pc_09 29 2005sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Gary Langlais
Jeff Yates
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: Pam Adcock
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the August 18, 2005 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. LU05-20-04 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District
at the Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County
Farm Road from Single Family to Suburban Office.
A.1. Z-7771-A Ludwig Complex Long-form POD, located on the Northwest
corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road.
B. LU05-04-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District on the north side of A Street west of Van Buren Parkway
from Single Family to Suburban Office.
B.1. Z-7350-B Hillcrest Vista Apartments Revised Short-form PD-R, located at
5100 A Street.
C. S-1493 Lockridge Estates Addition Preliminary Plat, located North of
Lawson Road, East of Marsh Road.
D. Z-7874 Fiser Short-form PCD, located on the Northwest corner of
Cantrell Road and Manney Road.
E. Z-7907 Keziah’s Day Support Center Adult Day Care Center –
Conditional Use Permit, located at 4124 Southern Street
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. S-734-D Parkway Place Tract A Replat, located on Chenal Parkway and
Parkway Place Drive.
2. S-867-ZZZZZ Chenal Valley Phase 35 (Block 125) Preliminary Plat, located
on Chenal Valley Drive and Gordon Road.
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS (Continued):
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
3. S-1428-B Waters Edge Revised Preliminary Plat, located North of David
O Dodd Road, East of I-430.
4. S-1499 Original City Replat Lots 1R – 3R Block 40, located on the
Southeast corner of Capitol Avenue and Cumberland Street.
5. S-1042-NN Villages of Wellington Revised Preliminary Plat, located North of
Wellington Village Road at Bristol Court.
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
6. S-1502 Inman Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 5300 Asher
Avenue.
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
7. LU05-02-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning
District on the northwest corner of Shackleford Road and
Beverly Hills from Single Family to Community Shopping; and
on the northwest corner of Markham Street and Shackleford
Road from Office to Community Shopping.
7.1. Z-3419-B Beverly Hills Place Short-form PCD, located on the Northwest
corner of Beverly Hills Drive and Shackleford Road.
8. Z-5223-C Stubblefield Short-form PCD , located at 1400 Bishop Street.
9. Z-5311-A Verizon Wireless Revised Short-form PCD, located at 14309
Cantrell Road.
10. Z-6809-A Marchant and Reese Revised Short-form PD-R, located at 700
South Cedar Street.
11. Z-7917 Verizon Wireless Short-form PCD, located at 12018 Chenal
Parkway.
Agenda, Page Three
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued):
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
12. LU05-17-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning
District on the northwest corner of Crystal Valley Road and
Stagecoach Road from Single Family to Commercial and Park
Open/Space.
12.1. Z-7918 Crystal Valley Crossing Long-form PCD, located at 8424
Stagecoach Road.
13. LU05-06-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the East Little Rock Planning
District North of the Third Street and Bond Avenue Intersection
from Park/Open Space to Mixed Use.
13.1. Z-7919 Lighthouse Point Long-form PCD, located North of East 3rd
Street, East of Bond Street.
14. LU05-19-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District on the north side of Kanis Road west of Chenal Parkway
from Multifamily to Commercial.
14.1. Z-7920 Baker Long-form PCD, located North of Kanis Road, 0.4 miles
West of Chenal Parkway.
15. Z-7921 Kumpuris Short-form PD-O, located at 5921 Lee Avenue.
16. Z-7922 Hayne Short-form PID, located at 2701 West 7th Street.
17. Z-7923 Hayman Short-form PD-R, located at 2460 Howard Street.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: A 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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (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.
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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
6
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.
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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
7
STAFF UPDATE:
Before the last hearing, the site plan was revised resulting in the office building
being in the center of the POD. The new site plan did not match the proposed
area proposed for a land use plan change. As a result, the applicant has
changed this application to request the entirety of the POD be changed to
Suburban Office. Staff still believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission.
Donna James made a presentation of item C.1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item C. See item C.1 for a complete discussion
concerning the Ludwig Complex Long Form Planned Office Development.
Eight speakers spoke concerning the zoning action, but none referenced the
Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to defer item C and C.1 to the August 18, 2005 meeting and
was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 2 noes, and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application. The land use
application remains unchanged. Staff is requesting deferral to the September 29,
2005 hearing to resolve issues with the zoning application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 29,
2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application. The land
use application remains unchanged. Staff is requesting deferral to the
November 10, 2005 hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
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.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: A.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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Gene Ludwig were present representing the request. There
were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had
revise the plan to include the development of a 9,000 square foot office building and an
8,000 square foot residence. Staff stated they were somewhat supportive of the
proposed development but there were a few issues related to the proposed
development. Staff stated the indicated signage was not given a total height or sign
area. Staff stated they would recommend the sign area be limited to signage allowed in
office zones or six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in sign area. Staff also
questioned the proposed garages. Staff stated the applicant had also indicated attic
space to be utilized as storage. Staff stated they were not supportive of allowing the
attic space to be finished space only an area for file storage. Staff stated the applicant
had not provided a revised site plan. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the
building would be located in the same general location as the previous proposal with a
reduced building footprint.
Mr. Joe White addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
development was scaled down from the original request. He stated the development
would be constructed of an architectural style that would match the neighborhood. He
stated with the addition of the garages the total footprint would be 9,000 to 10,000
square feet. Mr. White stated with the reduced total office square footage the parking
areas would also be reduced. Mr. White stated the applicant was requesting to be able
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
12
to move the residence away from the law office. He stated the applicant did not want
the residence tied to the office.
Mr. Hurb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he felt the Commission should defer the request to allow staff and the
neighborhood time to review the indicated site plan. He stated he felt the applicant’s
request was too general and not specific to allow staff and the Commission the ability to
enforce on the zoning at the time of construction. He stated the development lacked
specifics which he felt was a requirement of the planned development process.
Mr. Louis Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the neighborhood did not want commercial in the area. He stated he felt a 9,000
square foot office was too intense for the area. He stated with the late submission of
the proposal he did not have the opportunity to publish a newsletter to let the residents
know of the current request. He stated of the residents he had talked to in the area all
were opposed to the construction of a 9,000 square foot office building on the site.
Ms. Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she did not live in the area but did use the area for the parks and amenities
the area had to offer. She stated the valley was not an appropriate location of an office
building of the indicated square footage. She stated the area was rural in nature and
the development of a commercial activity was not in keeping with the rural atmosphere
of the valley.
Ms. Rita Dyer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she
did not feel the indicated location appropriate for an office use.
Mr. Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated if
the development were approved it would change the nature of the valley. He stated the
site was an agriculture site being used as pasture land. He stated he did not feel
commercialization of the valley was an appropriate use. He stated the river valley area
was being used for farming and residential homes which was the appropriate use for the
area. He stated the site should be developed with homes similar to the development
pattern in the area.
Ms. Sandra Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the original office was 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. She questioned why
Mr. Ludwig now needed such a large office. She stated the indicated development was
out of character with the existing neighborhood. She stated once an area was
developed for a commercial use the soil was no longer suitable for farming.
Ms. Mariella Nowicki addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated the valley was lovely and a commercial development would not be a positive
addition to the area. She stated there was only one home with square footage similar to
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
13
Mr. Ludwig’s proposal. She stated she felt the addition of a 9,000 square foot office
building and 8,000 square foot residence would be out of character for the valley area.
Mr. Gene Ludwig addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the proposal was
reasonable. He stated Mr. Bianco did not speak for the entire association. He stated
many of the neighbors he had spoken to did support the proposed development. He
stated he had requested from staff to relocate his current commercial zoning. He stated
staff was not supportive of this request. He stated the existing commercial site located
on Beck Road only contained one acre and the possible future uses would be limited to
relatively small developments.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
looseness of the current request. The Commission questioned if and when the phases
would be constructed. Mr. Ludwig stated he was unsure. The Commission questioned
if the home would be attached to the office or if it would be constructed at some other
location on the site. Mr. Ludwig stated he was not sure. He stated he was requesting
to keep all his options open. The Commission questioned at what point the home would
be constructed. Mr. Ludwig stated he could not give a definite time frame for
construction. The Commission requested Mr. Ludwig defer his request to tie down the
lose ends of the proposal. They requested a revise site plan and cover letter be
furnished to staff in time to take the item to the next Subdivision Committee meeting.
Mr. Ludwig agreed to this request.
A motion made to defer the request to the August 18, 2005, Public Hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes 1 no and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the applicant met on August 4, 2005, to work to resolve issues raised at the
Commission’s July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant has indicated a revised site
plan will be available for the Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8, 2005.
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the September 29, 2005, public hearing to
allow the Subdivision Committee and staff additional time to review the proposed
development plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated they and the applicant had met on August 4, 2005, to
work to resolve issues raised at the Commission’s July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff
stated the applicant had indicated a revised site plan would be available for the
Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8, 2005. Staff requested the item be
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
14
deferred to the September 29, 2005, public hearing to allow the Subdivision Committee
and staff additional time to review the proposed development plan.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated September 1, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 1, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,
2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: B 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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding this application. The application
remains unchanged.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the August 18, 2005
Planning Commission meeting. 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 contacted staff requesting a deferral to the September 29,
2005 hearing. The application remains unchanged. Staff supports the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 29,
2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has contacted staff and introduced a new proposed use for the
area in question. The new application would result in construction of an office
use regulated by a POD on the side. Part of the site will be left as open space.
The applicant has indicated that he would like to change his request from “Single
Family to Multifamily” to “Single Family to Suburban Office” for a smaller portion
of the site. The new area indicated for change will reflect actual developed land
on the block and focus its attention on Van Buren Street. Staff has expanded
this application to include the property immediately to the north and immediately
east of the application to recognize existing land uses and provide for future
office redevelopment. Staff expansion to the north is intended to recognize an
existing office use. Staff’s expansion to the east is partially to recognize an
existing use, and encourage an orderly redevelopment of a non-conforming use.
