Healthy Lawns and Shrubs Short-form PCD. The approval was to allow a landscaping company to locate on the site and construct a 3200 square foot metal building on a portion of the site lying outside the floodway. The site would be used as a May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 2 greenhouse/nursery stock and equipment storage facility. Staff received a letter dated May 25, 1993, indicating the applicant had requested the rezoning without expressed or implied authority from the property owner. The letter further indicated the property was never used as a nursery and the applicant did not construct any type of physical structures for use in the proposed nursery business. Staff notified the applicant that in their opinion the PUD approval had been abandoned. Staff indicated the applicant had failed to follow through with the requirements of the approval (submission of a final development plan) within the required time frame. Ordinance No. 17,193 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 21, 1996 revoked the previously approved PCD zoning and restored the R-2, Single-family zoning classification to the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the conversion of an existing single-family home into an office use to be used as a real estate office with two realtors and one office assistant. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and from 8:00 am to noon on Saturday. The applicant has indicated parking will be added to the rear of the structure to accommodate five automobiles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a tree-covered site and contains an existing single-family home and several outbuildings. There is a creek located along the southern and western property line and a large potion of the site is located within a floodway and is not developable without removing those portions from the floodway by a map revision. There is a Jewish Synagogue located to the east of the site and to the northeast of the site is an apartment development. A nursing home is located adjacent to the Synagogue. North of the site is a single-family subdivision with very few vacant lots. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls, many stating opposition to the request, from area residents. The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, the Sunny Brook Neighborhood Association, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. A large portion of the property is located within the mapped floodway of Rock Creek. The proposed alteration of the floodway will require a flood map revision. Obtain conditional approval from Public Works and the Federal May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 3 Emergency Management Agency prior to proceeding with the zoning request. 2. After map revisions, the minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on the plat and grading plans for the site. All finished floors must be located one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. Provide a revised survey showing the limits of the floodway and floodplain. 3. The proposed land use would classify Capitol Avenue (5th Street) on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way 30-feet from centerline. 4. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5- foot sidewalk with the planned development. Match existing curb to the east. Street improvements can end at Sunnymeade. Pedestrian access should be provided to the Park Trail to the west. 5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of building permit. 6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 4 CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus routs. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from R-2, Single-family to PD-O (Planned Office Development) to convert an existing house into a real estate office. A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda File No. LU05-03-02. Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown at the western edge of this property following Rock Creek. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. This bikeway is currently developed and should not be affected by this application. Master Street Plan: West Fifth Street (Capitol Avenue) is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. West Fifth Street may require half street improvements and be constructed to Local Commercial Street Standards, including a 60 foot right-of-way and 14 foot travel lanes. At the northwest edge of the site is a bridge that is structurally not sound. This bridge may need to be repaired or replaced. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land Use and Zoning goal is “To maintain the character of homes in the Briarwood Neighborhood,” with an action statement, “Identify rental property in the neighborhood to maintain the character of the neighborhood.” Construction of a large office building in the neighborhood could harm the residential atmosphere of the small neighborhood around the application area possibly leading to an increase in rental properties in the area. Landscape: No comment. With any future construction landscaping will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the overall development plan indicating a portion of the proposed development was located within the identified floodway. Staff stated the applicant could not proceed with his application request since the City could not approve a development proposed within the floodway. The applicant stated they were requesting to amend their May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 5 application to eliminate the proposed new construction on the site. The applicant stated the request was now the conversion of the existing single-family home into an office use for a real estate agency with no new construction proposed. The applicant stated they would remove several of the outbuildings located on the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated with the revision to the proposed development plan many of the comments had been addressed. Staff stated street improvements would be required as a result of the development but could stop at Sunnymeade. Staff stated West 5th or Capitol did not go through in this area and the applicant would not be required to construct a connection at this time. Staff reaffirmed there was to be no construction within the floodway including the construction of fencing or parking area. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the technical issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has removed all construction requested located within the floodway and indicated the site will be redeveloped utilizing the existing structure and the addition of five parking spaces within the rear yard area. The indicated parking is not located within the floodway area. The applicant has also indicated several of the outbuildings will be removed from the site to clear the overall appearance of the site. The applicant has also indicated a dedication of 30-feet from centerline of right-of-way will be made to the City to meet the current Master Street Plan requirement. The applicant has indicated street construction will be based on improvement cost of the site and the owner will construct the required improvements as requested by Public Works staff. The applicant is proposing the conversion of an existing single-family home into an office use to be used as a real estate office with two realtors and one office assistant. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and 8:00 to noon on Saturday. The applicant has indicated there are no alternative uses being proposed as a part of the development. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff feels this area is a single- family neighborhood and the expansion of non-residential uses into this area would not have a positive impact on the adjoining properties. The Sunnymeade Subdivision is a small subdivision and has been well maintained over the years. With the addition of an office use in the area, there would be an increase in the amount of traffic to the area thus negatively impact the homeowners. There is a May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 6 Synagogue located to the east of the site, which is a non-residential use, but the activity to this site is limited. The multi-family and nursing home uses are accessed from Rodney Parham Road, an arterial street. Staff feels the site is more appropriate as a residential use. The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Single Family and the request for an office use is inconsistent with the City’s current plan. A request to amend the City’s Future Land Use plan is a separate item on this agenda. Staff feels the residential integrity of the Sunnymeade Neighborhood should be maintained and the use of the site remain as a single-family use. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) Mr. Brian Tinnel was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request. Ms. Lucile Long addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was opposed to the request since the Sunny Meade Neighborhood was a residential area. She stated she felt if the rezoning request were approved this would set a precedent to allow additional conversions within the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood was squeezed in by commercial uses and did not need any more squeezing. Ms. Long presented a letter of opposition from a neighbor. Ms. Paula Turner stated she lived next door to the proposed rezoning request. She stated she did not want to live next door to a commercial use and requested the Commission vote no to the proposed rezoning. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood was doing ok. She stated the area was secluded and did not need the impact of a commercial development within the area. Ms. Tracy Crane addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood association had taken a vote on May 18, 2005, and the neighborhood voted 17 yes and 10 no to support the proposed request. Ms. Crane stated this represented 95 percent of the neighborhood. She stated three of the residents directly impacted voted to support the request. She stated 15 percent of the neighborhood was rental. She stated the proposed property had not been maintained which made the area fear this could be the trend. She stated there were commercial businesses within the neighborhood. She stated Briarwood Nursing home was located within the heart of the neighborhood. She stated the conversion of the site would clean the area and reduce the current crime problem in the area. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3969-B 7 Ms. Mildred Whitmeyer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated traffic through the neighborhood was already a problem. She stated with a commercial business this would only increase the traffic on residential streets. She stated there were 15 children located in the neighborhood. She stated the addition of a business was not safe for the children. She stated currently traffic cut through the neighborhood to avoid the intersection of West Markham and Rodney Parham. Mr. Brian Whitmeyer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was not notified of the neighborhood vote. He stated traffic was a concern of his as well. He stated the site was located within a floodway, which also concerned him. Mr. Tinnel addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He presented photos of the area to give the Commission an idea of the area. He stated a portion of the site was located within the floodway and a portion was located within the floodway. He stated the site was neglected and overgrown. He stated the new owners would clear the site and reduced the vegetation to hinder criminal activity. He stated buildings were previously constructed within the floodway and the new owners would remove all obstructions located within the floodway. He stated the new design was that of a residential structure. He stated the new owners would add five parking spaces in the rear of the site to help maintain the residential integrity. He stated with the limited number of employees the activity at the site would be similar to the traffic generated from a single-family residences. There was a general discussion concerning proposed street improvements. Staff stated since the developers were proposing limited improvements to the site the full Master Street Plan requirements would not be required. Staff stated a sidewalk to the neighboring bicycle trail would not be required. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes, 6 noes and 2 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4451-D NAME: Hunters Green Revised Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 79 Hunters Green Circle DEVELOPER: Hunters Green Development Co. LLC 20 Hunters Green Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: Brooks Surveying Company 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-R ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential - rear platted building line adjustment. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On April 18, 1995, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance #16,872 establishing Hunters Green PD-R. The approved development included 50 single-family lots and a large common area. Also included in the development was a six foot high brick fence, built around the perimeter of the property. On June 2, 1998, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 17,736 to allow the revision of the PD-R for the six-foot brick wall behind Lots 9, 10 and 11 (located in the northeast portion of the development) to be increased to nine feet. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4451-D 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developer is now proposing to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow for the construction of a sun room with a solid faced wall within the previously proposed building setback. The previous approval allowed for the construction of screened porches and patios within the building setback but did not allow for the construction of a solid faced wall. The applicant has indicated the additional area will be utilized for plants and storage and will not be heated and cooled living space. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single-family structure accessed by Hunters Green Circle. The area has developed with single-family homes of approximately 2500 square feet and roughly 5700 square foot lots. The development is surrounded by a six foot wall. There are single-family homes located to the west of the site. The wall placement screens the view of the homes located to the west. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hunters Green Neighborhood Association, all residents within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment on revision to the platted building line. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4451-D 3 CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PDR (Planned Development Residential) to convert a covered porch into a storage area non-heated and cooled space. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Hunter Glenn Circle is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan and is built to standards. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. This application does not have a significant impact on the plan’s goals. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was not present. Staff described the request to the Commissioners present indicating there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The request is to allow for a revision to a previously approved Planned Residential Development to reduce the rear building line around a proposed addition. The site contains an existing single-family home and the applicant desires to construct a sunroom with a solid faced brick wall within the rear yard area. The previous approval allowed for the encroachment with screened porches only. The indicated area is for storage and is not proposed as heated and cooled space. Staff feels the revision is appropriate and should have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood if constructed as proposed. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4451-D 4 To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to amend the existing PD-R to allow a reduced platted building line. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recuse (Mizan Rahman). May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-4969-B NAME: Springtree Drive Revised Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on Springtree Drive at Yarberry Lane DEVELOPER: Mike Smith 51 Westfield Court Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Parkway Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 2.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-R ALLOWED USES: Zero Lot Line Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 15,437 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 16, 1988, established the Springtree Village Long-form PD-R. The approval included the development of 61 zero-lot line homes in two phases. The site included 1.5 acres of open space the developer would maintain until the City requested the area be dedicated as public open space. Ordinance No. 16,490 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 21, 1993, revised the previously approved PD-R to allow Lots 1 and 4 of the Springtree Village Subdivision to install a metal patio cover over an existing concrete patio, fence the rear yard, move the rear building line from the location platted to coincide with the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-B 2 rear open space and utility easement and construct a metal storage building three feet off the rear and south property lines. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the revision to a previously approved PD-R to allow 18 previously platted lots to develop with 11 detached single-family homes. The applicant is also requesting to revise the previously platted building lines established on these zero lot line lots. The replat will include a 25-foot front platted building line with setbacks as established by the Zoning Ordinance or 25- foot rear yard and side yard setbacks of 10 percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The indicated lots are vacant with a scattering of trees. There are several homes, which have been constructed in the subdivision. The roadway was constructed with the previously development. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone call from an area resident. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment on revised lot layout. With future construction, curb should be placed across any existing, unused driveway curb cuts. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer services may not match proposed lot lines. Owner will be responsible for extension of any service required for new lots. Verify existing sewer main location South Line of Lot 42R and provide easement if necessary. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-B 3 Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant is requesting a revision to a PD-R (Planned Residential Development) to allow for more traditional single family home development, compared to the originally approved zero lot line development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Springtree Drive and Yarberry Lane are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may require street improvements and dedication of right of way. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there were few issues remaining outstanding with the proposed request. Staff noted the comment from wastewater concerning an existing sewer main located on proposed Lot 42R. Staff stated wastewater was requesting the location of the line and an easement be shown on the proposed replat. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-B 4 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has located and indicated an existing wastewater line located on proposed Lot 42R and provided a utility easement. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated a revision to a previously approved PD-R to allow 18 previously platted lots to develop with 11 detached single-family homes. As a part of the request, the applicant is proposing a revision to the previously platted building lines which were established on the zero lot line lots. The applicant is proposing minimum lot sizes consistent with R-2, Single-family zoned properties or a minimum of 7000 square feet of lot area. The applicant has indicated minimum lot widths and depths also consistent with R-2, Single- family zoned properties or a minimum lot width of 60-feet, a minimum lot depth of 100 feet and a minimum lot area of 7000 square feet. The replat includes a 25- foot front platted building line with setbacks as established by the Zoning Ordinance or 25-foot rear yard and side yard setbacks of 10 percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels if the development is constructed as proposed the replat should have minimal impact on adjoining properties and single-family homes currently existing within the subdivision. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. Staff recommends the applicant file a replat of the property to redefine the required building line. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation the applicant file a replat of the property to redefine the required building line. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4969-B 5 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LU05-20-05 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District Location: Northwest Corner of Highway 10 and Little Rock Christian Academy Entrance Request: Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial Source: Tim Daters, White- Daters and Associates The applicant has requested a deferral to the July 7, 2005 agenda. Staff supports this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the July 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8.1 FILE NO.: Z-6079-G NAME: Highway 10 Development Company Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located North of Cantrell Road at the Little Rock Christian Academy entrance DEVELOPER: Highway 10 Development Company 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 5.19 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Selected C-3, General Commercial District uses, Bank and Restaurant VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated May 17, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 17, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6168-K NAME: College Station Wash and Shine Center Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 4022 Fraizer Pike Road DEVELOPER: D & A Doyne Family Limited Partnership c/o Dexter Doyne P.O. Box 166 College Station, AR 72053 ENGINEER: Ben Kittler, Jr. Surveying Co. 701 North Reynolds Road Bryant, AR 72022 AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District ALLOWED USES: Neighborhood Commercial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District Uses, Carwash and Laundromat VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Frazier Pike and College Street. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District to allow the construction of a new combination three bay carwash and 1488 square foot coin laundry center. The applicant has indicated the facility will operate from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant is also requesting to utilize the site with C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses as alternative uses for the site. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 2 The applicant has indicated the parking will be constructed of asphalt with 4 designated parking spaces including one 16-foot handicap accessible stall. The applicant has also indicated the buildings will be constructed of masonry block with steel bar joist bridging with metal roofing and mansard system. One sign will be located near the intersection of College Street and Frazier Pike, not to exceed six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area and signage will be placed on the building facades adjacent to the street right-of-way. The site plan includes the placement of one vacuum and fragrance island to accommodate two vehicles. The applicant has indicated perimeter landscaping will be placed on the site but is seeking a reduction of the required landscaping strip adjacent to College Street. The applicant will seek approval from the City Beautiful Commission at their June 2, 2005, Public Hearing. The site plan also includes the placement of a six foot wood fence along the east and south sides of the property. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way less than the typical Master Street Plan requirement. The applicant has indicated a dedication of an additional 20-feet of right-of-way along Frazier Pike and 12-feet of right-of-way along College Station. The typical ordinance requirement for right-of-way dedication along Frazier Pike would be 45-feet from centerline and for College Street 30-feet from centerline. The indicated right-of-way dedications are five feet less than the typical minimum ordinance requirement for each of the streets. The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to both abutting roadways. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located at the intersection of Frazier Pike and College Street and is currently vacant. The area was hit by a tornado a few years ago and has been slow to redevelop due to the lack of sewer service. Since that time the area has been provided sewer service from the City of Little Rock. Sidewalks and landscaping have been added to Frazier Pike west of the site. South and southwest of the site are single-family homes. There is a community park located to the northwest of the site. Frazier Pike is a two lane State Highway. College Street is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one phone call from an area resident indication support of the proposed request. The College Station Progressive League, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed right-of-way dedications are acceptable. Furnish signed and notarized dedications with final Board approval of the rezoning request. 2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan standard. Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development or obtain a Board of Directors deferral or waiver. 3. This site is outside of the corporate limits, but within the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. No storm water detention or grading permit is required. Contact County Planning prior to construction for specific County requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for proper requirements for a car wash facility. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 4 CATA: The site is located on CATA bus route #20 – College Station. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the College Station/Sweet Home Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a change from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for construction of a three bay car wash and a Laundromat. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Frazier Pike is shown as a Minor Arterial and College Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Frazier Pike will require dedication of right-of-way and may require half street improvements. College Street will require dedication of right-of-way and may require half street improvements to bring it to Commercial Local Street Standards. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide the minimum 6-feet 9-inch wide on-site landscape buffer along College Street. This is a requirement of both zoning and landscaping ordinances. A variance from the landscape ordinance requires City Beautiful Commission approval. Also, the landscape ordinance requires a small amount of building landscaping, which is not shown on the plan submitted. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Dexter Doyne was present representing the application. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned the placement of signage and the total sign height and area. Staff also questioned if the development would be gated to eliminate any potential loitering problems. Mr. Doyne stated he did not anticipate gating the facility but would show potential gates on the proposed site plan. He stated he had reached an agreement with the Pulaski County Sheriff’s office and he would post signs to allow them to May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 5 remove anyone on the premises after the posted hour. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated right-of-way did not meet the typical ordinance requirement per the Master Street Plan but staff would support the reduced dedications. Staff stated the indicated right-of- way along Frazier Pike did meet the County ordinance requirement. Staff questioned if the applicant would construct the roadways at the time of development. Mr. Doyne stated he was seeking a five year deferral of the required street improvements to both roadways. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated signage would be added to the site and has requested the addition of gates if at some point in the future gating of the site should become necessary. The applicant has also indicated a five year deferral of the required street improvements was being requested for both Fraizer Pike and College Street. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District to allow the construction of a new combination three bay carwash and 1,488 square foot coin laundry center. The applicant has indicated the facility will operate from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant is also requesting to utilize the site with C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses as alternative uses for the site. Staff has concerns with allowing a restaurant facility to locate on the site. The applicant has indicated a limited number of parking spaces, which would not serve a restaurant use. Staff recommends a restaurant facility not be an allowable alternative use for the site. The applicant has indicated the parking will be constructed of asphalt with 4 designated parking spaces including one 16-foot handicap accessible stall. The applicant has also indicated the buildings will be constructed of masonry block with steel bar joist bridging with metal roofing and mansard system. One sign will be located near the intersection of College Street and Frazier Pike, not to exceed six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area and signage will be placed on the building facades adjacent to the street right-of-way. The site plan includes the placement of one vacuum and fragrance island to accommodate two vehicles. The applicant has indicated signage will not be placed on the vacuum station. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 6 The applicant has indicated perimeter landscaping will be placed on the site but is seeking a reduction of the required landscaping strip adjacent to College Street. The applicant is seeking approval from the City Beautiful Commission at their June 2, 2005, Public Hearing to allow this reduction as well requesting approval from the Commission for the reduction. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for a reduced landscape strip along College Street. After dedication of right-of-way the site is limited on the amount of space available for development. The site plan also includes the placement of a six foot wood fence along the east and south sides of the property to screen the adjoining single- family properties. The indicated screening is appropriate and meets current ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way less than the typical Master Street Plan requirement. The applicant has indicated an additional dedication of 20-feet of right-of-way along Frazier Pike and an additional dedication of 12-feet of right-of-way along College Station. The typical ordinance requirement for right-of-way dedication along Frazier Pike would be 45-feet from centerline and for College Street 30-feet from centerline. The indicated right-of- way dedications are five feet less than the typical minimum ordinance requirement for each of the streets but are consistent with Pulaski County’s Street Plan requirements. Staff is supportive of the reduced right-of-way dedications. The applicant is also requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to the roadway. The applicant has indicated additional time is needed to construct the roadways to recoup the initial construction cost of the proposed development. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s deferral request. As indicated staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated development of this relatively small site as near current ordinance requirements as feasible but is seeking reductions to allow the site to develop. The staff’s opinion the applicant has offered protection to the adjoining properties to ensure their properties are not negatively impacted while still allowing development of the site as a commercial use. Staff does not feel the reduced landscaping along College Street or the reduced right-of-way dedication will negative impact the adjoining properties or the immediate area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request and feels the redevelopment of the site as a carwash/laundry center will have a positive impact on the community it is intended to serve. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a reduced right-of-way dedication along Fraizer Pike and College Street. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6168-K 7 Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a five year deferral of the required street improvements to Fraizer Pike and College Street. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a reduced landscape strip along College Street. Staff recommends a restaurant facility not be an allowable alternative use for the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a reduced right-of-way dedication along Frazier Pike and College Street, the applicant’s request for a five year deferral of the required street improvements to Frazier Pike and College Street, the applicant’s request for a reduced landscape strip along College Street and that a restaurant facility not be an allowable alternative use for the site. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6323-K NAME: The Village at Rahling Road Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Rahling Road and Rahling Circle DEVELOPER: Bank of Little Rock 200 North State Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.9915 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-2, Shopping Center District uses PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Branch Bank Facility VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,542 which established The Village at Rahling Road Long-form PCD. The PCD established a 14-lot development with C-2 uses being permitted. The initial action approved a site plan for Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots would be brought to the Commission on an individual basis as a particular development was proposed. Subsequent actions have been approved to allow several small buildings on the properties within the development. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-K 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to revise a previously approved PCD to allow the construction of a single-story branch bank facility. The applicant has indicated the bank will contain approximately 3000 square feet with three drive-through teller lanes plus an additional lane for a 24-hour ATM. The applicant has indicated 24 on-site parking spaces. The site plan indicates signage will comply with signage allowed in office zones. A shared driveway will be constructed along the south side of the development serving the bank along with the future development of the indicated lot to the south. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place. The property was cleared and graded with initial development of the PCD. Access to the lot is via Rahling Circle, off of Rahling Road. Smaller office buildings are located adjacent to the proposed site to the south. The larger building of the original multiuse PCD is located northwest of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The St. Charles Community Association, the Chenal Ridge Property Owners Association, the Margeaux Property Owners Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment on proposed bank site. Provide sidewalks, drive aprons, and access improvements in accordance with the approved overall site plan for the PCD. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-K 3 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow construction of a branch bank facility on a proposed lot. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Rahling Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Rahling Circle is shown as a Commercial Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. A Commercial Local Street is built to Collector standards and has additional landscaping. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Rahling Road since it is a Minor Arterial. Since this case is part of an existing shopping center development, access to the site should be internal and no additional curb cuts should be created. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-K 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff introduced the item giving an overview of the proposed development. Staff stated there were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff noted the comment from Central Arkansas Water suggesting Mr. Daters contact the water department directly for future clarification. Commissioner Yates questioned the purpose of Tract D. Mr. Daters stated due to the slope of the tract, the area was not being proposed for development and would potentially be set up as green space. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues related to the request raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing to revise a previously approved PCD to allow the construction of a single-story branch bank facility. The applicant has indicated the bank will contain approximately 3000 square feet with three drive-through teller lanes plus an additional lane for a 24- hour ATM. The applicant has indicated 24 on-site parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require the placement of seven on-site parking spaces. The indicated parking is more than adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement for an office development. The site plan indicates signage will comply with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The site plan includes the placement of a shared driveway along the south side of the development serving the bank along with the future development of the indicated lot to the south. Staff is supportive of the indicated driveway location to allow shared access to the currently undeveloped lots and limiting the number of curb cuts onto Rahling Circle. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The Village at Rahling Road conceptual PCD was previously approved to allow a mixture of uses to occur as a part of the overall development plan. Staff feels the placement of a branch bank on the site is consistent with the previously approved development plan. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-K 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: LU05-04-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Heights Hillcrest Planning District Location: 5100 Block of A Street Request: Single Family to Multifamily Source: Matt Bell, Bell Corely Investments PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District from Single Family to Multifamily. The multi-family category accommodates residential development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre. The applicant wishes to construct multi family units on the property. Staff is not expanding the application. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is the south half of a city block that was once developed with eight houses. Now those houses have been removed and a parking lot exists on two of the old home sites. The property is currently zoned PDR (Planned Development -Residential) and approved for construction of 14 apartment units on the site. The site is 1.5 acres ± in size. The land to the north is zoned R-3 Single Family for houses. Also to the north is land zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for an office use. East of the application is land zoned O-3 (General Office District) and developed with an office. Also to the east is land zoned R-2 (Single Family District) with a non conforming office use and a non conforming beauty salon. Southeast of the application is land zoned O-3 with a vision center and land zoned C-3 developed with a vintage and retro clothing store fronting Van Buren Street and a McDonald’s Fronting Markham Street. Also southeast and at the northeast corner of Van Buren and Markham Streets is land zoned C-4 and developed with a Exxon Gas Station and Baskin Robbins. A the northwest corner of Van Buren and Markham Streets is land zoned C-3 and developed with a fast food restaurants. Immediately south of the application between “A” Street and Markham Street is property zoned PCD and developed with Long Term Stay Hotel, and land zoned C-3 and developed with a parking lot. West of the application area is land zoned R-3 developed with single family homes. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On May 18, 2004 a change was made from Office to Community Shopping at the northeast corner of Markham Street and University Avenue approximately one half mile west of the site to accommodate proposed development. March 5, 2002 a change was made from Office and Commercial to Mixed Use at the northwest corner of Markham Street and University Avenue one half mile west of the site to recognize existing conditions. On June 20, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office in the 200 block of McKinley Street about one mile west of the applicant’s property to accommodate a proposed development. The application area is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The areas to the north, east, and west are shown as Single Family. Land to the south is shown as Office fronting “A” Street and Commercial fronting Markham Street. One block east and west Office is shown fronting Markham Street. Further south is a large area of Park/Open Space. BICYCLE PLAN: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. MASTER STREET PLAN: A Street is shown as a Local Street and Van Buren Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Van Buren Street has special design standards between Markham Street and Kavanaugh Street indicating a 70 foot right of way, a three lane section, and additional requirements at major intersections. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Access to the development should be limited to A Street since it is a local street. Any increased amount of vehicles accessing the Multifamily area via “A” Street from North Van Buren Street, could create congestion at the Markham Street intersection 300 feet to the south because there is no dedicated left turn lane for ”A” Street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require half-street improvements. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02 3 PARKS: The application is in the North Central Parks Planning District. This park district is characterized as being developed and having adequate parks. The parks plan focuses on maintaining existing parks and providing a potential open space greenway at the southwest corner of the district. One block south of the application area is War Memorial Park which is considered a “Special Facility” within the park plan. This park area is just over 200 acres in size and includes playgrounds, picnic tables, an 18 hole golf course, fitness center, and pool. Also located at War Memorial Park is the Little Rock Zoo, the 54,000 seat ± War Memorial Stadium, and the 6,000 seat ± Ray Winder Field. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: This application is not located in a national register historic district. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The applicant’s property is located in an area covered by “The Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan which is a detailed plan for the future of Hillcrest. The chapter on zoning and land use contains a goal of creating a different set of guidelines to guide development in Hillcrest. This goal is supported by the two objectives directing specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and establishing design standards consistent with the neighborhood’s character. One action statement supports this goal: “revise the land use map for the neighborhood to consolidate and eliminate certain land uses.” In the event of development of this property, it should resemble the adjacent neighborhood in size and scale and reflect the area’s unique atmosphere. ANALYSIS: This application is located in Little Rock’s Hillcrest area which is characterized by higher density single family homes developed on 50’ by 150’ lots. North of the application are single family homes arranged on an urban grid. In the Single Family area to the north homes are oriented towards other single family homes across the street. The current Single Family area is oriented towards non- residential uses across the street. The Future Land Use plan indicates a small area of Commercial on both sides of Van Buren Street on the north side of Markham Street. An Office area is shown that provides a buffer between the Commercial uses and the residential uses. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02 4 Addition of Multifamily in this area could result in an additional step down from the Commercial and Office areas. Traditionally “A” Street has formed the boundary between the non residential uses that line Markham Street and the residential uses to the north. Over time several single family homes along the south side of “A” Street have been destroyed or converted to offices and parking lots. This has resulted in homes on the north side of the block facing non residential uses. In this section of “A” Street the north side faced non residential uses and fell victim to its view. After approval of the current PRD five single family home structures were destroyed and the land was cleared to make way for development. The development plans fell through and has left a half block empty. A change to Multifamily for this half block could help restore the character of the neighborhood that has been disappearing from “A” Street. A change to Multifamily for this half block may or may not have a dramatic impact on the single family neighborhood to the north. Already in the neighborhood a variety of housing exists today. About two blocks west of the application are areas of Multifamily and Low Density Residential. Those areas have rear relationships to the adjacent Single Family areas. Staff feels that development within the Hillcrest neighborhood should resemble similar architectural styles as before. In the event that multifamily dwelling units are approved for this site staff would feel more comfortable with a PZD to ensure that building bulk, scale, and massing will be compatible with the neighborhood. Also the neighborhood action plan indicates a desire for “no net loss of housing.” The addition of this Multifamily area could replace the lost residential units at this site. Addition of Multifamily to this site opens up various possibilities regarding future development of the site. Development possibilities could result in zoning such as MF-12 (Multifamily District) or R-5 (Urban Residence District) resulting in multiple units on the site. Development in Multifamily areas are not always guaranteed to go through the site plan review process which could lead to development incompatible with the area’s neighborhood character. Two blocks to the west a Multifamily area exists at the northeast corner of University Avenue and West Markham Street. This application would result in an expansion of higher density housing eastward and leave only one block of “A” Street Single Family (The block immediately to the west). Addition of a new Multifamily area could be considered as chipping away at the edge of Hillcrest and may lead to similar requests on the north side of West Markham Street. The current Multifamily area is not developed to its full potential and additional units could be added to facilitate any additional demand. This proposed change is located near the intersections of two Arterials. A small Commercial area is indicated at the intersection of Van Buren and Markham May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02 5 Streets with building designs having a smaller footprint and are oriented primarily towards users of the West Markham Street corridor. These small businesses may only see a minimal positive affects by the addition of multifamily residents nearby. This residents could utilize nearby War Memorial Park and the convenience of bus service on West Markham Street. The established Multifamily area is located near a large Community Shopping area that could provide more services for potential residents, and also has additional bus service on the University Avenue corridor. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Heights Neighborhood Association, Sherrill Heights Garden Club, Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Association, Inc., Forest Park Neighborhood Assoc., Oak Forest Neighborhood Association, Hope Neighborhood Association, War Memorial Neighborhood Association Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, University Park Neighborhood Association, Briarwood Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, and South Normandy Property Owners Association. Staff has received one negative comment regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the July 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11.1 FILE NO.: Z-7350-B NAME: Hillcrest Vista Apartments Revised Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 5100 A Street DEVELOPER: Bell Croley Investments 2225 S. Main Street Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: Andrew Hicks Architects 3200 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 10 Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 1.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-R ALLOWED USES: Extended Stay; 14 units total PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R PROPOSED USE: Multi-family and Extended Stay; 24 units total VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed a proposal at their February 6, 2003, Public Hearing to allow the Markham Inn, Jimmy’s Serious Sandwiches and residentially zoned properties to begin a two (2) phase development. The applicant proposed Phase I to consist of the area south of “A” Street; the existing Markham Inn a three-story, 120 room hotel with a total building area of approximately 47,020 square feet and a single level structure that houses a restaurant. The motel was constructed in three phases. There were 132 parking spaces. The hotel property was not in operation as it was closed in August 2001. The applicant proposed PCD zoning to allow redevelopment of the site to occur. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 2 The request for change in zoning was in preparation for the following improvements: The Markham Inn would become the Markham House Suites. The proposal was to renovate the former 120-room motel property. The renovation was to completely raze one building and convert 78 typical motel rooms into 7 one-bedroom units with kitchens and laundry utility rooms, and 20 two-bedroom suites with kitchens and laundry rooms. The remaining forty-two motel rooms would be completely renovated for a total of 69 rooms. The facility would also include a lobby/administrative area, recreational room, and laundry with a total building area of approximately 37,976 square feet. Other improvements included: Wrought iron fencing with masonry piers, asphalt-paved parking lot for 65 vehicles including three (3) marked for the handicapped, relocation of above ground utilities below ground, controlled electronic gates for the security of guests, improved exterior lighting directed inward towards the property, three (3) signage locations of 160 square feet in area each, abandonment of alley centered amidst the property, removal of the old parking pavement area and conversion to landscaped area, removal of wrought iron railings to be replaced with exterior brick and stucco, existing flat roof to be replaced with new sloped shingled roof and new fire protection sprinkles throughout the facility. A number of existing trees would be preserved at the corner of “A” and Harrison Streets. The single level restaurant structure located east of the hotel was to be sold to the current leased operator. The restaurant intended to expand 515 square feet (indicated on the previous site plan). The owner would, through a shared long-term lease agreement for 30 parking spaces, continue to operate. This restaurant’s operating hours were only from 11 am until 3 pm, Monday through Saturday and did not conflict with the hotel traffic. The restaurant owner had leased this property for the past 17 years. This request was approved by the Board of Directors at their April 15, 2003, Public Hearing by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,857. The applicant also proposed a Phase II portion for development. Phase II was the area north of “A” Street and was the residential, townhouse development. The original application included the redevelopment of this portion of the site as a part of the overall PCD but at the suggestion of Staff and the Commission, the applicant withdrew the request for the area north of “A” Street and re-filed the application as a PD-R. Ordinance No. 18,856 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 15, 2003, rezoned the area north of A Street from R-3, Single-family to PD-R. The Phase II portion of the development included the removal of four (4) single-family dwellings owned by the applicant on the “A” Street property north of Markham House Suites. This property would be developed into 14 full-furnished corporate dwellings with a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom units. The units would be a mix of single story and 2-story buildings, with the 2-bedroom units being townhouses. The buildings were sited to take May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 3 advantage of the existing topography and existing trees. An enclosed dumpster would be located adjacent to the existing alley. Phase II also contained thirty-three (33) parking spaces. The applicant proposed the building exterior to be brick, siding, stucco and sloped shingle roofs which would be compatible with the architecture of the Hillcrest neighborhood. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved PD-R to allow the construction of 24 residential units on the site contained in two buildings. The applicant has indicated the buildings will all be two story structures and the architectural design will be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has indicated eight of the units will be one bedroom units and sixteen of the units will be two bedroom units. The applicant has indicated the one bedroom units will contain 800 square feet and the two bedroom units will contain 1024 square feet. The total building coverage has been indicated at 12,768 square feet or 27.1 percent. The site plan includes the placement of 44 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the units are designed to blend with the surrounding Hillcrest Neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the project is broken down into 2 separate buildings with porch shapes extending into the landscaped area. Additionally, the form of the buildings has been recessed so that the masses of the building start to read as separate forms. The applicant has indicated the design decisions help to avoid the “big flat box” effect that would not be acceptable for a design in this thriving neighborhood area. The applicant has indicated brick will be used at the base and the stair railing walls. According to the applicant, hardi-board siding will be used in two sizes to further break down the scale of the building, with precedents in craftsman type architecture representative of the bungalows in the area. Siding with a “shingle” pattern will be used in certain gable areas. Synthetic stucco will be used on the interior areas of the porches under the overhang to enhance the overall appearance. The applicant has indicated windows for the project will be single hung, neutral finish with interior mullions to reflect the windows of the architectural period of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated roofing materials will be fiberglass shingles in a “quiet” color similar to those found in the area. The applicant has also indicated gable brackets will be added to add a visual feature that is found in representative houses throughout the area. The applicant has indicated the design of the north side of the project is intended to have fast growing deciduous shade trees to break sight lines between the proposed buildings and the single-family homes located across the alley to the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 4 north. An example would be the “American Tulip”, a big shady tree which is found in the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated twelve of the units will be marketed as extended stay rooms by the Markham Villa Residential Suites located across A Street. The applicant has indicated persons visiting the major medical facilities from outside the City looking for a quiet place to reside during their stay will utilize these units. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Markham House Suites is located south of the site across “A” Street. On the north side of West Markham, in this area, there is a mixture of office and commercial uses and south of the site is War Memorial Park. It appears “A” Street is the dividing line from the non-residential and residential uses in the area. A PCD for a prosthetic clinic is located north of “A” Street on the corner of “B” Street and Van Buren Street. Harrison Street is improved adjacent to the site with curb and gutter. “A” Street is an unimproved roadway. There is an existing functioning alley located on the north boundary of the property, which extends one-half way. The remainder of the alleyway serves as a drainage ditch. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. North Harrison would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. Dedicate right-of-way to match up-coming public project to improve Harrison Street. 2. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of all abutting streets. 3. With site development, on A Street, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. On Harrison Street, match drive aprons and improvements to future public project. 4. Repair or replace any existing curb, gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 5. Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 5 start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of- way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 397-1817. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Due to the age of the existing main, the developer will have to replace this line. CAW will participate in the cost of this main replacement. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA bus route #5 – West Markham Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Revision to a PD-R (Planned Development -Residential) for additional units within the development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Multifamily is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU05-04-02). Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: “A” Street is shown as a Local Street and Van Buren Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Access to the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 6 development should be limited to A Street since it is a local street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way will require half-street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property is located in an area covered by “The Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan which is a detailed plan for the future of Hillcrest. The chapter on zoning and land use contains a goal of creating a different set of guidelines to guide development in Hillcrest. This goal is supported by the two objectives directing specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and establishing design standards consistent with the neighborhood’s character. One action statement supports this goal: “revise the land use map for the neighborhood to consolidate and eliminate certain land uses.” In the event of development of this property, it should resemble the adjacent neighborhood in size and scale and reflect the area’s unique atmosphere. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. This takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature areas of the city. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Tim Dowty was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated building elevations were a must to determine compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding area. Staff also stated attention should be given to the upstairs units which would overlook the single-family homes located to the north. Staff requested additional information concerning the proposed uses of the site. Staff questioned the total number of units which would be marketed to extended stay and the total number of units which would be for rent as apartment units. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated North Harrison Street would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. Staff stated the required dedication would need to match the public project currently underway located to the north of the site. Staff also stated improvements would be required to A Street including a five foot sidewalk. Staff stated the dumpster was located adjacent to the single-family homes and should be relocated to be less intrusive to the residents of the area. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 7 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan addressing most of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided building elevations and construction materials of the proposed units. The applicant has also indicated twelve of the units will be marketed as extended stay residences and twelve of the units will be rented as apartment units. The applicant has also indicated street improvements will be constructed per the Master Street Plan requirement. The applicant has not relocated the dumpster away from the single-family residences to the north. The applicant has indicated there is not a suitable place on the site to house the dumpster and allow access. The applicant has indicated any location on the site will be adjacent to single- family homes and feels the current location is the best suited. The applicant has indicated the buildings will be two story structures and the architectural design will be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has indicated eight of the units will be one bedroom units with 800 square feet of living space and sixteen of the units will be two bedroom units with 1,024 square feet of living space. The total building coverage has been indicated at 12,768 square feet or 27.1 percent. The site plan includes the placement of 44 on-site parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require the placement of 36 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the units are designed to blend with the surrounding Hillcrest Neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the project is broken down into 2 separate buildings with porch shapes extending into the landscaped area. Additionally, the buildings have been recessed so that the masses of the building start to appear as separate units. The applicant has indicated the design will help to avoid the “big flat box” effect. The applicant has indicated brick will be used at the base and the stair railing walls. According to the applicant hardi-board siding will be used in two sizes to further break down the scale of the building, with precedents in craftsman type architecture representative of the bungalows in the area. Siding with a “shingle” pattern will be used in certain gable areas. Synthetic stucco will be used on the interior areas of the porches under the overhang to enhance the overall appearance. The applicant has indicated windows for the project will be single hung, neutral finish with interior mullions to reflect the windows of the architectural period of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated roofing materials will be fiberglass shingles similar to those found in the area. The applicant has also indicated gable brackets will be added to add a visual feature that is found in houses throughout the area. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B 8 The applicant has indicated the design of the north side of the project is intended to have fast growing deciduous shade trees to break sight lines between the proposed buildings and the single-family homes located across the alley to the north. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff feels the development of the site as proposed is not in character and keeping with the residential neighborhood. The previously approved site plan allowed for a development of the site with smaller buildings and the creation of the feeling of a patio home development. In staff’s opinion, the current development does not break the massing of the buildings and tends to have an institutional feel. The applicant has located the dumpster adjacent to the single-family neighborhood to the north. Staff feels this is not an appropriate location for the dumpster; both because of smell and noise. Staff feels the dumpster should be relocated into the site to allow a greater distance between the dumpster and the adjoining homes. Staff has some concerns with the proposed density of the development. Although staff is not opposed to density in the area, staff does have concerns with the overall density of the site as designed. The applicant has indicated each of the buildings will be two story buildings located adjacent to the rear yards of the single-family homes. The applicant has indicated landscaping to offer protection to the adjoining homes but in staff’s opinion, there should be additional protections. In staff’s opinion, the proposed development should be redesigned to allow for protection and compatibility to the adjoining homes and the neighborhood. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated May 25, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was needed to meet with the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver for the late deferral request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the By-law waiver and the deferral request. A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver for the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7351-B NAME: Miracle Development Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 8021 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: Bruce Clark Clarks Corner Company 2409 Crystal Lake Circle Alexander, AR 72002 ENGINEER: Global Surveying Kelton Price, P.E. 217 W. 2nd Street, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.68 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-3, General Commercial District uses PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant and C-3, General Commercial District uses as alternative uses for the site VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The mini-warehouse site was reviewed and approved by the Commission at their February 17, 2000, Public Hearing as a Conditional Use Permit to allow the site (3.75 acres) to develop with six buildings on C-3, General Commercial zoned property. On the western portion of the site the applicant proposed to subdivide the site into three commercial lots and to rezone the site from C-3 to PCD to allow for the development of the site with a mini-warehouse development (Lot 3), a carwash (Lot 1) and an May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 2 unidentified C-3 uses to be located on Lot 2. The applicant later revised his request to remove the Lot 3 development from the site plan and resubmit when plans were finalized. The plat required a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-231] to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage (S-1374). Lot 3 was to be served by a 30-foot access easement located on the lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,823 and Ordinance No. 18,824 on March 4, 2002, establishing the Planned Commercial Development zoning and creating the plat variance for the development. Ordinance No, 19,059 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on March 2, 2004, revised the previously approved PCD to allow the development of the mini-warehouse units on Lot 3. The development was to be constructed in two phases with all the slabs being installed in the first phase. The applicant indicated access to the site would be from the existing mini-warehouse development located to the east. The applicant indicated the existing Lot 3 of the Miracle Land Subdivision would be replatted to encompass the area of the existing mini-warehouse building. The replat has been completed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the construction of a restaurant building on previously platted Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the development will occur in two phases with the placement of a 10-foot by 20-foot prefabricated building on the site and the construction of drives and parking areas to allow for a drive-thru coffee shop. The applicant has indicated the Phase II portion of the development will be the construction of a larger (24-feet by 50-feet) site built building to be constructed in conjunction with additional parking and drives to allow for drive-thru sales as well as a small sitting area. The applicant has indicated upon completion of the site built building, the prefabricated building will be removed from the site. The applicant has indicated the anticipated time frame for removal of the temporary building is 18 to 24 months. The applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 6:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturday. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with trees covering the southern perimeter of the site; currently zoned PCD. The site adjoins the flood plain/floodway to the south in an area zoned OS. There is a mini-storage development located to the east of the site adjacent to I-430. A carwash has been constructed on Lot 1. Other uses in the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 3 area include a church located north of the site, a welding shop and a mixture of auto related uses; ABC Salvage, a tire company, a used car lot. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Otter Creek Homeowners Association, the Crystal Valley Property Owners Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances and the Master Street Plan as indicated on the plans. 2. In accordance with Section 31-210(h)(7), parking spaces shall not be permitted to back into an access easement. 3. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-286 prior to construction. Minimum finish floor elevation required as indicated on the plans. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Centerpoint has a 4” steel line in easement in the area. Owner is responsible for any cost associated with relocation of line. 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. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 4 CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow the construction of two buildings on the site, a restaurant and a coffee shop. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is indicated on Stagecoach Road. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Master Street Plan: Stagecoach Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Stagecoach Road is built as a five-lane road with a center turn lane through this section. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects on traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians on Stagecoach Road. Stagecoach Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street and sidewalk improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Otter Creek - Crystal Valley neighborhood action plan. The Public Safety goal listed one objective relevant to this case, “reduce speeding, burglary, vandalism, and other criminal activity in the area through police presence and enforcement.” Several action statements that support the Public Safety goal are related to this application: “ensure the construction of sidewalks in all future developments by not granting variances for sidewalk construction,” and “seek federal money for sidewalk construction along Stagecoach Road.” Since this development is on Stagecoach Road where sidewalks do not exist, one should be constructed. The Office and Commercial Development goal is to “promote commercial and office development that meets the needs of area residents for shopping and services, maintains as much of the existing topography, trees, and green space as possible, and enhances the primarily residential character of the community.” Action statements relating this goal to this case reflect a notion to adhere to the current land use plan, resist amendments to the plan, and require “businesses be accessed by loop streets to minimize curb cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.” Currently this proposal is consistent with the land use plan. Minimal curb cuts on Stagecoach Road would allow for additional landscaping. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 5 Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide for the 8-percent (961 square feet) interior landscaping within the interior of the proposed paved areas. In order to receive credit toward fulfilling interior landscaping requirements, interior islands must be at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 square feet in area. A small amount of additional building landscaping will be required. Both interior and building landscaping is a requirement of the landscaping ordinance. A variance of these requirements will necessitate City Beautiful Commission approval. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating the site plan as proposed did not comply with current ordinance requirements. Staff stated the indicated parking was backing into the service drive which was not allowed. Mr. Price stated based on staff comments the owner had decided to limit the number of buildings on the site to a temporary building and the permanent building eliminating the third building proposed for the site. Staff questioned when the permanent building would be constructed. The applicant stated within 18- months. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to development of the site. Staff also stated sidewalks would be required adjacent to Stagecoach Road. Landscaping comments were addressed. Mr. Price stated with the elimination of one of the buildings, meeting the required landscaping minimums would not be an issue. He stated screening would also be placed along the perimeters of the site where abutting single-family zoned properties. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a temporary building will be added to the site to allow the owner to start sales of from the site while the permanent building is being constructed. The applicant has indicated the temporary building will be placed within the landscaped island of the site adjacent to the access easement servicing the lot. The applicant has indicated two parking spaces will be placed on the site to allow employee parking. The applicant has indicated the temporary building will serve customers by two drive-through lanes and will not have a seating area inside the building. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 6 The applicant has revised the site plan to eliminate the backing into the service drive as requested by staff. The applicant has also increased landscaped areas and provided screening on the site to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated the development of the site in two phases. The applicant has indicated a temporary building will be placed on the site to allow for construction of a permanent building. The applicant has indicated twelve parking spaces will be added to the site with the construction of the permanent building. Based on minimum parking requirements for a restaurant use, twelve parking spaces would be required. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a restaurant. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant is requesting utilization of the site as a restaurant use and the allowance of C-3, General Commercial District uses as alternative uses for the site. The applicant has indicated the utilization of the site with a temporary building, 18 to 24 months, with the permanent building and parking being constructed within this time frame. Staff recommends the applicant only be allowed the temporary building within the specified time frame and the removal of the temporary building and the completion of the required landscaping within 15-days of the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy for the permanent building. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends the indicated temporary building be limited to a maximum of 24 months and the building be removed and all required landscaping be installed within 15 days of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the site permanent building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff presented a recommendation the indicated temporary building be limited to a maximum of 24 months and the building be removed and all required landscaping be installed within 15 days of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the sites permanent building. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-B 7 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: LU05-12-03 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - 65th Street West Planning District Location: Southeast Corner Colonel Glenn and of Talley Roads Request: Light Industrial to Commercial Source: Pat McGetrick, Boen Enterprises PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street West Planning District from Light Industrial to Commercial. The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant plans on constructing a retail store on the site. Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was reviewed within the last year. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is developed with one vacant single family home, currently zoned R-2 (Single Family District) and is 5 acres ± in size. North of the property is zoned I-1 (Industrial Park District) partly developed with an Office Showroom Warehouse Development and partly vacant. Further north is land zoned R-2 with several non conforming manufactured homes on site. Northeast of the property and on the opposite side of Shackleford Road is zoned R-2 with several single family homes. Further northeast is additional I-1 land developed with an Office Showroom Warehouse, and additional I-2 (Light Industrial District) land developed with various industrial uses. Immediately east of the application is undeveloped and forested land zoned R-2. Further east is additional I-2 land developed with the Fairway Lawns center. Further east and on the opposite side of Shackleford Road is an undeveloped POD (Planned Office District). South of the property is land zoned R-2 that is undeveloped and clear. Several single family homes are located along Talley Road. Further south is I-1 land developed with a Light Industrial complex. Southwest of the site is undeveloped and clear land zoned O-3. Further southwest of the application and fronting Interstate 430 is a PDO (Planned Development –Office) occupied by Remington College. Immediately west of the application is vacant and clear land zoned C-3 (General Commercial District). Further to the west and fronting Interstate 430 is C-4 (Open Display Commercial) land presently being developed as an automotive dealership. Northwest of the application is C-2 (Shopping Center District) which is occupied by Clear Channel Communications. Further northwest is additional May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-12-03 2 land zoned C-3 and developed with a retail strip center, Wendy’s, and Pulaski Bank. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On April 19, 2005 a change was made at the southeast corner of David O. Dodd Road and Bowman Plaza Drive from Office to Commercial approximately three quarter miles southwest of the site to accommodate future development. On July 20, 2004 a change was made from Mixed Use to Mixed Office Commercial on the north side of 36th Street midway between Bowman Road and Interstate 430 just under one mile northwest of the application for future development. On November 18, 2003 a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial to Service Trades District on the northwest corner of Shackleford Road and W. 36th Street along Old Shackleford Road about three quarter miles north of the application to accommodate proposed development. On February 4, 2003 a change was made from Multifamily to Mixed Office Commercial on the southwest corner of Interstate 430 and W. 36th Street about three quarters of a mile north of the application to accommodate proposed development. On October 21, 2003 a change was made south of Bowman Plaza Drive from Office to Commercial about three quarter miles southwest of the application for future development. On January 16, 2001 a change was made from Mixed Use and Suburban Office to Commercial and Office immediately west of the application to accommodate proposed development. The applicant’s property is shown as Light Industrial on the Future Land Use Plan. The surrounding land to the north, south, and east shown is shown as Light Industrial Park Open strip buffers the Light Industrial area from Single Family areas on the north and east. Northwest of the application is an area shown as Suburban Office. Southwest of the application is Office and Suburban Office. Immediately west and northwest of the property is shown as Commercial and is part of a Commercial node indicated at the Colonel Glen – Interstate 430 Interchange. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-12-03 3 MASTER STREET PLAN: Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Talley Road is shown as a proposed collector on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and as a Local Street south of Colonel Glenn Road. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Currently none of the roads are built to standards adjacent to the property. Additional commercial at this site could result in congestion at the intersection. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. BICYCLE PLAN: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. PARKS: This application is in the West Central Parks Planning District. This park district recognizes that a large amount of area land is in flood plains that create many opportunities for recreation like trails, bikeways, passive recreation, and open space. There are no public parks within a mile of the proposed development. Two nearby schools, J.A Fair High School and Heritage Christian School, offer limited recreational opportunities with several ball fields. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is located in an area covered by the Stagecoach Dodge Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal is to: “Maintain and encourage single-family and low density residential developments in the residential area of the neighborhood, while encouraging responsible non- residential development in area currently reserved for such uses on the Future Land Use Plan. One objective is to “provide adequate separation between residential and non-residential uses.” An action statement encourages non May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-12-03 4 residential development to be west of Shackelford Road. This application is west of Shackelford Road but does not conform to the Future Land Use Plan. ANALYSIS: The applicant’s property is located near the developing Commercial area at the Interstate 430 Colonel Glenn Road interchange. Currently Commercial surrounds this interchange on both the east and west side, and is not completely developed. Less than three months ago a change to Commercial was approved on the western side of the interstate. This change added commercial fronting Bowman Plaza Drive. The addition of commercial at that location was to facilitate future development. Over recent years commercial construction has occurred just west of the applicant’s property. Currently under construction is the new Lander’s Auto Dealership which will occupy approximately half of the Commercial area southwest of the interchange. The Northwest part of the interchange has developed with several restaurants and retailers and the existing retail center appears partially vacant. Even though land in this area is developing, adequate land does exist for commercial development in the area on both sides of the interstate. This particular amendment would decrease the area shown as Light Industrial. The last time this area was reviewed no new developments had occurred in the Light Industrial area. At that time, however, several industrial uses did exist in the area. In recent years new developments have occurred resulting in the construction of several large Office Showroom Warehouses and other light industrial facilities. Part of the reason for new industrial development in the area could be a result of increased need for easy transportation and a location near west Little Rock. This light Industrial area is easily accessibly to Interstate 430 from Colonel Glenn Road and nearby Stagecoach Road. A change to Commercial would reduce the amount of prime Light Industrial shown on the plan. In Little Rock city limits there are only four areas shown as Industrial (Slackwater Harbor, 65th Street and Scott Hamilton, Asher Avenue, and Little Rock National Airport). Five Light Industrial areas are shown in the city (Otter Creek, Little Rock National Airport, the Shackleford Road Corridor, Sibley Hole, and Otter Creek). This Light Industrial area (the Shackleford Road Corridor) is closest to one of the fastest growing parts of Little Rock and could provide employment opportunities for west Little Rock residents. Possible employees and industrial traffic would be able to utilize easy access to Interstate 430. Converting this Light Industrial to Commercial could result in additional Light Industrial loss in the area. Since development has occurred in this Light Industrial area a change to Commercial could be premature. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-12-03 5 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Meadowcliff/Brookwood Neighborhood Association, Tall Timber Homeowners Association, South Brookwood Ponderosa, Pecan Lake Property Owners Association, Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association, Westwood Neighborhood Association, and John Barrow Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received any comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change would reduce an area that is well suited for Light Industrial and add additional Commercial land to an area where much Commercial land is undeveloped. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the July 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 13.1 FILE NO.: Z-7508-A NAME: Talley Centre Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road DEVELOPER: Boen Enterprises, LLC 10600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Parkway, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant and C-3, General Commercial District uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: A rezoning request was filed for the December 18, 2003, Planning Commission Public Hearing. This item was withdrawn from the Commission’s agenda without prejudice prior to the public hearing. The applicant proposed the rezoning of 5 acres from R-2, Single-family to C-3, General Commercial District. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the creation of a two lot plat and the development of the individual lots with C-3, General Commercial District uses and a restaurant facility. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 2 The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 will contain 1.69 acres and a 6,400 square foot restaurant without drive-through service. The applicant has indicated 104 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. The hours of operation are proposed from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 2 will contain 2.54 acres and 26,400 square feet of retail space with C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The applicant has indicated 151 parking spaces on the site. The hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains two single-family structures, one at the southwest corner and one at the northwest corner. The remainder of the property is undeveloped and tree covered. The general area contains a mixture of uses and a large amount of undeveloped property. There are office/warehouse uses across Colonel Glenn to the north, with the Clear Channel facility, a restaurant, a bank and a strip center to the northwest. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property immediately east and south of the property. There are industrial uses further east and south along Shackleford Road. There is a commercial subdivision under development across Talley Road to the west with a new automobile dealership near completion and a new hotel just beginning construction. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required. Note: Plans indicate 45-feet. 2. The proposed land use would classify Talley Road on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way 30-feet from centerline as shown on the plan. 3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of the roads. 4. With site development, provide the design of these streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. Sidewalks are May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 3 required on both street frontages. 5. Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to the start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817. 6. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 7. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property as indicated on the plans. 9. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lots on Talley Road must be located a minimum of 250-feet from the future, adjacent right-of-way line of Colonel Glenn Road and share a single driveway access centered on the property line. The shared drive should be opposite the commercial drive located to the west. The width of driveway must not exceed 36-feet. On Colonel Glenn Road, the principal arterial, the driveway must be located 300-feet from the adjacent right-of-way line of Talley Road. 10. For Lot 1, head in parking must face Talley Road so parking aisles are located as far as practicable away from the right-of-way. 11. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for additional information regarding streetlight requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 4 have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near a CATA bus route. CATA Bus Route #14 (Rosedale Route) is located to the east along Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family Residence District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for construction of a retail center and restaurant with C-3 (General Commercial District) uses allowable on site. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU05-12-03). Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Talley Road is shown as a proposed collector on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and as a Local Street south of Colonel Glenn Road. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Currently none of the roads are built to standards adjacent to the property. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is located in an area covered by the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal is to: “Maintain and encourage single-family and low density residential developments in the residential area of the neighborhood, while encouraging responsible non-residential development in area currently reserved for such uses on the Future Land Use Plan. One objective is to “provide adequate separation between residential and non-residential uses.” An action statement encourages non residential development to be west of May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 5 Shackelford Road. This application is west of Shackelford Road but does not conform to the Future Land Use Plan. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide for the average 37-foot wide street buffer along Colonel Glenn Road, nor the average 17.7-foot wide street buffer required along Talley Road. Additionally, a portion of the proposed on-site landscape strip along Colonel Glenn Road is less than the minimum 6-feet 9-inch width allowed by the landscape ordinance. A variance of the landscape ordinance requirement will necessitate City Beautiful Commission approval. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern and southern perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the developers were requesting a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the creation of a two lot plat and the development of the site with a restaurant and a strip retail center. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide additional information concerning proposed signage. Staff also requested the applicant provide details concerning the total building coverage in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated right-of-way for Colonel Glenn Road was not adequate to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. Staff also stated a 20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of Colonel Glenn Road and Talley Road. Staff stated the proposed head in parking located along Talley Road should be located as far as practicable away from the right-of-way to ensure sight distance. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 6 Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed site plan did not comply with the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff suggested the applicant meet with staff individually to ensure compliance. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing some of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated proposed signage would comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area. The applicant has also indicated the total building coverage in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. The applicant has increased the right-of-way dedication along Colonel Glenn and indicated a 20-foot radial dedication to meet current Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the creation of a two lot plat and the development of the individual lots with C-3, General Commercial District uses and a restaurant facility. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 will contain 1.69 acres and a 6,400 square foot restaurant without drive-through service. The applicant has indicated the building will cover nine percent of the site and thirty percent of the site will be landscaped. The applicant has indicated 104 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. The ordinance would typically require the placement of 64 parking spaces for a restaurant use. The hours of operation are proposed from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 2 will contain 2.54 acres and 26,400 square feet of retail space with C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The applicant has indicated 151 parking spaces on the site. The ordinance would typically require the placement of 88 parking spaces on the site for a commercial development utilizing C-3, General Commercial District uses. The placement of a restaurant within the development would be considered at one space per one hundred square feet of gross floor space. A restaurant was not considered when assigning the required parking for the proposed development. The applicant has indicated building coverage will be twenty-three percent of the site and twenty percent of the site will be landscaped. The hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has not addressed staff’s concerns with regard to driveway placement along Colonel Glenn Road or redesigned the indicated parking May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7508-A 7 adjacent to the Talley Road right-of-way. The applicant has removed access to proposed Lot 1 from Talley Road but has not indicated the driveway location across Talley Road as requested by staff to ensure alignment with the drive located across the street for proposed Lot 2. The indicated driveway along Colonel Glenn Road does not allow sufficient spacing to meet current ordinance requirements. Staff is not supportive of allowing the driveway as currently proposed. The indicated parking for proposed Lot 2 creates a “T” Type intersection near the roadway, which in staff’s opinion will cause traffic conflicts and result in the backing of cars onto Talley Road. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for a rezoning of this site. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates the property as Light Industrial. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a change to commercial which is a separate item on this agenda. Staff feels that a rezoning of this property to commercial is premature, given the large amount of undeveloped commercial property (zoned C-2, C-3 and C-4) to the west, at the intersection of I-430 and Colonel Glenn Road. This property is part of a large light industrial corridor along Shackleford Road as shown on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Although a future rezoning of this property could be a viable option, staff feels that the removal of the property from the light industrial corridor is inappropriate at this time. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. The chair stated there were only eight Commissioners present. The chair stated typically when there was fewer than nine Commissioners present the applicant was offered the option of a deferral. Staff stated the deferral would be to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant indicated a deferral was being requested. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-7815-A NAME: Dunn Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 1406 South Battery Street DEVELOPER: Mr. Albert Dunn 1406 S. Battery Street Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: Ollen Dee Wilson P.O. Box 604 North Little Rock, AR 72115 AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family with a caretakers residence located in the existing structure VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: A Conditional Use Permit was filed and withdrawn for the site at the Planning Commission’s April 28, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant withdrew his request to refile the application as a PD-R request to allow for a combination plat/plan for the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a rezoning to the site located at 1406 South Battery Street to allow an existing residence to add a residential unit upstairs to serve as a caretaker residence. The applicant has indicated each of unit will have a separate entrance. The applicant is also requesting a revision to the northern lot May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7815-A 2 line of Lot 11 to remove an encroachment from an existing garage. The applicant has indicated a cross access easement from West 14th Street to allow access to the existing garage, which will provide parking for the site. Prior to the existing home being rehabilitated the structure was used as a triplex with one unit downstairs and two studio units upstairs. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single-family home with a garage located behind the home. There are two four-plex units located to the north of the site on the corner of West 14th and Battery Streets. The area contains a mixture of uses including single-family, duplex units and multi-family units. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Central High Neighborhood Association, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident and one phone call indicating opposition. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment regarding change of single-family home to a duplex. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water if large and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7815-A 3 CATA: CATA Bus Routes are located north of the site at West 12th Street and south of the site at Wright Avenue. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a PD-R (Planned Development -Residential) for the addition of an additional living unit in an existing building on the site. The land use plan in this area is currently under review as part of The Central High Land Use Plan Review. If the PD-R is approved, staff may incorporate the property into the land use plan review. Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is indicated just north of the site on Daisy Bates Drive. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. This application will not affect the bicycle route. Master Street Plan: Battery Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Battery Street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street and sidewalk improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was present. Staff stated there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff stated the applicant was requesting the conversion of an existing single-family home into a triplex unit to allow two apartment units on the second floor of the home to serve as caretakers residences for the existing homeowner. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request from the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is proposing a rezoning to the site to allow an existing residence to add a unit upstairs to serve May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7815-A 4 as a caretaker residence. Each unit is proposed with a separate entrance to allow privacy to the tenant and the homeowner. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Prior to the existing home being rehabilitated the structure was used as a triplex with one unit downstairs and two studio units upstairs. The site contains three on-site parking spaces. There are two parking spaces in the rear garage and one uncovered spaces will be added. The indicated parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand for two units. The applicant is also requesting a revision to the northern lot line of Lot 11 to remove an encroachment from the existing garage. The applicant currently owns both lots but has indicated the possibility of future sale. The northern lot currently houses two four-plex units. The applicant has indicated a cross access easement from West 14th Street to allow access to the existing garage. Staff is supportive of this request. Staff recommends the replat be completed upon approval to resolve this outstanding issue. Staff feels the use of the site should have limited impact on the immediate area. The area contains a mixture of single-family and multi-family units both in duplex and multiple unit buildings. Staff does not feel the conversion of the site to allow a caretakers residence within the existing home will negatively impact the area. Staff would however recommend that one of the units remain an owner occupied unit should the occupancy or ownership change for the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report. Staff recommends one of the units remain as an owner occupied unit. Staff recommends the applicant perform a replat of the site upon approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The chair stated there were only eight Commissioners present. The chair stated typically when there was fewer than nine Commissioners present the applicant was offered the option of a deferral. Staff stated the deferral would be to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant indicated a deferral was being requested. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7835 NAME: Nuniss Short-form PD-O LOCATION: Located at 6500 Mabelvale Pike DEVELOPER: Twana Nunniss 1700 Barrow Road, #126 Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: Real Estate Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The site was constructed as a non-residential building prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock in the 1980’s. The building has served as a number of commercial uses including a roofing contractor’s office. The site was previously allowed a C-4, Open Display District non-conforming status. The building has sat vacant for more than one year, thus resulting in the loss of its non-conforming status. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-O to allow this existing non-residential structure to be used as a real estate office. The applicant has indicated she intends to employ up to four agents, one May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835 2 full time, three part time and one assistant over the next three years. She has also indicated the hours of operation will be from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday and by appointment only after 4:00 pm and on Saturday. The applicant has indicated the site will be leased from the property owner for three years after which, if purchased she intends to revise the PD-O to allow building modifications and revise the current parking configuration to enhance the property’s appearance and value. The applicant has indicated immediate plans include the painting of the interior and exterior of the building along with the addition of planting beds in front of the building to enhance the overall appearance of the site. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing right-of-way for backing of the proposed parking spaces for the three year time period. The site plan indicates there is sufficient backing space to allow for motorists to maneuver without backing into the travel lanes of Mabelvale Pike. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a commercial building along with a paved area in front of the building wrapping to the side of the building. The site also contains a fence to screen the previous storage area for the roofing contractor. There is also a wood fence located along the southern and western perimeters of the site. There are single-family homes located to the west and south of the site. There are also single-family homes located to the north of the site across 65th Street. There is a funeral home located to the north of the site, also across 65th Street. To the east of the site are commercial uses abutting South University Avenue. To the southwest of the site there are single-family homes accessed from Mabelvale Pike. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Meadowcliff Neighborhood Association, the South Brookwood Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed parking area must be located back from the right-of-way line of Mabelvale Pike a distance sufficient to provide on-site maneuvering room. No backing out in the right-of-way. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835 3 2. The existing apron must be narrowed to a maximum width of 36-feet for commercial driveways. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water about re-establishing service to this property. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA bus route #17 the Mabelvale Downtown bus route F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PD- O (Planned Development -Office) to use an existing non- conforming structure as a real estate office. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Mabelvale Pike and West 65th Street are shown as Collectors on the Master Street Plan. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Nearby University Avenue is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. The Master Street Plan indicates that West 65th Street is a Minor Arterial west of University Avenue. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Mabelvale Pike and West 65th Street may require dedication of right of way and half street improvements at Collector Street Standards. Since this property is located at an intersection entrances and exists should be located as far from the intersection as possible. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835 4 City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is located in an area covered by the 65th Street West Neighborhood Action plan. The Land Use goal is to establish compatibility between different land uses. One objective encourages development of non-residential uses to occur in areas indicated on the Future Land Use Plan or on already zoned properties. The applicant has proposed to re-use a currently non-conforming structure which could be considered consistent with the plan. An additional objective is “protect the residential integrity of neighborhoods by maintaining adequate separation between residential and non-residential uses,” with an action statement “monitor rezoning requests before they are present to the Planning Commission/Board of Directors.” The neighborhood should be informed of the proposed change in use since it is near single family residences. The applicant has applied for a PD-O, which could result in more defined zoning controls and adequate separation of uses. Landscape: The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 9-foot wide street buffer along Mabelvale Pike. The minimum width allowed by the landscape ordinance is 6-feet 9-inches. A variance from the landscape ordinance requirements necessitates City Beautiful Commission approval. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Ms. Nunniss was present representing the request. Staff introduced the item indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned proposed signage. Staff stated the cover letter indicated building signage would be utilized. Ms. Nunniss stated she was not proposing the placement of a ground mounted sign on the site. Staff also questioned exterior modifications which would be performed on the site to “spruce up the site”. Ms. Nunniss stated she did plan to paint the building and place planters on the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the existing driveway apron should be narrowed to 36-feet. Staff also stated the parking should be arranged to allow for maneuvering room on site and not force motorists to back into the right-of-way. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated site plan did not allow for the required landscaping with regard to street buffer requirements. Staff also stated screening would be required adjacent to the southern and western perimeters of the site. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835 5 There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing concerns raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated landscaping will be added to the front of the building with the placement of two planters constructed of landscape timbers. The applicant has indicated cosmetic repairs will be made to the interior of the building and the exterior will be painted in a similar color of the current color pallet. The applicant has also indicated ground mounted signage is not proposed but building signage will be utilized. The applicant has indicated the proposed sign will be four feet by eight feet or thirty-two square feet in area. The indicated signage is consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones or no more than ten percent of the façade area. The applicant has indicted there will be one full time agent and three part time agents and one office assistant. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site to PD-O for a real estate office and is not requesting any alternative uses for the site. The applicant has also limited the hours of operation to 9:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday and by appointment only after 4:00 pm and on Saturday. The building was constructed prior to annexation to the City and was constructed as a non-residential building. It is unlikely the site will be utilized as a residential use. Staff does not feel the use of the site as a real estate office will have any adverse impact on adjoining properties. Typically, a real estate office would be low in volume of activity and with the limited hours as proposed, there should be limited impact on the adjoining single-family homes. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to redevelop the site for an office use for a real estate office. The applicant has indicated the placement of five parking spaces, utilizing the existing on-site paving. Based on an office use, the ordinance would typically require the placement of three parking spaces. The applicant’s indicated parking plan would require the utilization of the existing right-of-way for maneuvering. The applicant has indicated she currently has a three year lease on the building and is requesting the utilization of the right-of-way for the three year time period. She has indicated after the three years she would request a revision to the PD-O zoning to allow for a revision to the overall parking plan and exterior modifications to the building. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels the applicant should modify the current parking to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Staff does not feel the utilization of the existing right-of-way for maneuvering is a safe situation. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7835 6 The applicant has also not installed landscaping as required by ordinance. Staff feels with the placement of a proper parking lot and the reduction of the driveway apron to meet current ordinance requirement, the applicant could install the required landscaping. Although staff is supportive of the proposed use of the site, staff is not supportive of the indicated parking plan or the requested reduction in landscaping requirements. Staff feels the site should be redeveloped to meet minimum ordinance requirements to ensure safety for customers and employees entering and exiting the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a three-year deferral of the required hard surface-parking requirement. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-7837 NAME: Fair Hills Circle Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of West Markham Street and Fairhills Circle DEVELOPER: Mike Ranson 7 Valley Forge Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Butler Surveying 5323 John F. Kennedy Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72216 AREA: 0.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential – Patio Homes VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the development of this site with three patio homes through a Planned Residential Development. The applicant has indicated each of the homes will be contained on individual lots with a cross access easement extending from Fairhills Circle to serve the site. The applicant has indicated each of the homes will contain a minimum of 1600 square feet of heated and cooled space and be constructed of brick or brick and siding fronts with siding on the sides and rears. The applicant has indicated each of the units will have a two car garage, three bedrooms, two or two and one half baths, granite counter-tops in the kitchen, a full laundry room and storage off the garage. The applicant has indicated each of the units will have usable living space outdoors. Fencing is May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7837 2 being proposed along the southern property line as well as a retaining wall with a maximum height of six feet. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located near the West Markham/Mississippi Avenue intersection. The area is predominately single-family with a church located at the southeast corner of Mississippi Avenue and West Markham Street and an elementary school located on West Markham west of the site. Fairhills Circle is a narrow residential street with five homes located on the cul-de-sac. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. West Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 40-feet from centerline will be required (special reduced standard for West Markham Street is 70-feet with 80-feet near intersections). 2. The proposed land use would classify Fairhills Circle on the Master Street Plan as a local street. Dedicate right-of-way 25-feet from centerline. In addition, a 20-foot radial dedication is required at the intersection of the streets. 3. As appropriate, provide a survey or plat showing the existing and proposed right-of-way widths. 4. Provide a preliminary site grading plan showing all slope bank areas and retaining walls. Embankments should be 3:1 or flatter. Retaining wall height is limited to 15-feet before terracing is required. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Final site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. No residential waste collection service will be provided on the proposed private drive. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7837 3 Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. T A water main extension and additional hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #5 the West Markham Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PD-R (Planned Development -Residential) for construction of three single-family patio homes on the three proposed lots. Because of the small scale of this project staff believes an amendment to the Land Use Plan is not applicable at this time. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Fair Hills Circle is shown as a Local Street and West Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties and the purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. This site is near the Mississippi Street-Markham intersection which is oftentimes congested during peak travel times. In the event of approval of this application staff feels that access to the patio homes should be off of Fair Hills Circle, the Local Street, to minimize impact on Markham Street, a Minor Arterial. West Markham Street and Fair Hills Circle may require dedication of right-of-way, may require street and sidewalk improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land Use and May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7837 4 Zoning goal is “To maintain the character of homes in the Briarwood Neighborhood,” with an action statement, “Identify rental property in the neighborhood to maintain the character of the neighborhood.” This neighborhood action plan indicates a concern for rental property in the neighborhood. This proposal would construct three new single-family patio homes, which could result in additional home ownership for the area. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Mike Ranson was present representing the request. Staff stated the developer was proposing a PD-R to allow the creation of a four lot plat and the construction of four patio homes on the site. Staff indicated to Mr. Ranson they felt this too intense a development for the site. Staff stated with the development of the site with four units, this did not leave any livability space on site for the residence. Mr. Ranson stated he would consider reducing the number of homes on the site and would work with an architect to revise the plan. Staff also questioned the indicated parking pads. Mr. Ranson stated the design would include the construction of two car garages on each of the units and the indicated parking pads would be removed. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign. Mr. Ranson stated there would not be a sign identifying the development. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a preliminary grading plan would be required. Mr. Ranson stated the site did not have a significant elevation change. He stated he would provide details as requested by staff. Staff indicated dedication of right-of-way would be required along West Markham Street. Staff requested a survey indicating the current right-of-way along each of the roadways. Staff noted no garbage collection would be provided along the indicated driveway easement. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has reduced the number of proposed lots and residences to three single-family detached patio homes and increased the total lot area for each of the proposed units. The applicant has also indicated each of the units will contain a two car garage. The applicant has indicated there will not be a development sign contained on the site. The applicant has indicated a location for garbage cans adjacent to Fairhills Circle. The applicant has also indicated the right-of-way for May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7837 5 both Fairhills Circle and West Markham Street on the revised survey. The indicated right-of-ways are sufficient to meet the current Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant has indicated each of the homes will be contained on individual lots with a cross access easement extending from Fairhills Circle to serve the site. The applicant has indicated each of the homes will contain a minimum of 1,600 square feet of heated and cooled space and be constructed of brick or brick and siding fronts with siding on the sides and rears. The applicant has indicated each of the units will have a two car garage, three bedrooms, two or two and one half baths, granite counter-tops in the kitchen, a full laundry room and storage off the garage. The applicant has indicated the units will be two story with a building footprint of 1,248 square feet. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot A with 4,170 square feet, proposed Lot B containing 5,440 square feet and proposed Lot C containing 5,045 square feet. Fencing is being proposed along the southern property line as well as a retaining wall with a maximum height of six feet. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff feels the development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Staff feels the development of the site with three units and the reduced yard area is not in keeping with the homes in the area. The applicant has indicated reduced setbacks on each of the indicated lots. The indicated rear yard and side yard setbacks are not comparable to the existing homes located in the area. With the indicated site plan there is no parking available outside the garage area forcing guests to park on Fairhills Circle. This roadway is a narrow roadway and does not lend itself to street parking. Staff feel the applicant should consider reducing the overall density of the development to allow for additional livable space outside the residences and develop more consistently with the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The chair stated there were only eight Commissioners present. The chair stated typically when there was fewer than nine Commissioners present the applicant was offered the option of a deferral. Staff stated the deferral would be to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant indicated a deferral was being requested. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7838 NAME: Rush Engine DBA Triumph of Arkansas Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 4100 South University Avenue DEVELOPER: Rush Evans Engineering and Construction 3925 Asher Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 5.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses and Motorcycle Sales and Display VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant failed to respond to the comments raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to respond to the comments raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-7839 NAME: Summit Heights Condominiums Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located in the 300 Block of North Summit Street DEVELOPER: Moses Tucker Real Estate c/o Jamie Moses 200 South Commerce Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: AMR Architects 200 South Commerce Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR AREA: 0.94 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Condominium Seven Units VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A waiver of the required sidewalk along Summit Street A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the 300 block of North Summit Street from R-3, Single-family to PD-R to allow the development of the site as Summit Heights Condominiums. The developer proposes the construction of a building containing seven owner-occupied units. The applicant has indicated the development will legally consist of Zero-Lot Line ownership to allow each resident the right to purchase an improved residential structure as well as a defined share of underlying property. The applicant has indicated in order to create a more neighborly environment, the developer intends to grant each owner by way of an Easement, Covenant and Restriction (ECR) agreement use May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 2 of the common elements to include: access for the common driveway, use of guest parking, access to the side and rear yards and other responsibilities intrinsic to ownership. The applicant has indicated due to the slope of the terrain the structure will be built with concrete, concrete block and steel rebar with masonry walls, brick veneer and pitched metal roofs. The applicant has indicated to capture the views from the site, the structure would also incorporate a series of cantilevered balconies and framed windows on the east façade. The applicant has also indicated in an effort to ‘blend’ into the fabric of the neighborhood, the developer further intends to utilize architectural elements similar to the surrounding craftsman and bungalow structure while keeping many of the existing trees and natural landscaping presently available on the site. The applicant has indicated the project is viewed as an ideal site for development due to the proximity to downtown and mid-town while being located in an existing established neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the projected increase in cost and time to commute to central Little Rock from outlying areas is a force that the developer believes is significant and will prompt additional need for in-fill development near Little Rock’s cultural and geographic center. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site with a steep grade change from Summit Street to Gill Street. Summit Street is a narrow street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk in place. The area is predominately residential with the immediate area being primarily single-family. There are duplex and tri-plex units located to the south of the site along Summit Street and Markham Street. Uses to the east of the site along Gill Street include office/warehouse activities. Further east is a private school complex. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents indicating concern for the proposed development. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents located within 300 feet of the site, that could be identified, and the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. With site development, provide 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. For on-street parking as proposed, widen to 22-feet from centerline to back of curb. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 3 2. For on-site access and parking, the main drive should be a minimum 20-foot wide plus 9-feet for the additional row of parallel parking. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities on the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Show discharge location for all concentrated run-off from roof drains and parking areas to the Gill Street right-of-way. Drainage improvements may be required in the Gill Street right-of-way. 5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to the proposed development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing 6” sewer main on site. The developer will be required to relocated existing line prior to the start of construction. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from R-3 (Single Family District) to PD-R (Planned Development -Residential) to construct seven condominiums on six previously platted lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 4 Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: North Summit Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property is located in an area covered by the Woodruff (Capital View-Stiff Station) Neighborhood Action Plan. The Neighborhood Image goal is to: “Preserve the rich cultural diversity and historical significance of the neighborhood by clearly identifying the image we want to portray.” One objective relevant to that goal is “Encourage new architecturally compatible residential construction.” The Community Development Goal is to “plan and implement community development projects that will improve the neighborhood such as rehabilitating older homes, building new infill homes, revitalizing commercial areas or providing needed community facilities.” The proposed development is infill housing and could lead to additional improvements in the area. New construction on this site should be architecturally compatible with nearby residences. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. The minimum on-site width allowed for the street buffer is 7 ½ feet. If additional street right-of-way will be necessary, then the 7 1/2 – foot minimum width will still be necessary to be provided. This requirement takes into account the reductions allowed within the designated mature area of the city. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling ordinance requirement can be given when properly preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating they would meet with the applicant individually to discuss the outstanding technical issues related to the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 5 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing concerns raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has increased the driveway widths to allow for maneuvering on the site. The applicant has indicated the drive will be a one-way drive entering from the south and exiting to the north. The applicant has also indicated the internal width of the drive will be 28-feet to allow backing room and a row of parallel parking on-site. The applicant has also indicated screening will be placed along the southern property line to screen the adjoining single-family property. The applicant has indicated screening will not be placed along the northern property line since the area abuts an overhead utility line and will not likely be developed as a residential use. The revised site plan also includes the placement of an eight-foot landscaped strip adjacent to the street. The applicant has indicated a portion of the site will be cleared to allow for building construction with the remainder of the site remaining wooded. The site plan includes the placement of parallel parking on the street. The applicant has indicated the desire to retain a strip of trees adjacent to the property line and the street right-of-way and is requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk construction. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels the applicant should meet the minimum requirements of the Master Street Plan, which includes the placement of a sidewalk adjacent to the property frontage. The applicant has indicated 14 on-site parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require 10 on-site parking spaces for the development of seven multi-family units. The indicated parking would allow for two spaces per unit. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the minimum parking required per the Zoning Ordinance for a multi-family development. The applicant has indicated the topography of the site will be utilized and the units will appear two story from the street side and three story from the rear. The units are proposed with 2200 square feet of living space and a single car covered parking space. The applicant has indicated construction materials will be similar to materials currently used in the neighborhood. In staff’s opinion, a metal roof is not appropriate for the development. The applicant has indicated compatibility with the existing residences. The structure with metal roofs in the area are predominately the non-residential uses. The applicant has indicated two development signs, one to be located at each driveway entrance. Staff is not supportive of the placement of two signs on the site. The applicant has also indicated the proposed signage will be 30-inches high by 60-inches long or 12.5 square feet in sign area. Staff feels there should be one development sign and the area should comply with signage allowed in multi-family zones per the Zoning Ordinance or 24 square feet in sign area. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 6 The applicant has also indicated discharge from roofs and drives will be distributed equally to the east side of the structure and water will be released without retention. Staff has concerns with the proposed release of water from the site. Currently water crosses Gill Street during rains and staff feels the applicant’s proposed discharge will further aggravate the current drainage problems in the area. The applicant has indicated the development of five previously platted lots with seven units. The site contains .94 acres and is proposed to develop with an overall density of 7.44 units per acre. Although staff is supportive of the proposed development, there are specific elements of the development plan staff is not supportive of including the requested waiver of the required sidewalk construction, the indicated signage plan and the indicated metal roof material. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had addressed their concerns with regard to roof materials, street construction, detention and signage. Staff stated they were now supportive of the applicant’s request. Mr. Ralph Wilcox stated he had previously submitted a letter outlining his concerns and did not have any additional information to add. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she felt the proposed development was a good sign for the neighborhood but felt the development was too intense for the site. She questioned if the units would in fact be owner occupied. Mr. Phil Watts addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he felt the area was a beautiful historic area and the integrity should be maintained. He stated the area should not be changed from single-family to multi- family. He questioned why the developer did not contact the neighborhood. Commissioner Adcock questioned staff if the developer was aware there was an active neighborhood association. Staff stated they had contacted the neighborhood association but the notice was mailed to a previous president. The developer indicated May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 7 he had contacted the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. He stated he was not aware the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association covered the area. Ms. Kelly Lature addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the notice was sent to the wrong president and the neighborhood had not had time to review the request. She stated she felt the site was the wrong site for a multi- family development. She stated there had been two-drug bust in the area and did not feel residents would pay premium prices for residences in this area. She stated a development of this intensity would increase traffic on residential streets, which were not designed for a great deal of traffic. Ms. Kelly Tippitt addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she had questions for the developer that had not been addressed. She stated she had contacted the developer and he did not return her phone calls. She stated she had bought her home three years earlier and checked the zoning across the street. She was told the site was zoned for residential and would develop with single-family homes. She stated currently she looked out on the City and the Capitol. She stated once the site was developed she would be looking at buildings. She stated the proposed southern drive would be exiting in front of her home. She stated she also had concerns with the number of cars shining headlights into her living and bedrooms. Ms. Cheryl Vann Bates addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she had lived in the area for a number years and the roads were not constructed to handle the additional traffic. She stated currently it was difficult to pull from her driveway due to street parking. She stated she was fearful of additional street parking and additional traffic. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the occupancy of the units. The developer indicated the units would in fact be sold. Staff stated it was like any other single-family unit in the City. Staff stated this did not mean the unit could not be rented but the developer could not maintain the units as rental units. There was also a discussion concerning the proposed detention. Staff stated the site was less than one acre therefore detention did not apply. The developer indicated he would work with staff at the time of building permit to addresses staff’s concerns with the current drainage problem across Gill Street. There was a general discussion concerning signage. The developer indicated he would amend his request to remove the sign for the proposed development plan. Staff presented a recommendation the developer meet with the neighborhood prior to the proposal being forwarded to the Board of Directors. The Commission indicated staff should be present at this meeting. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7839 8 A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-7840 NAME: McIntyre Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 21924 Highway 10 DEVELOPER: Barbara McIntyre 45 Valley Creek Drive Perryville, AR 72126 ENGINEER: Arkansas Surveying and Consulting 15825 Childress Road Bauxite, AR 72011 AREA: 1.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Seasonal Sale of Fireworks VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the sale of fireworks from the site once a year. The applicant has indicated no construction will take place on the site. The fireworks will be sold from a tent which will be erected prior to the sales beginning and removed once the sales are completed. The applicant has indicated the existing grass covered site will be used and no paving or gravel is being proposed for the parking area. The applicant has indicated the fireworks will be sold from June 20th to July 5th from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm daily. The applicant has indicated an employee will remain on site 24-hours per day for security. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7840 2 The applicant has indicated the site is a vacant tract and a portion of the site is located in the flood plain. The applicant has also indicated the site tends to flood during heavy rain. The applicant has indicated the requested approval is limited to three years from the date of approval by the City. The applicant has indicated a three year lease agreement has been executed on the site and upon the expiration of the lease agreement it will no longer be marketed for this specific purpose. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and grass covered. To the east of the site is an area zoned PD-I and used as a contractor’s storage yard. There is also a commercial building located within the PD-I zoned property currently being used with C-3, General Commercial District uses. To the west of the site is an area zoned AF – Agricultural and Forestry. This site is also vacant and tree covered. South of the site, across Highway 10, are single-family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment, providing there are no site modifications or construction of structures for the seasonal sale of fireworks. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: The development is located outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7840 3 based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Approval of the City of Little Rock is required in order for this property to obtain water service. Fire Department: The Little Rock Fire Department opposes the sale of fireworks. The site is located outside the service boundary. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their knowledge of the proposed development along with a statement concerning their ability and willingness to serve the proposed use of the property. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Barrett Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for operation of a seasonal fireworks stand. Since this is only a temporary use and will be used for only a small part of the year and is in a temporary structure, a Land Use Plan is not required Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown on Highway 10 adjacent to the site. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Entrances and exits to the site should be minimal as to not conflict with the bicycle path. Master Street Plan: Highway 10 is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is built as a two lane rural highway through this section. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Access directly to the Principal Arterial should be limited. Highway 10 may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: No comment. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7840 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Ms. Barbara McIntyre was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request indicating no building construction was being proposed. Staff stated the applicant was requesting the placement of a tent on the site to be utilized once a year to sell fireworks for the Fourth of July. Staff questioned the number of days the site would be utilized. Ms. McIntyre stated the site would be utilized for a maximum of fifteen days per year. She also stated the requested approval was for a maximum of three years. Staff questioned if any paving was being proposed on the site. Ms. McIntyre stated paving was not being proposed with the current request. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated since no construction was being proposed, there were no improvements required. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter addressing issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has submitted a letter from West Pulaski Fire District indicating their knowledge of the proposed request and their ability to serve the proposed development. The applicant has also indicated the days and hours of operation for the proposed sale of fireworks. The applicant has indicated the fireworks will be sold from June 20th to July 5th from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm daily. The applicant has also indicated an employee will remain on site 24-hours per day for security. The applicant has indicated the requested approval is limited to three years from the date of approval by the City. The applicant has indicated a three year lease agreement has been executed on the site and upon the expiration of the lease agreement, it will no longer be marketed for the sale of fireworks. Staff is not supportive of the request. The site is shown on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as Single-family and staff feels this site is not appropriate for a commercial use. The property to the east was previously approved as a Planned Industrial Development to recognize an existing use, a contractor’s storage yard. The approval also allowed an existing commercial building to be marketed for C-3, General Commercial District uses. The property to the west is zoned AF, Agricultural and Forestry and is shown as Single-family on the Future Land Use Plan. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7840 5 There are areas designated on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as well as areas zoned for commercial activities in the area, which have yet to develop. Staff feels a rezoning of the site for a commercial use is inappropriate and premature. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) Ms. Barbara McIntyre was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Ms. McIntyre addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated the proposal was to allow the sale of fireworks from the site for three years, four including the current season. She stated the request was for a limited time, from June 20th to July 5th. She stated the site would have 24-hour security. She stated the same persons leased the site from her last year for the sale of fireworks and they mowed the site for her, erected a tent on the site and cleaned the site after the sale of the fireworks. She stated she had an approval letter from the area volunteer fire department. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request. The Commission questioned if the site was located within the City limits. Staff stated the site was located near the City limits but was within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Staff stated the fireworks sales were set up on the site the previous year and the merchants were issued a notice. The Commission questioned Ms. McIntyre what her loss would be if the rezoning were not approved. Ms. McIntyre stated only the loss of revenue. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 6 noes and 3 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-7841 NAME: Davis Forestry Short-form PD-O LOCATION: Located at 1000 Asbury Drive DEVELOPER: Davis Forestry Real Estate 13616 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: Real Estate Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the rezoning of this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-O to allow the use of this existing structure as an office use. The applicant has indicated the site will be utilized as an office use for a real estate office/timber management firm. The applicant has indicated there are six employees of the firm with only two of the employees reporting to the site daily for work. The applicant has indicated the remainder of the employees report to the site weekly for a full staff meeting. The applicant has indicated additional parking will be added to the site to allow for six parking spaces. The new paving will be added to the end of an existing May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7841 2 driveway servicing the site. The applicant has indicated the residential integrity of the site will be maintained. The hours of operation are proposed as 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single-family structure which appears to be vacant. To the north, south and west of the site are single-family homes. Southeast of the site is a single-family home located adjacent to Kanis Road. Further to the southeast of the site are two structures currently zoned POD being used as office uses. Northeast of the site is the Timber Ridge Subdivision. Asbury Road is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks located in the area. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Parkway Place Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comments on proposed change in use. Any future construction or site redevelopment will be subject to boundary street improvements and storm water detention. 2. Asbury is classified as a local street with an existing pavement width less than 18-feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: This property has existing water service. Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7841 3 to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PD-O (Planned Office Development) for the conversion of a single-family structure into an office use. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. Master Street Plan: Asbury Road is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Asbury Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed one objective relevant to this case. Promote commercial and office development that: meets the needs of Rock Creek Neighborhood residents for shopping, services, and jobs; maintains as much as possible of the existing topography, trees and green space; and enhances the primarily residential character of the community. With the action statements: “adhere to the adopted Land Use Plan, encourage all commercial and office development in the community to be subject to neighborhood input prior to City approval, adopt a policy of adhering to the Land Use Plan, restrict the overgrowth of commercial development to residential development,” and “aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts (PZDs) to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality developments. This development is in an area that is shown as Mixed Office Commercial and does comply with the Plan. To meet the landscaping goal adequate green space and undisturbed open space should be incorporated into the site design. This development will be utilizing a Planned Zoning District and could create additional jobs in the area, which are both consistent with the plan. Also indicated in the plan is a desire for resident- developer interaction regarding the development and design process. Staff May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7841 4 encourages the developers to meet with the local neighborhood association to identify concerns and present their plan. Landscape: A portion of the northern land use buffer is less than the 9-foot minimum allowed. However, areas set aside for landscaping meet with landscape ordinance requirements. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the sites northern, southern and western perimeters. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the applicant. Staff introduced the item indicating there were additional details necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the indicated parking plan was not acceptable. Staff stated the existing trellis would not allow for maneuvering on the site and should be removed or relocated. Staff also questioned any proposed signage that would be placed on the site. Staff questioned if any alternative uses were being requested for the site. Mr. Daters stated the request was for a real estate office only. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated any future construction would necessitate Master Street Plan improvements to Asbury Road. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated landscaped areas did not comply with minimum ordinance requirements along the northern perimeter of the site. Staff stated a minimum of six feet nine inches would be required to meet the minimum Landscape Ordinance requirement. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has redesigned the site plan to include the required landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site and indicated the required screening along the northern, western and southern property lines. The applicant has also redesigned the parking area to eliminate maneuvering concerns raised by staff. The applicant has indicated the existing trellis will be removed to allow the most efficient access to the proposed parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. In staff’s opinion the indicated site plan allows for the required parking but maintains the residential integrity of the May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7841 5 site. The applicant has indicated the existing driveway will be extended to allow the placement of three additional spaces. The indicated driveway extension is not uncommon for a residential structure. The applicant has also indicated no exterior modifications, with the exception of the additional paving, are being proposed for the home, which will also ensure maintenance of the residential integrity of the site. The applicant has indicated signage is not being proposed with the exception of a small sign located on the face of the building but has indicated if ground signage is added, the signage will comply with signage allowed in single-family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and one square foot in sign area. The proposed use of the site should be low in intensity. The applicant has proposed the use of the site as a real estate – timber management office with six employees and one office assistant. The applicant has indicated four of the employees will report to the site one a week for a weekly staff meeting and spend the remainder of their time in the field. The applicant has also indicated the office hours will be from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. Staff does not feel the indicated number of employees or the hours of operation will be disruptive to the neighborhood. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The site is indicated as Mixed Office Commercial on the City’s Future Land Use Plan and the desired use is consistent with the plan. In staff’s opinion, the proposed use of the site as an office use for a real estate office should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs West Planning District Location: North Side of Baseline Road, west of I-30 Request: Single Family and Mixed Commercial Industrial to Mixed Use, Suburban Office, and Community Shopping Source: Kelton Price PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Single Family and Mixed Commercial Industrial to Mixed Use, Suburban Office, and Community Shopping. Mixed Use provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three. The Suburban Office category provides for low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required. The Community Shopping category provides for shopping center development with one or more general merchandise stores. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include areas along Baseline Road towards Interstate 30. Staff has expanded the area of study due to the new alignments of Baseline Road, Mabelvale Pike, and Interstate 30 in the area. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The area under review is at the western edge of a developed area in Little Rock. West of the site is primarily undeveloped land. On the north side of Baseline Road are lands zoned R-2 (Single Family District) that is partly undeveloped, developed with several manufactured homes, a single family subdivision, a non conforming multifamily use, an office use in an old residential structure, and the State Highway Department headquarters. The south side of Baseline Road is zoned mostly C-3 (General Commercial District) and partly zoned C-4 (Open Display Commercial District) fronting Mabelvale Pike. The C-3 land south of Baseline Road consists of vacant land, several scattered single-family homes, and several scattered Manufactured homes. The C-3 land further south and fronting the I-30 frontage Road is developed with a diner, an office, hotel, a furniture store, and a light industrial use. North and northwest of the application is the Fourche Creek and several of its tributaries. This area is low lying land that is partly in the Fourche Creek floodway and all zoned R-2. Northeast of the application area is undeveloped land zoned I-2 (Light Industrial District). Immediately east-southeast of the application area is the Baseline Road/Mabelvale Pike/I-30 Interchange. The northeast quadrant of the interchange has land zoned C-3 and C-4 developed with several businesses, the southeast quadrant is zoned C-3 and I-2 (Light Industrial District) and developed with a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a Home Depot, several May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 2 small restaurants, banks, and retail establishments. The southwest quadrant of the interchange (west of Mabelvale Pike) is zoned C-4, I-2, and R-2 developed with several small businesses, residences, and a large industrial use. Additional R-2 land in the southwest quadrant is undeveloped. West of the application area is R-2 land developed with the Temple Baptist Church, and ball fields. Further west of the site is predominately rural undeveloped R-2 land and a PID (Planned Industrial Development) for the operation of the U-Pull It salvage yard. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: August 4, 2003, a change was made from Light Industrial to Commercial immediately south of the application area at the southwest corner of I-30 and Mabelvale Pike for proposed and future development. The application area is shown as Single Family on both sides of Baseline Road and as Mixed Commercial Industrial fronting the Interstate 30 Frontage Road. North of the application area is land shown as Single Family. Northeast of the application area are small areas shown as Service Trades District and Suburban Office as well as land shown as Public Institutional and Light Industrial. Southeast of the property is shown as Community Shopping and south of the property is shown as Commercial. Southwest of the application area is shown as Public Institutional and also Light Industrial. A Park Open Space Strip separates the Light Industrial area from an adjacent Single Family area. West of the property is a Park/Open Space strip and further west is a large area shown as Service Trades District. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bikeway is shown on Baseline Road adjacent to the property. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right- of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. A Class I bikeway is shown near the property following the Fourche Creek. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. The proposed class I bikeway will not be affected by the application. Master Street Plan: Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is built as a two lane rural road in front of the site. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits to the proposed site should be limited since Baseline Road is a Principal Arterial. Public Works is currently performing a traffic study on Baseline Road to monitor traffic conditions. Baseline Road may require dedication of right-of-way and half-street improvements. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 3 PARKS: This application is in the Southwest Parks Planning District. The Southwest Planning District indicates opportunities the Fourche Creek Floodplain offers because of its level terrain and potential linkages (bicycle and pedestrian paths) to other park planning districts utilizing the potential Fourche Creek Greenway. West of the application is a creek that the Parks plan envisions as a greenbelt connection to the Fourche Creek wetland area. Development in this area should reflect the potential greenbelt that exists on adjacent creeks. The nearby greenbelt would be southwest Little Rock’s primary entrance to the proposed Fourche Creek greenway, Fourche Creek wetlands, and Hindman Community Park to the north. Currently no public parks are in the immediate area. A majority of this application area is within a Park Service Deficit Area that indicates that a park is not within 8 blocks. Pinedale Cove Park is the nearest park and located just under one mile south of the area and is on the opposite side of Interstate 30. Pinedale Park is a five-acre neighborhood park with a playground and picnic area. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is located in an area covered by the West 65th Street Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land use and Zoning goal states two objectives relevant to this case. The first objective: “Promote protection of natural areas through development and zoning initiatives,” with an action statement of “ensure that significant environmental features and functions are preserved.” Development of this site should not harm the adjacent Fourche Creek and nearby wetlands. The second Land use and Zoning objective is “protect the residential integrity of neighborhoods by maintaining adequate separation between residential and non-residential uses,” with an action statement “monitor rezoning requests before they are present to the Planning Commission/Board of Directors.” The neighborhood should be actively involved in the design process since it is immediately adjacent to a single family neighborhood. The applicant has applied for a PCD, which could result in more defined zoning controls and adequate separation of uses. The Infrastructure goal, to implement an adequate infrastructure, has one objective related to this case: “Identify and construct neighborhood curbs, gutters, and sidewalks where needed.” Various action statements support the construction of minor and principal arterials to standards. Since this application is along an unimproved section of a major arterial half street improvements would need to be made. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 4 ANALYSIS: The application area is developed in both the rural and urban context. Properties to the east have developed with intense uses while properties to the west have lower intensity uses or remain vacant. In the immediate area new construction has been minimal, most construction has occurred along Baseline Road and Mabelvale Pike south and east of Interstate 30 in the Community Shopping area. Over recent years this area’s transportation infrastructure has changed greatly. A grade separated crossing for Baseline Road at I-30 has been completed, as well as additional improvements to the Mabelvale Pike overpass. These improvements were done as part of a multi-million dollar project that widened and realigned Interstate 30 from Benton/Bryant to Geyer Springs Road. Now that the project is nearing completion access to the north side of Interstate 30 will be more direct from Baseline Road south of Interstate 30. The new roadway alignment and improvements, could serve as a catalyst for new development on the north side of Interstate 30. A change to Mixed Use in this area would introduce the potential for more intense development in the area. The mixed-use category could allow for residential, commercial, and office in the area all governed through the PZD process. The PZD process would require review of an individual development or concept for property to be developed. Showing a large amount of Mixed Use along the north side of Baseline Road could lead to encroachment of high intensity uses on the adjacent Single Family area. A mixed use development which has a massing and height compatible with single family or is designed to complement the existing neighborhood can offer both employment and service opportunities for those in the immediate area. Care must be exercised to also protect the carrying capacity of Baseline Road. The access points must be limited. A development which respects the existing neighborhood in scale and massing can be a good neighbor. Development of this land will be adjacent to the 'private side' of several homes. Appropriate design including noise and light issues are important. Any new mixed use development must respect the 'private' areas of homes which will be adjacent. Residential development could occur in the Mixed Use Category and could range from single-family homes to multifamily dwelling units. The Park Open Space strip at the western edge of the area proposed for change to Mixed Use is identified as a potential greenbelt trail in the Park’s Master Plan and residential development could utilize that amenity. Staff would encourage residential design that would not ignore the proposed greenway. Utilization of the greenbelt in the future would be ideal since this area is in a Park Service Deficit area. Review of floodplain maps for the area staff indicated that approximately four acres of the proposed Mixed Use area is in the floodway. In the event of development the floodway land could be dedicated to the city as open space May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 5 for future greenway development and the land use plan could be updated to reflect the open space. Just west of the application area is a small area that is shown as Suburban Office on the plan with an office in an old two-story house. The area is approximately one half acre in size and the only Suburban Office in the immediate area. Staff has expanded that light office concept westward along Baseline to allow for similar office uses to occur on the north side of Baseline Road by indicating a strip of Suburban Office. This land use category requires a PZD (Planned Zoning District) which creates more stringent procedure for development of land. This process could result in development more compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and would allow staff to alleviate possible concerns by area residents as part of the site plan review process. The neighborhood action plan indicates a need to monitor rezoning requests and ensure adequate separation of uses. Since the land on the north side of Baseline Road is zoned R-2 (with several non-conforming uses), any change to a more intense use would require a PZD. The Suburban Office category could give area residents added means of expressing their concerns with development. This change could allow for additional light office development in the area and act as a buffer from more intense uses that are focused south of Baseline Road and fronting Interstate 30 and the proposed Mixed Use area to the west. South of Baseline Road is an area shown as Single Family and Mixed Office Industrial on the Land Use Plan. Most of the land in this area is zoned C-3 with the exception of a small section of C-4 at the eastern edge. Staff feels that Single Family development is not likely to occur in the existing Single Family area and that Industrial uses are not likely to occur either since commercial zoning has been established. Around the interchange are additional areas shown as Community Shopping that have developed with general merchandise stores that serve a regional market that are currently limited to the south side of Interstate 30. With the new Baseline Road/Mabelvale Pike/Interstate 30 interchange, similar development could occur on the north side of the interstate. The proposed change to Community Shopping will eliminate the potential for future industrial in the area. In the area 180 acres of Light Industrial exist. This changing this land would result in a loss of approximately 17 acres of land that could have been developed industrially. The nearby Light Industrial areas could absorb industry that may develop in the area. Also, approximately one quarter mile west of the current Mixed Commercial Industrial area is a 275 acre Service Trades District. Ample land exists in the Service Trades District for new industrial development. Staff envisions commercial development in this area to be similar to that on the south side of Interstate 30. The changed transportation infrastructure conditions could allow for commercial activity to follow Baseline Road to this area. Large Commercial activities would be more appropriate along the freeway in the new Community Shopping area. The Mixed Use and Suburban Office areas along the north side of Baseline Road could May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-02 6 lead to smaller scale development and help prevent large commercial activity from encroaching on the neighborhood. The changes in the area can provide for a location for intense and less intense commercial activities and office to develop and could alleviate concerns of commercial activity leapfrogging to the north side of Baseline Road and surrounding the existing subdivision. Staff believes that appropriate development immediately adjacent to the subdivision should be low intensity, single family, or other residential uses to protect the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: South Brookwood Ponderosa, Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association, Crystal Valley Property Owners Association, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, West Baseline Neighborhood Association, Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Pinedale Neighborhood Association, Santa Monica Neighborhood Association, Allendale Neighborhood Association, Town & Country Estates Neighborhood Association, Chicot Neighborhood Association, Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, and Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association. Staff has received one comment from a property owner regarding the proposed change to Community Shopping that was negative in nature STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes that the proposed changes are appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 21.1 FILE NO.: Z-7842 NAME: Carter Baseline Road Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located North of Baseline Road, just West of Herrick Lane DEVELOPER: Mark Carter 23201 Interstate 30 Bryant, AR 72022 ENGINEER: Global Surveying Kelton Price P.E. 217 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 34.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the development of the site with 74,000 square feet of retail space with C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The applicant has excluded liquor sales and sexually oriented businesses from the listing of allowable uses for the site. The proposed site plan includes the placement of 360 parking spaces on the site. The applicant has indicated future lot lines on the proposed site plan to allow the sale of individual parcels in the future. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 2 The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be serviced between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. The applicant has indicated a single sign which will comply with the maximum signage allowed in commercial zones. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and has previously been filled in some areas. There are single-family homes located to the east and northeast of the site and a floodway is located to the west of the site. Further west of the site is a property zoned PID currently being used as an auto salvage yard. To the south of the site, across Baseline Road, is vacant property and southeast of the site is an area of single- family residences in a manufactured home park. Baseline Road is a two lane State Highway with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place in this area. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required. 2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5- foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to the start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right- of-way from Traffic Engineering (501) 379-1817. Also obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any future land clearing, filling or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 281 is required to be shown on the plat grading plans and construction plans. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 3 7. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25-foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. 8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Center the main driveway on Childress Drive. One additional driveway would be allowed on Baseline Road to the west spaced 300-feet from Childress Drive. The width of driveway must not exceed 36-feet. 9. In accordance with Section 31-210(h)(12), access driveways running parallel to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 75-feet of the future curb line of the street. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1816 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension, easement and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family Residence District) to PCD May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 4 (Planned Commercial Development for the creation of a multiple lot plat and the construction of multiple outbuildings containing C-3 (General Commercial) uses. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda. File No. LU 05-15-02. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bikeway is shown on Baseline Road adjacent to the property. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Master Street Plan: Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is built as a two lane rural road in front of the site. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits to the proposed site should be limited since Baseline Road is a Principal Arterial. Baseline Road may require dedication of right-of-way and half-street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is located in an area covered by the West 65th Street Neighborhood Action Plan. The Land use and Zoning goal states two objectives relevant to this case. The first objective: “Promote protection of natural areas through development and zoning initiatives,” with an action statement of “ensure that significant environmental features and functions are preserved.” Development of this site should not harm the adjacent Fourche Creek and nearby wetlands. The second Land use and Zoning objective is “protect the residential integrity of neighborhoods by maintaining adequate separation between residential and non- residential uses,” with an action statement “monitor rezoning requests before they are present to the Planning Commission/Board of Directors.” The neighborhood should be actively involved in the design process since it is immediately adjacent to a single family neighborhood. The applicant has applied for a PCD, which could result in more defined zoning controls and adequate separation of uses. The Infrastructure goal, to implement an adequate infrastructure, has one objective related to this case: “Identify and construct neighborhood curbs, gutters, and sidewalks where needed.” Various action statements support the construction of minor and principal arterials to standards. Since this application is along an unimproved section of a major arterial half street improvements would need to be made. Landscape: The proposed width of the street buffer along Baseline Road is less than the 32-foot average required. Additionally, the proposed eastern land use buffer width is less than 38-foot average required. Areas set aside for interior landscaping appear to be less than the 8-percent (3,862 square feet) required by the landscape ordinance by 1,594 square feet. A May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 5 variance from this requirement would require City Beautiful Commission approval. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of this development. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Kelton Price and Mr. Carter were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned the design of the buildings and the circulation of the proposed development. Staff stated they had concerns with the circulation proposed. Staff also questioned the proposed screening for the indicated mini-warehouse portion of the development. Staff stated the mini-warehouses were located adjacent to single-family homes and indicated proper mechanisms would be required to ensure the homes were not impacted. Mr. Price stated the developer was considering a revision to this portion of the site to develop the area with C-3, General Commercial District activities. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street improvements would be required. Staff stated two and one-half lanes would be required along Baseline Road. Staff also stated a special grading permit would be required prior to development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicted street buffer did not meet the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff also stated landscape islands should be grouped to allow for a minimum of 300 square feet in area. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has removed the mini-warehouse portion of the development indicating six buildings on the rear portion of the site; one building containing 40,000 square feet and five buildings containing 50,000 square feet of retail space. The applicant has May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 6 indicated the development adjacent to Baseline Road with ten buildings each containing 4,000 square feet. The applicant has indicated future lot lines on the proposed preliminary site plan to allow the creation of 17 individual lots for future sale of individual buildings. The applicant has also indicated a cross access and utility easement along the indicated drives. The applicant has indicated they are not willing to dedicate the floodway to the city but has indicated a floodway easement as requested by staff. The proposed site plan includes the placement of 360 parking spaces to serve the development. The typical minimum parking required for the development as proposed would be 328 parking spaces. Staff has concerns with a few of the indicated parking spaces. There are parking spaces proposed along the access drive serving the rear of the property. The ordinance indicates a service drive is to function as a street and typically does not allow parking to back into the service drive. In addition there is a row of parking behind a building located adjacent to the floodway, which does not allow for proper maneuvering room. The applicant has indicated the placement of dumpsters on the site. The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be shared to limit the number of dumpsters required on the site. The applicant has also indicated the dumpster hours will be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. The applicant has indicated one development sign will be located on the site. The applicant has indicated the sign will be a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area. The applicant has redesigned the driveway locations to comply with staff’s comments. The applicant has indicated the main entrance drive to align with Childers Drive located to the south of the site. The western drive is located near the floodway. Staff is supportive of the placement of the western drive. The applicant has increased the street buffer to meet the minimum ordinance requirement. The indicated site plan does not allow for landscape islands to be a minimum of 300 square feet in area. Staff is not supportive of the allowing the reduced landscape islands. Although staff is supportive of allowing the development of the front portion of the site as proposed by the applicant, staff is not supportive of the rear portion of the development. Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. In staff’s opinion the indicated site plan does not allow for protection of the single-family homes located to the east. The site plan includes the placement of an 80-foot landscape strip along the eastern perimeter of the site and a 6-foot wooden fence. The site plan also indicates a service drive and two dumpster locations in this area. In staff’s opinion there should not be activities taking place behind these buildings. Staff feels all the activities should be maintained within the development to offer May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7842 7 protection to the adjoining homes. Staff feels it is inappropriate to allow intense commercial development on the rear portion of the site. Staff is supportive of allowing the development of the rear portion of the site with some level of activity but staff would recommend the rear portion of the development be limited to office/showroom/warehouse activities with retail sales and not allowing activity in the rear of the buildings located adjacent to the single- family residences. Staff feels with limiting the development of the rear portion of the site with these activities and eliminating the activity in the rear of the building this will offer protection to the single-family homes located adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 26, 2005 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-5097-I NAME: Metropolitan Bank Revised Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located just south of the Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway intersection DEVELOPER: Metropolitan National Bank 423 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: Carlson Consulting Engineers 7731 HWY 70, Suite 210 Bartlett, TN 38133 AREA: 1.41 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District, with a condition of site plan review PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.11 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow signage on a building façade without street frontage. BACKGROUND: On December 20, 1988, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 15,603, which rezoned several tracts of land as a part of the Deltic Master Plan from Residential zoning to various multi-family, office and commercial zoning districts. That action rezoned 7.860 acres located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Chenal Parkway from R-2 to C-3. The approval of the C-3 zoning was conditioned upon a site plan review, by the Planning Commission, prior to development and a provision of a 40- foot landscaped setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the Chenal Parkway. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5097-I 2 Ordinance No. 16,459 rezoned additional properties contained within the proposed site. The Ordinance was approved by the Board of Directors on July 20, 1993, and rezoned 8.7051 acres from R-2 to C-3, General Commercial. Ordinance No. 18,628, adopted by the Board of Directors on January 2, 2002, rezoned an additional 10.92 acres from R-2 to C-3, General Commercial. This area was to the south of the C-3 zoned property and adjacent to Chenal Parkway. At the time of rezoning the applicant also requested and was approved rezoning further south. The zoning approved was O-2 on 10 plus acres adjacent to the Parkway and 10 plus acres of OS zoning nearer the single-family neighborhood to the east. As a condition of the 1988 zoning, approximately six (6) acres of the site was subject to site plan review. The applicant submitted a proposed site plan for review by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their October 31,2002, Public Hearing. The Commission approved the proposed site plan with a modification to the pole height of the proposed lighting in the parking lot. The applicant intended to develop the 28.4 acres as a 210,396 square foot Wal-Mart Super center, associated parking and service areas. The parking lot consisted of 988 parking spaces, including 24 handicap accessible parking spaces. The Commission reviewed a separate request at their March 2004, Public Hearing to allow out parcels to be created from the overall development plan and the placement of a fueling station on one of the out parcels. A separate request was reviewed at the Commission’s April 22, 2004, Public Hearing to allow the placement of a branch bank facility on a separate out parcel of the overall site. The development proposed was for a 3,500 square foot branch bank facility with four-covered drive through lanes. The applicant indicated the days and hours the bank will operate are from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday. The proposed site plan indicated the maximum building height as twenty-eight feet. The site plan also indicated signage would comply with the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District or a single monument style sign and a maximum of eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved site plan to allow additional signage on the existing bank building. The applicant has indicated the bank’s logo is being requested on each façade of the building including those, which do not have street frontage. The ordinance typically allows signage on a building façade with street frontage. The applicant has indicated logos are desired on the southern façade and the eastern façade of the building, these two areas do not abut a street frontage. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5097-I 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Other uses in the area include a Quick Stop Service Station on the northwest corner and mini-warehouses on the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Road. The southwest corner is zoned C-3, General Commercial and is currently undeveloped. There is an Entergy easement along the east property line with a church located further to the east of the site. Vacant O-2 zoned property is located to the south of the site with OS zoned property located between the office zoning and the single-family residential located further south and east of the proposed development. South and west of the proposed development are also single-family residences adjoining vacant O-2 and C-2 zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Margeaux Property Owners Association, the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association and the DuQuesne Place Property Owners Association and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) The applicant was not present. Staff stated the request was to allow signage on the sides of the building without street frontage on the existing bank facility. Staff stated this request was not a part of the original approval and would require Planning Commission review for approval. Staff stated there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. ANALYSIS: Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated the bank logos are relatively small, two feet by two feet, and located near the eave of the building. The eastern sign is located adjacent to the Wal-Mart service driveway and the southern sign is located adjacent to the existing fueling station located on an out parcel of the Wal-Mart site. Staff does not feel the addition of signage located on these façades will have any adverse impact on adjoining properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. May 26, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5097-I 4 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow the placement of signage without public street frontage on the eastern and southern façades of the bank facility. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request to allow the placement of signage without public street frontage on the eastern and southern façades of the bank facility. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 recuse (Robert Stebbins and Gary Langlais).