The change to Suburban Office is still more intensive than its existing Single
Family designation, but, could be considered less intense than the proposed
Multifamily area because of additional zoning restrictions. In the Suburban Office
category PZDs are required which can help ensure that specific factors are met
in a site design. These factors can include parking lots, mass, scale, hours of
operation, and could help encourage “residential design” that would be more
compatible with nearby neighborhoods.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-02
7
This Suburban Office area would be a new introduction to the area land use plan.
Currently a majority of lands on the north side of Markham Street are shown as
Office which allow blanket zoning to occur. This new Suburban Office area could
provide protection for the existing neighborhood and could identify a need for
better controlled office developments on the southern edge of Hillcrest.
Staff is in support of the revised application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 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.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: B.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.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
advantage of the existing topography and existing trees. An enclosed dumpster would
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
3
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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.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
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
5
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
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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
6
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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant submitted a requested dated June 30, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the August 18, 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 for
placement of the item for inclusion 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 request dated August 5, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the September 29, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant indicated they are
working with the neighborhood to resolve concerns with the proposed development.
Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
August 5, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the September 29, 2005, Public
Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated they are working with the
neighborhood to resolve concerns with the proposed development and design issues.
Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant is now requesting to amend their current PD-R zoning classification to a
PD-O zoning classification. The applicant has indicated a new 5,645 square foot office
building will be constructed on the site in a similar architecture as the existing
neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the building will be a single story building
with a brick façade and a shingled roof. The site plan includes the placement of
22 on-site parking spaces. The parking is proposed along Van Buren Street and in the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
10
rear of the building. Access to the parking will be taken from “A” Street and the alley
located to the north. The applicant has indicated a large portion of the site will be left
undeveloped as landscaped areas and a passive park area.
Based on the current site design staff routed the proposal to the various departments
and agencies for comment. Below are the comments received related to the current
site plan:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Van Buren Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required.
2. The proposed land use would classify A Street on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3. The proposed land use would classify Harrison Street on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline or as required for
the public project on that street. Half street widening on Harrison is not required.
4. With site development, provide design of A Street conforming to the Master Street
Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk
and handicap ramps with the planned development. Correct curb radius at Van
Buren to 30 feet. Meander sidewalk to save trees.
5. Remove the Van Buren driveway access; instead, improve the alley to 22-ft width up
to the parking entrance. Alley turnout apron shall be concrete per city ordinance.
Additional alley right-of-way dedication of 10 feet is required. No left turn in is
permitted; however, consult Traffic Engineering about permission for left in, if striping
for turn lane is possible on Van Buren.
6. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of A Street
with Van Buren.
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. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
9. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/ TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
11
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. This
will require an 8-inch water main extension. 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). 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.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
Planning Division:
Landscape: The site plan submitted does not show the right-of way, easements or
property lines. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not the minimum landscape and
buffer ordinances are being met. A legal survey is needed.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the
proposed development indicating there a few outstanding technical issues related to the
proposed request. Staff requested the applicant provide the total number of doctors for
the proposed facility. Staff also requested the applicant provide the days and hours of
operation for the proposed facility.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the alley would require
improvement for two-way traffic to the proposed driveway entrance. Staff also stated
Traffic Engineering would review the proposed development to determine if left turns
would be permitted into the development. Staff noted left turns would be allowed at “A”
Street and the alleyway. The applicant noted these two locations were the proposed
access points into the development.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
12
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the site plan did not allow
sufficient detail to determine if the proposed landscaping was adequate to satisfy the
Landscape Ordinance and/or the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting
the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further
discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final action.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant submitted a revise site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised
at the September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided
a 25-foot landscape buffer along North Van Buren Street and a minimum of 20-feet
landscape buffer along “A” Street. The applicant has also indicated screening will be
provided along the northern property line to screen the adjoining single-family homes.
The applicant has indicated the development will house three doctors and will operate
from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. The site plan includes the placement
of 22 on-site parking spaces. Based on typically minimum parking required for a
medical facility 18 parking spaces would typically be required. The applicant has not
indicated signage on the proposed site plan. Staff would recommend signage be limited
to signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four
square feet in area.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated an office
building constructed residential in character with materials similar to the homes in the
surrounding neighborhood. The construction materials proposed are brick or brick and
stucco. The applicant has indicated the building will have an asphalt singled roof with a
pitch similar to the homes located nearby. The applicant has indicated the windows will
be residential in character mimicking the era of the existing house construction.
The applicant has also oriented the building in a manner to protect the adjoining homes
and has indicated there will be limited activity along the rear of the site to intrude into
the neighborhood. The applicant has located the dumpster along “A” Street and has
indicated the dumpsters hours will be limited to day light hours. The applicant has also
indicated the dumpster will be adequately screened from the adjoining roadway. Staff is
supportive of the proposed dumpster location.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
request. Staff feels the request to rezone the site to PD-O to allow the site to develop
as a medical office facility should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-B
13
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the Public Works Conditions, Utilities and Fire Department/County
Planning/Technical/Design as indicated above.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 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 the Public Works Conditions, Utilities and Fire
Department/County Planning/Technical/Design as indicated in the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recusal (Commissioner Jeff Yates) and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1493
NAME: Lochridge Estates Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located North of Lawson Road, East of Marsh Road
DEVELOPER:
Lockridge Estates, LLC
c/o Marlar Engineering Company
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72216
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Company
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72216
AREA: 94.45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 156 FT. NEW STREET: 8,333 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots with private streets
2. A variance to allow an alternative pedestrian circulation system in-lieu of sidewalks
within the proposed subdivision.
3. A variance to allow the placement of a 7-foot fence within the required building
setback along Marsh Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 94.45-acre tract into 156 single-
family residential lots and several tracts to be left as natural areas. The applicant
has indicated the development will be constructed in two phases. The applicant
has indicated an average lot size of 11,700 square feet and a minimum lot size of
10,117 square feet. The proposed development results in an overall density of
1.65 units per acre.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
2
The applicant has indicated the development will be served by 8,333 linear feet
of new private residential street. The applicant has also indicated the
development will be a gated community with a single gated entry from Marsh
Road. The developer has indicated one-half street construction will be
completed to Marsh Road per the Master Street Plan requirement for a minor
arterial, which includes curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant has indicated a
seven-foot fence will be placed within the required building line adjacent to Marsh
Road.
The applicant has indicated a ten foot restrictive access easement along the rear
of the lots abutting Marsh Road and internal cul-de-sac’s to satisfy the
Subdivision Ordinance requirement related to reverse frontage lots adjacent to a
minor arterial roadway (Section 31-257).
The applicant has indicated the development will be served by a private
wastewater collection and treatment system. The developer has applied to the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and received a construction
permit for the wastewater treatment facility.
The site is located outside the corporate limits of Little Rock but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site which as been recently harvested of timber. There are a
number of hardwood trees remaining on the site but most of the pine trees have
been removed. The site is a sloping site with several steep grades. There are
single-family homes located in the area along Marsh Road to the north and
Lawson Road to the south. To the west of the site is a large tract of vacant
property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls from area residents. All
abutting property owners, the Crystal Valley Property Owners Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Marsh 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. Both sides
of Marsh Road must be dedicated where it passes through the interior of the
property.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
3
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements for a portion of Marsh
Road and full width where it passes through the property, including 5-foot
sidewalks and storm drainage.
3. Entrance gate design must include sufficient stacking depth and island
design for turnaround capability.
4. Internal streets must conform to the Master Street Plan, including maximum
grades and sidewalk on one side (unless it is a cul-de-sac less than 750 feet
in length).
5. Multiple islands within cul-de-sacs should be enlarged, single units capable
of supporting green space.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
7. Storm water management applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. Areas not drained to
the lake should be detained or an in-lieu payment made to the city where
increased runoff is permissible. Lake outlet modifications will be required.
8. Storm drainage easements and design must conform to the Master Street
Plan and to acceptable storm water management practices and include
overflow pathways that are safe for storm flows larger than the 10-year
storm.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: 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. Approval of the City of Little
Rock will be required prior to availability of water service to this property. A water
main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional
information.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
4
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. The site is located outside the
City of Little Rock fire jurisdiction. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire
department concerning the knowledge of the proposed subdivision and their
ability to serve the development with fire protection.
County Planning:
1. Pulaski County requests the completion of a professional traffic study prior to
preliminary plat approval by the City of Little Rock. The traffic study should
include the following items at a minimum:
a. Projected directional volumes upon date of completion and after
10 years.
b. Projected volumes in regard to surrounding future land uses.
c. Projected turning movements.
d. Required stacking capacity off Marsh Road, which may require
redesign of interior road alignments due to the gated entry of the
proposed development.
This information is needed to ensure safe traffic movement in the area and
will effect traffic movement in the surrounding unincorporated portions of
Pulaski County. Additionally, this traffic study is needed prior to preliminary
plat approval because the findings of the study may require significant
changes to the preliminary design of the proposed subdivision.
2. The applicant should petition the Pulaski County Planning Board for a waiver
of maximum cul-de-sac lengths and grade requirements prior to preliminary
plat approval by Pulaski County.
3. The applicant should submit a copy of the proposed bill of assurance to
Pulaski County prior to final plat approval.
4. Contact Pulaski County Planning at 340-8260 for detailed comments.
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: (June 16, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the applicant was requesting
approval for a preliminary plat to allow a new single-family subdivision to develop
within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the developer
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
5
had applied to Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for a construction
permit for a wastewater treatment facility.
Staff questioned if the development was to be a gated community. The
developer indicated a gate would be installed. Staff stated the indicated
turn-around did not allow for proper stacking. Mr. David Jones indicated this
would be corrected on the final submission. Staff also questioned if the
development would be constructed in phases. Mr. Jones indicated the
development would be constructed in two phases.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated detention would apply to
the proposed development. Mr. Jones indicated the existing lake would be used
as detention. Mr. Jones stated the existing dam would be reworked to ensure
proper dam safety. Staff stated sidewalks would be required. Mr. Jones stated
the developers were seeking a variance to allow an alternative pedestrian
circulation system within the development. Staff stated one-half street
improvements would be required along Marsh Road per the Master Street Plan.
Staff stated the area where Marsh Road bisected the proposed subdivision the
entire roadway would be required. Mr. Jones stated the indicated tract along the
west side of the roadway was not a part of the proposed subdivision. Staff stated
the area should not be included on the proposed plat drawing and should be
included with the property to the north.
Staff stated fire service would be from an area volunteer fire department. Staff
requested the applicant provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department
indicating their knowledge of the proposed subdivision and their ability to serve
the proposed subdivision. Staff noted comments from all other reporting
departments and agencies suggesting the developer contact them directly for
additional information. 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 plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the
June 16, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided a
letter from the area volunteer fire department concerning their knowledge of the
proposed subdivision and their ability to serve the proposed development. The
applicant has provided an approval letter from AEDQ to allow the construction of
the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system. The applicant has
indicated the development will be served with a recirculation sand filter, tablet
chlorinator and chlorine contact chamber with design flow of 0.04 MGD.
The applicant has provided staff with the average depths and average width to
depth ratios for the lots staff had concerns with. All the indicated lots meet the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
6
City’s Subdivision Ordinance minimum requirements. The applicant has also
indicated the development will provide proper stacking for a minimum of three
cars and a turn-around at the gated entrance as requested by staff. The
applicant has indicated two areas of detention on the proposed plat. The
applicant has indicated a large lake to the east will serve as the primary detention
with a smaller pond to the south to serve as secondary detention. The applicant
has also indicated street construction per the Master Street Plan.
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of lots with private
streets. The developer has indicated the streets will be constructed to public
street standard per the Subdivision Ordinance requirement. The applicant is also
requesting an alternative pedestrian circulation system in-lieu of sidewalks within
the proposed subdivision. The applicant has indicated a series of trails will
connect the residential lots to the areas designated as green and open space
and to allow access to the proposed lake. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
request. The proposed subdivision is a gated community and in other areas the
City has allowed this type connectivity through the subdivision in-lieu of sidewalk
construction.
The applicant is requesting the placement of a seven-foot fence with nine-foot
columns along Marsh Road. The applicant has indicated the fencing within the
required 35-foot building line. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The
proposed fencing is an opaque fence and will be located in an area that will not
restrict roadway views.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E F and H of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with private streets.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an alternative
pedestrian circulation system in-lieu of sidewalks within the proposed
subdivision.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the placement of a
7-foot fence within the required building setback along Marsh Road.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
7
The applicant submitted a requested dated June 22, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the August 18, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral. Staff stated the applicant had
submitted a requested dated June 22, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the
August 18, 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 for
placement of the item for inclusion 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 request dated July 22, 2005, requesting this item be deferred
to the September 29, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant indicated they were working
with the Department of Environmental Quality to obtain their construction permit for the
proposed wastewater collection and treatment facility. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
July 22, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the September 29, 2005, Public
Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated they were working with the
Department of Environmental Quality to obtain their construction permit for the
proposed wastewater collection and treatment facility. Staff stated they were supportive
of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of the request.
Mr. David Jones addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated he
would prefer the opposition speak first and he would follow-up with questions or provide
any additional information necessary for the Commission to fully understand the
request.
Mr. Jim Glassman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated his property was located to the north of the site and he had questions
regarding the discharge of the proposed wastewater collection system. He stated the
developers had indicated the discharge would take place down Jack Mann Road. He
stated the property owners did not have access to Jack Mann Road since the public
right of way stopped short of the applicant’s property.
Mr. Clint Boshears addressed the Commission. He stated he was the property owner
and he did have legal access to Jack Mann Road. He stated the public right of way
extended well into Mr. Glassman’s property.
There was a general discussion concerning the right of access. Ms. Ashley Pope of
Pulaski County Planning indicated there was a question of access. She stated the
County Surveyor had surveyed the right of way for Jack Mann Road and the applicant
did not have a public access to his property. Commissioner Rector stated one of the
requirements of the proposed development was to provide sewer. He stated if the right
of access was not resolved then the sewer could not be provided and the construction
of the subdivision would not take place.
Mr. Robert Scroggins addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated his concern were not with the development of the area but with the proposed
wastewater collection and treatment system. He questioned who would pay the cost
associated with the maintenance of the system if all the homes were not sold. He also
questioned if the system was not operated properly what would happen to the system.
Commissioner Rector stated the issues being raised were technical issues the
Commission was in no position to answer. He stated if the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality felt the site suitable for development the Commission must trust
their judgment.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed system, the collection method
and the ability of the Commission to deny the request. The Commission indicated if in
fact the applicant did not have access to a public right of way the landowner would not
be required to allow access for the proposed discharge. The Commission indicated the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1493
9
proposed subdivision review was a technical review and the applicant had fulfilled the
requirements.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-7874
NAME: Fiser Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Manney Road
DEVELOPER:
Chuck and Rob Fiser
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District and R-2, Single-family District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial District uses and Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3 - General Commercial District uses and O-3, General Office
District Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with the requested additional information from the
June 16, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the August 18, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the
item. Staff stated the applicant had failed to provide staff with the requested additional
information from the June 16, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff requested
the item be deferred to the August 18, 2005, Public Hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7874
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion 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 request dated August 5, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the September 29, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant has indicted they
are working to resolve access issues raised by staff. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
August 5, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the September 29, 2005, Public
Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicted they were working to resolve access
issues raised by staff. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s requested
deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated September 19, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the applicant’
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 19, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November
10, 2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7907
NAME: Keziah’s Day Support Center Adult Day Care Center
– Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 4124 Southern Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Deborah Ryans/Connie Henderson
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of
the existing structure on this R-3 zoned property for
an adult day care center with a maximum enrollment
of 10 clients.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located outside of the city limits but within the City’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The property is located on the southwest
corner of Southern and Riffel Streets, in College Station.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located on the fringe of a sparsely-developed residential
neighborhood. The four block area north of the site, extending along
Frazier Pike, is occupied by several other institutional uses; including a
nursing home, head-start program, county health clinic and civic center.
This property has in the past been used by the nursing home for
residential care, classes and laundry facility. Uses to the south, west and
east include vacant lots and a scattering of single family homes. Allowing
use of the site for a day time, day care use with a maximum enrollment of
10 clients should be compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the College Station
Neighborhood Association were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The property has no on-site parking and drives. Drop-off of clients will
occur at the front (Southern Street) entrance. This continues the non-
conforming pattern, which has been in use for many years when the
property was used by the nursing home across the street. The applicant
has an agreement to utilize the nursing home parking lot, which is located
directly across the street. This day care use is required to have five
parking spaces based one space for each of the four employees and one
space for drop-off and pickup. Staff supports a parking variance to allow
the off-site parking and drop-off as proposed.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7907
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Service available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. An additional fire hydrant is recommended.
This hydrant would have to be installed at the expense of the
developer. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: The applicant must petition the Pulaski County
Planning Board for a waiver of the 40 foot setback requirement for
commercial structures that are adjacent to residential properties.
Contact Ashley Pope at 340-8260.
CATA: A CATA Bus Route is located along Frazier Pike, one block north
of the site.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 11, 2005)
The applicant was not present. Staff introduced the item and noted there was
little additional information that was needed. Staff noted the need for a parking
variance. Ashley Pope, Director of Pulaski County Planning, stated the applicant
would need to contact her office to determine if it was necessary to go to the
County Planning Board. Staff stated they would contact the applicant to get the
needed information; including signage, site lighting, fencing and weekend hours.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7907
3
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-3 zoned lot located at 4124 Southern Street in College Station is occupied
by a one-story, brick and frame, residential structure and a detached block
building. The property is outside of the city limits but within the City’s
extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Until April 2005, the property was used in
conjunction with the nursing home which is located across Southern Street to the
north. The principal building was used for many years for assisted living housing
and later for classroom instruction for employees of the nursing home. The
detached block building at the rear of the lot contained the nursing home’s
laundry facilities until similar facilities were recently built on the nursing home
property.
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow use of
the principal structure on this lot as an adult day care center. No use is proposed
at this time for the other building. The day care will have a maximum attendance
of 10 participants and 4 employees. Days and hours of operation are proposed
as Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Occasional weekend service
will be available upon request. If needed, weekend hours will correspond to
weekday hours. Signage at this time consists of a wall sign. In the future, a 24
square foot, 6 foot tall ground sign may be placed in the front yard. The entire
property is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain-link and wood fence. Lighting consists
of porch lights and street lights. No new lighting is proposed. The 1905 bill of
assurance is illegible but likely does not address use issues.
There is no on-site parking. This use requires five on-site parking spaces. There
is, however, a degree of nonconformity associated with parking at this site. For
many years, the property has been used in conjunction with the nursing home
located across the street. Parking has taken place on the nursing home parking
lot and drop-off of clients has occurred at the front gate of this site, adjacent to
Southern Street. The applicant proposes to continue that arrangement. While
the availability of on-site parking is typically an issue of concern when staff
reviews similar proposals, circumstances are different for this site. The
nonconforming history of the site, the sparce development and low traffic
volumes in the area and the parking agreement provided by the nursing home
cause staff to support the requested parking variance for this use.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use permit. To staff’s knowledge,
there are no outstanding issues.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7907
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Section 6 of the
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance subject to the
parking agreement being continued with the nursing home which is located
across Southern Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 1, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had not correctly followed the notification
procedure and the item needed to be deferred. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to September 29,
2005 with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval as outlined in the “Staff
Recommendation” above. There were no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-734-D
NAME: Parkway Place Tract A Replat
LOCATION: Located on Chenal Parkway and Parkway Place Drive
DEVELOPER:
The Ashley Company
2851 Lakewood Village Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72116
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm, PLLC
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 12.545 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT:
1. A variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for proposed Lots 4 and 5 Tract A.
BACKGROUND:
On June 12, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a site plan review request for
this 12-acre site at Parkway Place and Chenal Parkway. The site was zoned C-3,
General Commercial District and construction of the Kohl’s Department Store was
underway. The owners desired to construct additional retail space on the site in three
(3) additional buildings.
The Kohl’s building, located adjacent to Oak Meadow Drive, containing approximately
88,248 square feet of gross floor area. There were three buildings proposed adjacent to
Parkway Place Drive; one building containing approximately 6,000 square feet, the
second containing 4,600 square feet and the third containing 12,210 square feet.
Including the Kohl’s building 111,058 square feet of gross floor area was proposed and
623 parking spaces.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-734-D
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a replat of previously recorded Tract A, Parkway
Place Subdivision. The proposed subdivision would consist of four lots. The
largest lot, Lot 1 Tract A, is currently occupied by Kohl’s Department Store. The
remaining three lots are smaller adjacent out-parcels that have not yet
developed.
Adjacent to the proposed subdivision are two currently existing and platted
developments that are not a part of the proposed replat. Lot 2 Tract A, Parkway
II Commercial Subdivision is currently occupied by a Fina Big Red Convenience
Store and Fueling Station. It is located on the southwest corner of Chenal
Parkway and Parkway Place Drive. The other adjacent lot is Lot 3 Tract A,
Parkway Place, which is currently occupied by a self-service carwash. It is
located on the northwest corner of West Markham Street and Parkway Place
Drive.
According to the applicant, during construction of the Kohl’s development, the
utilities, drainage and boundary street improvements were constructed in
anticipation of development of the proposed out-parcels. The applicant has
indicated the improvements are complete, leaving on-site development as the
remaining work.
The applicant has indicated the entrance drive to the Kohl’s development was
originally located adjacent to the south boundary of the Fina Big Red lot with a
single out-parcel planned between the original drive location and the carwash.
The City’s Traffic Department required that the driveway be relocated to the
south to gain separation distance away from the Chenal Parkway and Parkway
Place Drive intersection and other existing drives. This relocation resulted in two
smaller parcels, one on each side of the relocated drive. The drives that are
designated for ingress and egress on the proposed plat are existing drives with
existing paving, drainage and utilities and landscaping.
The applicant has developed plans for development of the parcels and
discovered it is not economically feasible to develop the area without variances
to allow a reduced rear yard setback. The applicant has indicated the proposed
buildings along with the required parking restrict the available land area. The
proposal includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback for proposed Lot 4
Tract A to 11-feet and Lot 5 Tract A to 3-feet. The applicant has indicated the
rear setback lines are adjacent to the Kohl’s parking lot and should have minimal
impact on adjoining properties.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-734-D
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains Kohl’s Department Store and a few trees remain in the
northwest corner. Across Oak Meadow Drive is a vacant somewhat flat O-3
zoned piece of property. Adjoining this site is a carwash and a convenience
store located on the northeast and southeast corners abutting Parkway Place
Drive.
The area east of the site (across Parkway Place Drive) is office type uses and to
the south of the site is a large church. The City of Little Rock Fire Station #20 is
located across Oak Meadow Drive to the southwest and the Parkway Place
Homeowners Association pool and park is located adjacent to the Fire Station
accessed by Gamble Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners, the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association and
the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association were
notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any
comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point has a service line from
Oak Meadow Drive to Kohl meter station on the west portion of the property. Any
cost associated with the relocation of the line will be the property owner’s
responsibility. Contact Center-Point Energy at 377-4539 for additional information.
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. This will require an 8-inch water main extension. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of the hydrant(s). A water main extension will be required in order to provide service
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-734-D
4
to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700.
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: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicting there were very few outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request. Staff noted the site was previously
reviewed as a multiple building site plan review prior to the development of the
Kohl’s store to allow the placement of buildings on the proposed lots. Staff
stated the previous approval allowed for reduced setbacks similar to the setbacks
being requested with the current application. Staff requested the applicant
provide a statement concerning the floodplain/floodway.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided a statement indicating the development is not located
within a delineated floodplain or floodway.
The proposal includes the subdivision of the previously platted lot to allow the
creation of three out parcels. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 4 Tract A
will contain 0.547 acres, proposed Lot 5 Tract A will contain 0.493 acres and Lot
6 Tract A will contain 1.56 acres. The lots are currently zoned C-3, General
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-734-D
5
Commercial District which typically requires a minimum lot area of 14,000 square
feet or 0.32 acres.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for
Lots 4 and 5. The proposal includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback
for proposed Lot 4 Tract A to 11-feet and Lot 5 Tract A to 3-feet. Staff is
supportive of this request. As indicated by the applicant, the rear yards are
adjacent to the Kohl’s parking lot and should have minimal impact on adjoining
properties when viewing the development on the ground. In addition, the
previously approved multiple building site plan review was supported by staff and
the Commission with similar reduced setbacks. Staff does not feel the placement
of lot lines on the site will change the character of the development in such a way
to negatively impact 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 agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback for proposed Lots 4 and 5 Tract A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for proposed Lots 4 and 5
Tract A.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
NAME: Chenal Valley Phase 35 (Block 125) Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on Chenal Valley Drive and Gordon Road
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Timber Corporation
7 Chenal Club Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 34.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 55 FT. NEW STREET: 3700 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots with private streets.
2. A variance to allow an increased length of a residential cul-de-sac.
3. A variance to allow alternative pedestrian trails in-lieu of sidewalks within the
development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 34.23-acre tract into 55 single-
family lots. The applicant has indicated several variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow the development of the proposed subdivision. The applicant
is requesting a variance to allow the development of lots with private streets, a
variance to allow an increased length of a cul-de-sac street and a variance to
allow alternative pedestrian trails within the subdivision.
The applicant has indicated the proposed subdivision will be developed with
private streets and a gated community. The applicant has indicated street widths
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
2
and right-of-ways will be constructed to Public Street standard. The applicant
has indicated Saverne Road exceeds the length allowed for a residential cul-de-
sac street. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk
construction. The applicant has indicated alternative pedestrian trails will be
placed within the subdivision and access through open spaces within the
development will allow connectivity through out the subdivision.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a tree covered site located adjacent to the newly constructed Gordon
Road and Chenal Valley Drive. The site has varying degrees of slope. Single-
family homes have been constructed to the east and southeast of the site in a
separate phase of Chenal. To the northeast of the site are the Chenal Valley
Country Club Golf Course and maintenance buildings.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners and the Margeaux Place Property Owners
Association were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not
received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan,
specifically for the eastern leg of Saverne Road. Show location of proposed
alternative pedestrian path.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of approval of
construction plans, for Block 125 on the south side of Saverne Road.
6. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas. Overland flow
and gutter flow may not be sufficient to drain all lots and streets. Inlets and
underground piping may be required in certain places.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
3
7. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
8. Confirm street names with David Hathcock of Public Works.
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 information.
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. Central Arkansas Water
requests that the portion of Tract B adjacent to Gordon Road be designated as a
utility easement. 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. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating
there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff
questioned the note concerning the alternative pedestrian trails. Mr. Daters
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
4
stated the proposed subdivision would provide trails through out the development
to allow connectivity to the tracts of open space being proposed.
Staff noted a few of the lots were indicated with a reduced front building line.
Staff questioned Mr. Daters as for the need for the reduced front building line.
Mr. Daters stated the lots were extremely steep. He stated based on Hillside
Development Standards the request would likely not be a variance request. Staff
stated the lots would be required to meet the minimum hillside development
criteria. Mr. Daters stated he would provide staff with the necessary information
to determine eligibility.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Saverne Road exceeded
the length allow for a residential cul-de-sac which would require a variance and
staff stated a sidewalk would be required. Mr. Daters stated the developer was
requesting a variance to allow the increased length of the cul-de-sac street and a
waiver of the sidewalk requirement. He stated the developers intended to allow
for pedestrian circulation by the placement of alternative pedestrian trails
throughout the subdivision as was previously stated.
Staff questioned drainage and drainage easement. Mr. Daters stated the
developers would pipe drainage to a previously constructed detention area.
Mr. Daters stated all easements would be indicated on the final plans.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the
September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the locations of alternative pedestrian trails within the development and
the connection of the existing streets and sidewalks to areas designated as open
space and tracts. The applicant has indicated the front building line for all the
lots at 25-feet.
The applicant has indicated drainage easements on the proposed preliminary
plat. The applicant has indicated detention will be provided with the previously
constructed regional detention facilities.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 34.23-acre tract into
55 single-family lots resulting in a density of 1.60 units per acre. The applicant
has indicated several variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
5
development of the proposed subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance
to allow the development of lots with private streets, a variance to allow an
increased length of a cul-de-sac street and a variance to allow alternative
pedestrian trails within the subdivision.
The applicant has indicated the proposed subdivision will be developed with
private streets and a gated community. The applicant has indicated street widths
and right-of-ways will be constructed to public street standard. Staff is supportive
of allowing the development to be constructed with private streets, if constructed
to public street standards per the current ordinance requirements.
The applicant has indicated Saverne Road exceeds the length allowed for a
residential cul-de-sac street (1,200 feet). Staff is supportive of allowing the
increased length. Typically, a minor residential street should not exceed 750-feet
and serve no more than 35 lots. The street serves 21 lots. Although, the street
exceeds the typical length allowed, staff is supportive of the roadway due to the
small number of lots being accessed.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk construction.
The applicant has indicated alternative pedestrian trails will be placed within the
subdivision and open spaces to allow connectivity through out the subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for the alternative pedestrian trails to
serve as access in-lieu of sidewalks.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the development of the site with single-family
homes should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. The site is
shown on the City’s Future Land Use Plan for single-family development and the
developers are proposing a development density (1.60 units per acre) consistent
with the land use plan and development patterns in the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with private streets.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an increased
length of a residential cul-de-sac.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow alternative
pedestrian trails in-lieu of sidewalks within the development.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-ZZZZZ
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested variance to allow the development of lots with private streets, the requested
variance to allow an increased length of a residential cul-de-sac and the requested
variance to allow alternative pedestrian trails in-lieu of sidewalks within the
development.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1428-B
NAME: Waters Edge Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located North of David O Dodd Road, East of I-430
DEVELOPER:
H & L Properties, Inc.
505 West Dixon Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Parkway, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 71.668 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 227 FT. NEW STREET: 9,075 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 127, 130, 162, 165 and 214.
2. A variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 28, 42, 95 and 100.
3. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 5, 199 and 200.
BACKGROUND:
A preliminary plat was reviewed and approved for this site in October of 2003. The
applicant proposed to subdivide this 51-acre site into 165 single-family lots. The lots
average sixty-five by one hundred twenty feet or 7,800 square feet in area. The
proposed subdivision was to be developed in three phases with 60 lots in Phase I, 64
lots in Phase II and 41 lots in the final phase.
The applicant proposed the placement of 5,800 linear feet of new public street to serve
the proposed subdivision.
The proposed development required variances from the Subdivision Ordinance related
to lot depth to width ratio, minimum lot depth, minimum lot area and minimum lot width.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
2
The applicant also proposed the placement of a common recreational facility within the
development. The lake area along with two tot lots and a neighborhood center were
proposed as a Conditional Use Permit and were approved as a separate item
(File No. Z-7473) at the Commission’s October 2003, Public Hearing.
On April 22, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a different request for the
subdivision of this 51-acre site into 149 single-family lots. The lots would be developed
in two phases; with 89 lots in the first phase and 60 lots in the second phase. The
proposed preliminary plat indicated an average lot size of 75-feet by 120-feet or 9,000
square feet. The applicant indicated 5,800 linear feet of new street would be added as
a result of the development. The new street would end in a cul-de-sac and not connect
to the existing Shady Brook subdivision. The applicant indicated an emergency gate at
Shady Brook to allow access to the site if an emergency situation were to arise. The
proposed subdivision included a series of trails around the proposed lake area to allow
access of the subdivision residents to the lake area. The proposed subdivision also
included the development of tot lots and green space within the proposed development.
On July 7, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a revision request for the
proposed preliminary plat. The revision included the addition of land area to the
proposed plat. The applicant purchased additional acreage along David O’ Dodd Road
to the west of the subdivision entrance. The applicant indicated the additional land area
allowed them to rework the entrance to the subdivision. The applicant indicated the
development of 156 single-family lots in three phases. The applicant indicated there
was no change to the rear of the proposed subdivision and the previous phasing plan
remained. The previously indicated playground areas, walking trails and water
amenities around the existing lake would remain as were previously proposed and
approved.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved preliminary plat to
add additional land area to the proposed plat. The applicant has purchased an
additional twenty (20) acre of property located along David O’ Dodd Road to the
north and to the east of I-430. The applicant has indicated the additional land
area allows them to gain a second entrance to the subdivision. The applicant
has indicated the development of 227 single-family lots in four phases.
The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 75-feet by 120-feet or 9,000
square feet. The applicant has indicated lots will be developed with a 25-foot
front building line per the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 127, 130, 162, 165 and 214; a
variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 28, 42, 95 and 100; and a variance
to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 5, 199 and 200. The
applicant has indicated 9075 linear feet of new public street will be added as a
result of the new subdivision.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a large pond located near the southern
boundary of the property. The applicant has been issued a permit for
reconstruction of the levee of the pond. The applicant has indicated the existing
pond will be utilized in the proposed development as a recreational area and for
detention.
There is a single-family subdivision located to the south of the site with new
homes being constructed on Sandy Lane. There are also single-family homes
located on David O Dodd Road south of the site. A new single-family subdivision
is under development to the south of the site. The area to the north of the site is
vacant tree covered, as is the area to the east of the site. The area to the west of
the site if also vacant and tree covered with Interstate I-430 located near the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and
Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. David O’ Dodd 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.
Show existing right-of-way for this arterial.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas.
6. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to David O’ Dodd, along
all locations that abut the development, including a 5-foot sidewalk.
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
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
4
additional information.
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. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. There is an existing 12-inch and 16-inch water main that crosses this
property in an existing 20-foot-wide waterline easement being the south 20 feet
of NE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 28, T-1-N, R-13-W. It appears that this water main will
impact several proposed lots. A water main extension will be required in order to
provide service to this property. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted
and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at
the expense of the developer. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development indicating the developers had added additional area
to a site previously approved by the Commission for preliminary platting. Staff
stated there were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.
Staff noted a few of the variances indicated were those previously proposed in
addition to variances added with the new land area.
Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide the source of title of the landowner in the
general notes section of the site plan in addition to the names of owners of all
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
5
platted and unplatted tracts abutting the plat area. Staff also questioned if the
development would provide a second connection to David O’ Dodd Road.
Mr. McGetrick stated the development would have two access point with David
O’ Dodd Road. He stated the second access connection would be made with
Phase IV of the development.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street improvements and
right-of-way would be required along David O’ Dodd where the development
abutted the roadway. Staff stated sidewalks would be required to meet the
current Master Street Plan requirement. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to development and the storm water detention ordinance would
apply to future development. Staff stated all storm water detention facilities
should be included on the plan.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the second connection to David O’ Dodd Road. The applicant has
also indicated additional right-of-way along David O’ Dodd Road to allow
construction to a minor arterial per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has
indicated 9075 linear feet of new public street will be added as a result of the new
subdivision.
The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 75-feet by 120-feet or 9,000
square feet. The applicant has indicated lots will be developed with a 25-foot
front building line per the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has indicated the
development of 71.6 acres with 227 single-family lots resulting in a density of
3.1 units per acre.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 127,
130, 162, 165 and 214, a variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 28, 42, 95
and 100 and a variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 5,
199 and 200. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested variances. The
Subdivision Ordinance typically requires a minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The
applicant has indicated lot depths on the indicated lots ranging from 95-feet to
99-feet. The remainder of the lots meet or exceed the minimum 100-foot depth
requirement. The applicant has indicated a few of the lots with a minimum lot
width of 57-feet. The Subdivision Ordinance typically requires a minimum lot
width of 60-feet. Staff does not feel the reduced lot width will negatively impact
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
6
the developability of the proposed lots. The indicated lots have an increased lot
depth, which allows sufficient area for development. The applicant has also
indicated a variance request to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for
three of the proposed lots. These lots are located adjacent to the entrance to the
subdivision and were previously approved as a variance. Staff continues to
support this variance request.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated the
development of 71.6 acres with 227 new single-family homes. The applicant is
proposing an overall density of 3.1 units per acre consistent with single-family
development per the City’s Future Land Use designation. The applicant has
indicated a pond within the development to serve as detention and an amenity for
the residents. The proposed subdivision will include tot lots, a fishing pier and
trail around the pond to serve as green space for the development.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request and staff feels if the development is constructed as proposed
there should be 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 agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced lot
depth for Lots 127, 130, 162, 165 and 214.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced lot
width for Lots 28, 42, 95 and 100.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an increased lot
depth to width ratio for Lots 5, 199 and 200.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the requests. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented recommendations of approval for the
requested variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lots 127, 130, 162, 165 and 214,
the requested variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 28, 42, 95 and 100 and the
requested variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 5, 199 and
200.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1428-B
7
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1499
NAME: Original City Replat Lots 1R – 3R Block 40
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Capitol Avenue and
Cumberland Street
DEVELOPER:
Central Arkansas Water
221 East Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Surveying
1012 Autumn Road
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.49 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: UU – Urban Use District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 5 - Downtown
CENSUS TRACT: 1
Variance/Waivers: A variance to allow a reduced front building setback.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Central Arkansas Water is requesting a replat of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 40,
Original City of Little Rock to Lots 1R, 2R and 3R in order to accommodate a
proposed Kiosk for the City of Little Police Department to be located at the
Southeast corner of the intersection of Capitol Avenue and Cumberland Avenue.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a zero building line along East
Capitol Avenue. The applicant has indicated there is an existing building located
on the site, which was constructed to the right of way line.
A Conditional Use Permit Application has been filed to allow proposed Lot 2R to
serve as a commercial parking lot. The Commission at their October 13, 2005,
Public Hearing, will hear this application request.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1499
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains an office building and parking. The office building is a
two-story building and was constructed to the right-of-way line. Central Arkansas
Transit Bus Transfer Station is located to the north of the site and there is office
uses located to the south, east and west of the site. There are residential uses
located to the south and southeast of the site along 6th and 7th Streets and to the
northeast of the site at 3rd and Rock Streets and 3rd and Commerce Streets.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners, the MacArthur Park Property Owners Association
and the Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Sidewalks along Cumberland Street with appropriate handicap ramps are
required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the
Master Street Plan.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Provide access locations for Lots 1R, 2R, & 3R. Shared access drives should
be shown on plat.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is
required for Lots 2R and 3R. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414
for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1499
3
CATA: The site is located across the street from the CATA Bus Transfer Station.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed replat indicating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff noted the plat should indicate a zero
building line along Capitol Avenue. Staff also indicated a statement was needed
concerning the floodplain/floodway.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the access points and
drives should center along Capitol Avenue and on Cumberland Street. Staff
stated a cross access easement and a cross parking agreement would be
required to be shown on the final plat. Staff stated sidewalks along Cumberland
Street would be required at the time of construction.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the
September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated a zero building line for the proposed lots as requested by staff. The
applicant has also included the statement indicating the site is not located within
a designated floodplain/floodway. The proposed replat indicates a 20-foot
access and utility easement serving the proposed lots.
Staff is supportive of the proposed replat. The applicant has indicated a replat of
three previously platted lot to reconfigure the lot lines and allow for future
development of one of the indicated lots. The UU Zoning District in this area
typically requires the placement of a 25-foot building setback adjacent to East
Capitol Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a zero building
setback adjacent to East Capitol Avenue. The Paragon Building is existing and
was constructed to the street right-of-way. The applicant has also indicated the
new building will also be constructed to the street right-of-way to match the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1499
4
existing block face. Staff is supportive of this request. Staff does not feel this will
have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties.
The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 2R to serve as a commercial parking
lot. A Conditional Use Permit Application has been filed to allow the proposed lot
to serve as a commercial parking lot and will be heard by the Commission at their
October 13, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff recommends the Conditional Use Permit
to allow Lot 2R to serve as a commercial parking lot also be a condition of this
approval.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced front
building setback along East Capitol Avenue.
A CUP to allow proposed Lot 2R to serve as a commercial parking lot must be
obtained.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H
of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested variance to allow a reduced front building setback along East Capitol Avenue.
Staff conditioned the recommendation of approval on a CUP to allow proposed Lot 2R
to serve as a commercial parking lot be obtained prior to final platting.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1042-NN
NAME: Villages of Wellington Repat Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19
LOCATION: Located North of Wellington Village Road at Bristol Court
DEVELOPER:
Winrock Development Company
2222 Cottondale Lane
Little Rock, AR 72203
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.10
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance to allow a reduced side yard set back (5-feet) and a variance to allow a
reduced rear yard set back (20-feet) (Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19).
BACKGROUND:
On October 16, 2003, a preliminary plat was approved by the Little Rock Planning
Commission to develop 73 single-family homes on a 25.7-acre parcel. The applicant
proposed 54 of the lots to be developed as garden style patio homes with reduced front,
side and rear yard setbacks while the remaining 19 lots were to be developed without
any reduced setbacks. The average lot sizes proposed was 60-feet by 120-feet and 85-
feet by 130-feet. There would be 3,930 linear feet of new street constructed as a part of
the development. The applicant proposed a density of 2.8 units per acre.
The applicant requested variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development to include reduced front, rear and side yard setbacks. The applicant
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1042-NN
2
requested a variance to allow Lots 2 – 26 of Block 19 and Lots 1 – 19 of Block 20 to
have a reduced front yard building line of 20-feet and a reduced rear yard setback of
20-feet. The applicant also requested a variance to allow Lots 10-13, 15-17, 25-26
Block 19 to have an increased lot depth to width ratio. The applicant requested a
variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for the Garden Style Homes located on
Bristol Court (Lots 2-26 Block 19 and Lots 1-19 Block 20) of 5-feet. The request also
included the classification of Bristol Court as a minor residential street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The developer is requesting a replat to allow a reduced side and rear yard
setback for four of the previously platted lots (Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19). As
indicated, the development was previously approved with a reduced front
building line adjacent to a collector street (25-feet). The applicant has indicated
the developer is proposing to develop the site with patio homes with reduced side
and rear yard setbacks. The developer has indicated the original assumption
was to develop these homes similar to lots in this block of the subdivision and felt
the variance requests were approved with the original application. After review, it
has been determined these variance requests were not a part of the original
application and the applicant is now requesting the variance to allow continuity in
the development pattern of the area.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced side yard set back
(5-feet) and a variance to allow a reduced rear yard set back (20-feet)
(Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is being developed with new single-family homes. The lots being
requested for replatting remain vacant and tree covered. The area to the west is
vacant and was formerly the pasture for the Shackleford Dairy. The site is zoned
R-2, single-family as is the area to the east and north. The area to the west of
the site is developed as the Carrington Park Apartments and the area south of
the site is zoned R-3, single-family and is currently vacant. The area to the
southeast has been preliminary platted and infrastructure improvements are
currently underway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The St. Charles Neighborhood Association, the Parkway Place Property Owners
Association and all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1042-NN
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment.
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 information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located along a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request to the Committee members. 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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1042-NN
4
H. ANALYSIS:
As indicated previously there were no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request to address from the September 8, 2005, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The developer is requesting a replat to the proposed lots to
allow a reduced side and rear yard setback for four of the previously platted lots
(Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19). The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a
reduced side yard set back (5-feet) and a variance to allow a reduced rear yard
set back (20-feet). The development was previously approved and final platted
with a reduced front building line adjacent to a collector street (25-feet).
The applicant has indicated the developer is proposing to develop the site with
patio homes with reduced side and rear yard setbacks similar to lots in this block.
The original application included a similar variance request to allow the
development of homes with a range of housing styles and setbacks to eliminate
the cookie cutter approach. The applicant has indicated the variance request for
these lots would allow for continuity in the development pattern of the area and
carry on the present housing development pattern.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff does not feel the reduced
setbacks will negatively impact the adjoining homes since the development
pattern in the area is similar to the request. The applicant has proposed to
develop this portion of the subdivision with patio homes with reduced setbacks to
allow larger homes and less outdoor living space. Staff does not feel this will
negatively impact the area since there is a neighborhood park located very near
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 agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced side
yard set back (5-feet) and a variance to allow a reduced rear yard set back
(20-feet) for Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19 of the Wellington Village Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested variance to allow a reduced side yard set back (5-feet) and a variance to
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1042-NN
5
allow a reduced rear yard set back (20-feet) for Lots 27R – 30R, Block 19 of the
Wellington Village Subdivision.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1502
NAME: Inman Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 5300 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Kathleen Inmon
2820 Reservoir Road
Little Rock, AR 72227
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 – I-630
CENSUS TRACT: 19
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance to allow a reduced number of required parking spaces.
2. A variance to allow reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks.
3. A variance to allow signage without public street frontage.
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the November 10, 2005, Public Hearing to
resolve outstanding issues associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item indicating they were requesting the item be deferred to the
November 10, 2005, Public Hearing to resolve outstanding issues associated with the
request.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1502
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: LU05-02-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Rodney Parham Planning District
Location: West of Shackleford Road, between Markham Street and
Maralynn Road.
Request: Single Family and Office to Community Shopping
Source: Tom Chambers
The applicant has requested a deferral to the November 10, 2005 Hearing. Staff
supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
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.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7.1 FILE NO.: Z-3419-B
NAME: Beverly Hills Place Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Beverly Hills Drive and
Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
A Cut Above Properties, LLC
302 Shackleford Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Chambers Construction Company
55 Marcella Drive
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.648 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and O-3, General Office District
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and General Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, Shopping Center District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 8, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 8, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the November 10,
2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s deferral
request.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-B
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
NAME: Stubblefield Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1400 Bishop Street
DEVELOPER:
Willene Stubblefield
1400 Bishop Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: .17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: General and Professional Office uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: 2-chair beauty salon, General and Professional Office
and Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On February 20, 1990, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 15,820 rezoning
the property located at 1400 S. Bishop Street from R-3, Single-family to PCD. The
approved PCD was to allow a barbershop, which would utilize approximately 800
square feet of the 1800 square foot building, with the entrance from West 14th Street.
The remainder of the house was to be utilized for living quarters, with an entrance from
Bishop Street. The site plan included eight parking spaces.
Ordinance No. 18,046 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 6, 1999,
revoked the PCD zoning and established a Planned Office Development titled Carter
Short-form POD. The approval allowed for the entire building to be utilized as office
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
2
space. The applicant proposed to have a mortgage office within a portion of the
building and future general/professional office in the remainder of the structure. No
exterior modifications were proposed to the building or parking area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved POD to allow
approximately 800 square feet of the structure to be used as a two-chair beauty
salon. The applicant has indicated the remainder of the structure would be her
residence or in the future leased for general and professional office uses. The
applicant has indicated the business will employ three total employees including
the applicant. The applicant has stated services to be provided are typical hair
care services.
The applicant has indicated within the structure there will be a reception area,
office, break area and supply area. The salon will have three wet stations, three
shampoo bowls, four hair dryers, sterilizers and sanitizers. The applicant has
indicated the business expects to serve approximately 25 persons per week and
operate five days per week. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of
operation will be from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Tuesday through Saturday and
occasionally after the indicated hours by appointment only.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains an 1800 square foot structure with a residential
appearance and a parking area for seven vehicles in the rear of the building,
which is accessed from an existing alleyway to the south. There is one parking
space located on the east side of the building, accessed from Bishop Street.
There is vacant C-3, General Commercial District zoned property located to the
north across West 14th Street, with the Children’s Hospital South Campus and
the former Immanuel Baptist Church located further north. The Westside Junior
High School residential lofts are located to the northwest. There are single-family
residences across the alley to the west, across Bishop Street to the east and to
the south.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed request. Many have not indicated an
objection to the placement of a beauty salon on the site. The Central High
Neighborhood Association and the Downtown Neighborhood Association, along
with all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who
could be identified located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. 3/4-inch is the largest diameter meter
available off the existing water main. 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. Contact CAW at 501-372-5161 and request that the account be changed
to a commercial account if this change takes place.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Route #11 – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision to an existing planned development to use an existing
structure as a hair salon. Since this is a revision to a planned development using
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
4
an existing structure it should not have a significant impact on the land use plan,
requiring an amendment.
Master Street Plan: Bishop Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master
Street Plan and Daisy Bates Drive is shown as a Collector. The primary function
of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. The primary
function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to
Arterials. Both streets may 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.
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: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request that would need addressing prior to moving
forward to the Commission. Staff requested the applicant provide the days and
hours of operation. Staff stated the cover letter indicated five days per week and
requested the applicant provide the days the salon would operate. Staff also
indicated the structure contained 1,800 square feet and questioned if the
applicant would utilize the entire space or if a portion of the site would be leased
in the future for office space.
Public Works comments were noted. Staff stated any broken curb or gutter
would require replacement prior to occupancy.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and 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 September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the days and hours of operation from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Tuesday
through Saturday. The applicant has also indicated approximately 800 square
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
5
feet of the structure will be utilized as the beauty salon and the remainder of the
structure will be utilized as her home. The applicant has requested as an
allowable future use of the structure, a portion or all of the structure be utilized as
general and professional office uses.
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved POD to allow
approximately 800 square feet of the structure to be used as a two-chair beauty
salon. The site contains seven parking spaces. The typical parking required for
the development based on an 800 square foot beauty salon and a 1,000 square
foot office use would be five parking spaces. The indicated parking is adequate
to meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The applicant has indicated the business will employ three total employees
including the applicant. The applicant has stated services to be provided are
typical hair care services. The applicant has indicated within the structure there
will be a reception area, office, break area and supply area. The salon will have
three wet stations, three shampoo bowls, four hair dryers, sterilizers and
sanitizers. The applicant has indicated the business expects to serve
approximately 25 persons per week and operate five days per week. As
previously stated, the applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation will
be from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Tuesday through Saturday and occasionally after the
indicated hours by appointment only. Staff is supportive of the indicated days
and hours of operation.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant is proposing to revise
a previously approved POD to allow the placement of a beauty salon on the site.
Staff feels the POD zoning classification is more appropriate for the site than a
PCD zoning classification. A beauty salon is an allowable use under the O-3,
General Office District zoning classification as a Conditional Use Permit. Since
the majority of the structure will be utilized as a residential or office use with the
salon a secondary use to the site, staff feels this zoning classification is the best
fit.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff does not feel the redevelopment of the site as a beauty
salon will have an adverse 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, F and H of the above agenda staff report.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5223-C
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H
of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-5311-A
NAME: Verizon Wireless Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 14309 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
c/o Wooden, Fulton and Scarborough
737 Market Street, Suite 1620
Chattanooga, TN 37402
ENGINEER:
Excell Communications, Inc.
6247 Amber Hills Road
Birmingham, AL 35173
AREA: 2.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-3, General Commercial District
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses and the addition
of a cellular tower
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with the requested additional information from the
September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item indicating the applicant had failed to provide staff with the requested
additional information from the September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting.
Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the November 10, 2005,
Public Hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5311-A
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
NAME: Marchant and Reese Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 700 South Cedar Street
DEVELOPER:
Rush and Company, Inc.
577 Valley Club Circle
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.83 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C
ALLOWED USES: Hotel
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,287 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 6, 2000,
established a Planned Zoning District for the Bed and Breakfast Inn located on the
southwest corner of West 7th Street and South Cedar Street. The proposal included the
construction of a 26,426 square foot 60 room hotel with approximately 34 on-site
parking spaces. The site was approved for a reduced number of on-site parking spaces
but required the applicant to secure a long-term lease with UAMS for an additional 32
parking spaces. The site plan was approved with two (2) sign locations; a four foot
high, 24 square foot monument-type sign along West 7th Street and a 30 foot high, 130
square foot maximum ground-mounted sign at the southwest corner of the property.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
2
On March 20, 2003, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a one-year time
extension for the submission of the final development plan. Per Section 36-454(e), the
applicant is to file a final development plan within three (3) years of the date of the
ordinance approving the preliminary plan. As per the same Section, the applicant may
request from the Planning Commission an extension of not more than three (3) years.
The applicant stated the hotel’s ground breaking had been slowed somewhat due to
economic reasons and the unexpected passing of one of the partners in the venture.
The applicant stated the additional one-year time extension would insure the time
necessary to begin construction. That extension has expired and construction on the
new hotel has not commenced.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision of the current PD-C zoning to allow the
site to develop with PD-R zoning. The applicant has indicated the existing
apartment units located on the site will be rehabilitated and marketed as rental
units. The applicant has indicated the property consists of two tracts of land; one
located at the corner of Cedar Street and West 7th Street, which is used for
parking by UAMS; and the second, which is located at the corner of Elm Street
and West 7th Street, which has two multi-family apartment buildings with 20 units
and 26 parking spaces.
According to the applicant, the property is being remodeled and purchased by
Rush and Company, Inc. The sixteen two bedroom/1 bath townhouse units will
all be painted, have drywall repair, new heating and cooling units installed,
electrical repairs and required plumbing repairs and required, new flooring
lighting, countertops and new appliances will be installed. The four 1 bedroom
efficiency units will be painted, drywall repairs will be made, new heating and air
conditioning equipment will be installed, plumbing repairs as needed, new
flooring, lighting, countertops and appliances will be installed.
The applicant has indicated the exterior repairs will consist of new siding,
ironwork, entrance doors, replace wood soffits, storage doors, and repair all entry
trim. The applicant has indicated exterior finish work will consist of new asphalt
overlay of the parking lot, parking lot striping, landscaping and signage.
According to the applicant, UAMS has plans to purchase a portion of the property
located near the corner of West 7th and Cedar Streets. The applicant has
indicated this area would be used by UAMS as parking or be redesigned to allow
for a grand entrance into the hospital site.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two buildings of multi-family housing, which have been boarded
for several years. Asphalt parking is located to the east and west of the
buildings. UAMS and the VA Hospitals are located to the north and northwest of
the site. To the northeast of the site are single-family homes accessed from
Cedar Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received only informational phone calls from area
residents and nearby property owner. The Capitol View Stifft Station
Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners located within 200-feet
of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the
site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment.
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 regarding procedure for reestablishing service to this property. Due to the
nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This
assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water
(CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the
assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the
State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually
thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss
backflow prevention requirements for this project.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
4
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Public / Institutional for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision to an exiting PCD to allow for rehabilitation of existing
apartment buildings on site. Since this proposal will utilize an existing building,
and will be in character with its historic use, a Plan Amendment is not necessary.
Master Street Plan: 7th Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street
Plan and Cedar is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a Local Street is
to provide access to adjacent properties. A Collector street’s primary purpose is
to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Cedar Street is a
southbound one-way street, part of the Pine - Cedar Street couplet. 7th Street
may 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.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is
located in an area covered by the Capitol View-Stifft’s Station neighborhood
action plan. The Private Investment goal is to promote private investment in the
neighborhood. Several action statements relate to maintaining low intensity uses
at the eastern edge of the UAMS campus near the neighborhood. The
Infrastructure goal states a desire to develop and promote investment in the area
stating specific objectives relating to infrastructure improvement. In the event
that development should occur at this site street, sidewalk, drainage, and
landscaping improvements could improve the area character and safety.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were few outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff noted the development would be
required to provide all the required on-site parking. Staff stated the current
proposal only included the placement of 26-on-site parking spaces. Staff stated
a development with 20 units would typically require the placement of 30 on-site
parking spaces. Staff also questioned the immediate plans for the eastern
portion of the site. The applicant indicated the owners were in negotiations with
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
5
UAMS and the area could potentially be sold to UAMS for their use. The
applicant stated there were two possible uses for the area; a grand entrance to
the hospital properties or as parking.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and the committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has provided staff with the requested information from the
September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the site will provide the total number of on-site parking spaces to serve
the development. The applicant has indicated 26 parking spaces along the
western side of the building and four additional spaces will be provided along the
eastern side of the building. The applicant has also indicated a portion of the
eastern side of the property will be subdivided to allow for future sale to UAMS.
The applicant has indicated UAMS will then utilize the property entirely as
parking or, at a point in the future, utilize a portion of the area for a grand
entrance into their campus. A component of the grand entrance would be
signage to identify the campus. Staff is supportive of the proposed uses and
conceptual development plan for the site.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to amend the existing PD-C to PD-R
to allow the existing apartment buildings to be rehabilitated. The site contains
two apartment buildings with a total of 20 units; 16 two-bedroom units and
4 one-bedroom efficiency units. The applicant has indicated renovations will be
completed to “bring the units up to code” and place additional housing stock in
the area. In addition, the applicant has indicated the existing parking areas will
be resurfaced and striped to improve the appearance of the site.
Currently no landscaped areas exist on the site. Typically when a building
rehabilitation is undertaken and there is a fifty percent expenditure on the
rehabilitation based on current construction cost for new development, a
landscaping upgrade equal to the expansion is required. Staff recommends if the
rehabilitation cost do not trigger the upgrade requirement that a 50 percent
upgrade in landscaping be required to assist in improving the overall appearance
of the site. Staff will work with the applicant in the placement of the landscaped
areas to ensure the new landscaping provides the desired visual appeal.
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to revise the
previously approved PD-C to allow a PD-R zoning classification on the site. Staff
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809-A
6
feels the rehabilitation of the existing structures and parking area and the
addition of landscaping to the site should have a positive impact on the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends that a 50 percent upgrade in landscaping be required, with
staff to work with the applicant to determine placement of the new landscaping.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H
of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation that a 50 percent
upgrade in landscaping be required, with staff to work with the applicant to determine
placement of the new landscaping.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7917
NAME: Verizon Wireless Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 12018 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Verizon Wireless
c/o Ellen Hancock
750 State Highway 121 Bypass, Suite 100
Lewisville, TX 75067
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial District uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses and a sign without public
street frontage to be located along the western façade of the building.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at 12018 Chenal Parkway has recently been divided into
two individual retail spaces, to be leased independently, and according to the
applicant the current sign allowances provide limited visibility for tenants leasing
the west side of the property. The applicant is requesting a “variance” from
Section 36-349 of the Little Rock code to allow additional signage to be placed
on the west wall of the building.
According to the applicant, additional signage would fall within the code
requirement for size and dimensions currently provided for wall signage
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917
2
(10 percent of the building façade) and would be displayed in addition to the front
wall sign. The applicant has indicated the total sign area will not exceed
240 square feet and the “V” being the largest letter with a maximum height of
57 inches.
The applicant has indicated the current code regarding the Chenal/Financial
Center Design Overlay was enacted in order to protect and enhance the
aesthetic and visual character of the lands surrounding Chenal Parkway and
Financial Center Parkway, while creating a well-designed urban corridor. The
applicant has indicated the elements are best supported with the proposed
variance, especially when viewing the blank wall to the west and its visual
location in regard to the overlay area. The applicant has indicated due to a ten to
twelve foot retaining wall to the west of the site, the wall is viewable for a
substantial distance along eastbound Chenal Parkway and is a focal point for the
area. The applicant has indicated as a blank wall, the site is obtrusive and out of
place. The applicant has also indicated the proposed signage would better align
the space with other properties in the Overlay, producing a consistent visual flow
for the area, especially when compared with previous tenants. The applicant has
indicated the signage would also eliminate the appearance of vacant or industrial
property. The applicant has indicated in their opinion the additional signage
would offer better support to the overlay plan that the current configuration, and
is considered to be as important as front signage, if not more so for the business.
The applicant has indicated the drop to the west of the site also reduces visibility
of both the monument sign and front signage for the site from the west. The
applicant has indicated trees and shrubs also magnify the problem. The
applicant has indicated the western wall provides a logical choice for signage,
especially to support traffic on eastbound Chenal Parkway and north and
southbound Westhaven Drive. The applicant has indicated with the blank wall
the site appears to be vacant, or non-retail oriented.
The applicant has indicated although more level, visibility of the west half of the
building from the east approach and front view is also moderately limited, due to
the adjacent landscaping and location of the neighboring improvements. The
applicant has indicated this adds to customer frustration while driving and may
lead to traffic concerns, which can be reduced or eliminated with the use of both
a front and side building sign.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant commercial building currently being renovated into
two spaces. There are a number of commercial and office uses located in the
area. There is a bank located to the east of the site on the corner of Bowman
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917
3
Road and Chenal Parkway and a big box retail development located across
Chenal Parkway to the south. To the west and northwest of the site are
restaurant uses.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Parkway Place Property Owners Association, the Gibralter Height/Point
West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners
located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified
located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment.
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: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA 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 rezoning from C-3 to PCD to allow for the placement of a sign on an
existing Commercial Building. The proposed sign does not meet the
requirements of the Chenal Parkway Overlay. This request does not require a
change to the Land Use Plan.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917
4
Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway 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. The site is currently partly accessed by a shared driveway
and additional curb cuts may not be necessary. Chenal Parkway may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown along the Chenal Parkway corridor and
remains undeveloped. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a
road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and
Commercial Development goal seeks to maintain the residential integrity of the
neighborhood with an objective and action statement noting that new
development should adhere to the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed
development will be in a vacant commercial building shown as Commercial on
the plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request to the
Committee members indicating there were few outstanding issues associated
with the request. Staff stated they would contact the applicant individually to
resolve any issues, which remained prior to the Commission meeting. There was
no further discussion of the item and the Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues remaining from the September 8, 2005, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The applicant’s proposal includes the placement of a sign
without public street frontage. The applicant is proposing to place a sign along
the western wall of the existing building. The applicant has indicated a total sign
area of 240 square feet with a maximum letter height of 57-inches. The applicant
has indicated the total sign area will be 74-inches by 466-inches.
The applicant has indicated signage will be located on the front of the building
totaling 138-square feet with a maximum sign area of 4.75-feet by 29-feet. The
site contains a single monument sign, which is 8-feet in height and 100 square
feet in area. As stated previously the building is currently being converted into
two lease spaces, which will share the monument sign.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917
5
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. Typically the ordinance does
not allow signage without public street frontage and staff does not feel the
indicated signage is appropriate for a scenic corridor. Staff would however
support an identification sign not to exceed fifty square feet in area located along
the western façade of the building. The applicant has indicated the additional
signage is necessary to attract westbound traffic. Staff feels placement of the
limited signage will meet the applicant’s desire while maintaining the appearance
of the corridor. Chenal Parkway is a Scenic Corridor and staff feels this area
should be protected. The Financial Center/Chenal Parkway Design Overlay
District deals with only two issues; one related to overhead utility lines and the
other signage. Staff feels the DOD should be protected and limit the number of
signs allowed along the parkway.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request.
Ms. Ellen Hancock addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. She stated
the staff had offered a comprise to the request for the allowance of a 50 square foot
sign. She stated this would not allow the visibility necessary for the proposed
development. She stated the wall was thirty five feet tall and the placement of a sign
with such limited height and area would be out of character for the building. She stated
there were other businesses in the area which did have signage along the side façade
which did not have public street frontage. She stated the building was different than
most along the parkway due to the height of the wall and the grade of the site.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated she was not sure the additional signage would add to the landscaping in the
area. She stated the developers had a choice to rent or not to rent the site. She stated
the area was a scenic corridor which dealt with limited issues one of which signage.
She stated she felt the DOD should be protected and the requested additional signage
not be allowed.
Ms. Hancock presented the Commission with visual aids to indicate three various sign
areas and how they fit the character of the building. She stated her company would be
agreeable to the placement of signage limited to 100 square feet in area along the
western façade. She stated the company was very conscious of the scenic corridor and
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7917
6
this was one of the reasons the company picked the location. She stated the company
wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want the signage looming over the area.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed signage and what would be
acceptable. The Commission and Ms. Hancock discussed branding and the impact
branding had on the draw of customers. She stated branding was an important aspect
of marketing but was not the only aspect of marketing. She stated based on the current
market study the location was acceptable with or without the signage. She stated the
company had signed a lease agreement and if the additional signage was not secured
the company would consider a shorter term lease.
The Commission discussed the visual aids provided by Ms. Hancock indicating they felt
the one hundred square foot sign was proportional and allowed for sufficient visibility.
Ms. Hancock requested to amend her application request to limit the signage request to
one hundred square feet of signage located along the western façade of the building.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote
of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: LU05-17-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Crystal Valley Planning District
Location: Northwest corner of Stagecoach and Crystal Valley Roads
Request: Single Family to Commercial and Park / Open Space
Source: Robert McFarlane
The applicant has requested a deferral to the November 10, 2005 Hearing. Staff
supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
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.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 12.1 FILE NO.: Z-7918
NAME: Crystal Valley Crossing Long-form PCD
LOCATION: 8424 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
WM Fitzs
8424 Stagecoach Road
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek parkway, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-2, Shopping Center District and R-2, Single-family District
ALLOWED USES: Shopping Center District and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a letter dated September 14, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 14, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November
10, 2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s deferral
request.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7918
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - East Little Rock Planning District
Location: Between 2nd Street and the Arkansas River, near Bond Avenue
Request: Park / Open Space to Mixed Use
Source: Ron Tabor
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the East Little Rock Planning District from Park /
Open Space to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category 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 applicant wishes to construct commercial activities, apartments, and
a marina on the site. Staff has expanded the area to include lands west of the
application to allow for future redevelopment of existing properties.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The application area is mostly vacant, currently zoned UU, I-3, R-4, and C-3 and
parallels the south side of the Arkansas River. The C-3 land is developed with a
Fraternal Order of Police Building. Southeast of the property is vacant land
zoned I-3 and further southeast is land zoned PR and developed with
recreational facilities. South of the application is land zoned R-4 and is
characterized as having several single family homes (vacant, occupied, and
dilapidated), some vacant lots, and non conforming industrial and commercial
uses. Also south of the application of the property are several small parcels of
land zoned I-3, I-2, C-3, either vacant or developed with light industrial uses
nestled in the R-4 zoned area. Southeast of the application are lands zoned UU
and developed with several large manufacturing firms, bottling facilities, and light
industrial uses. Also southwest of the application is land zoned POD for the
Heifer International Headquarters complex. Immediacy west of the application
area is additional UU zoned land developed with state offices followed by PR
zoning developed with the Presidential Library and Park.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 18, 2003, multiple changes were made surrounding this application as
a result of the East of I-30 Study. This study resulted in a variety of amendments
in the area to Commercial, Mixed Use Urban, Light Industrial, Low Density
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
2
Residential, and Park Open Space, Public Institutional. Lands immediately
south of the application were changed from Public Institutional, Multifamily,
Park/Open Space, and Single Family to Low Density Residential. Additional
changes were made southwest of the application area from Industrial to Mixed
Use Urban.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Bond is a collector. 3rd Street and 2nd Street are all shown as Local Streets on
the Master Street Plan. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local
Streets and activity centers to Arterials. 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. The applicant has indicated
additional street improvements will be made in the area, consistent with the
Master Street Plan. The applicant has proposed an extension of World Avenue
to Connect with Bond Avenue near the present day Bond Avenue - 6th Street
Intersection.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class I bikeway is shown paralleling the Arkansas River through this site. This
class I bikeway is part of the River Trail System that is currently under
construction west of the site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or
alongside a road and additional paving and right of way may be required. The
East of I-30 study recommends a Class II bikeway should be located on the 3rd
Street Extension. 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.
PARKS:
This application is located in the East District, which has a goal of improving the
condition of existing parks. South of the property is the East Little Rock Park, a
30 acre Community Park complete with playgrounds, basketball courts, baseball
fields, a community center, and pool. West of the property is the William
Jefferson Clinton Presidential Park, another large Community Park, 27 acres in
size. This park fronts the Arkansas River west of the Presidential Center, and is
linked to the nearby River Market District by a pedestrian walkway. The
community park has connections to the nearby Medical Mile (currently under
construction), the Riverfront Amphitheatre, and Riverfront Park. The Parks and
Recreation Master plan shows the proposed “Take it to the Edge” through this
property that will follow the Arkansas River levee and serves as a regional
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
3
recreation trail. Already, land has been dedicated by nearby developments for
this trail. The proposed "Take it to the Edge" trail would link areas to the east and
west that are presently developed or lands owned by the City for the trail.
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:
This application is in an area that was once a vibrant single family neighborhood
adjacent to an industrial and warehousing area. A loss of population and an
increase in industrial activity over recent decades has caused the neighborhood
to decline. The end result has been some disinvestment in the existing housing
stock leading to several unsafe and vacant structures, teardowns, and vacant
lots. With the recent completion of the Clinton Presidential Center and Park, the
current construction of the Heifer International headquarters, and growth in the
nearby River Market District, redevelopment of and reinvestment in existing
properties is anticipated which may result in a vibrant neighborhood once again.
Signs of speculation have recently occurred within this neighborhood as several
properties have been listed for sale.
South of this site is East 6th Street, which is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan indicates a new alignment of East 6th
Street at Bond Avenue that will connect with World Avenue near Heifer
International, the Presidential Center, and 3rd Avenue. The applicant has
indicated that they will construct a portion of this street to provide access to the
site. At the present time the missing link between the two existing streets is
approximately 600 feet. This proposed street will provide a connection to the
Mixed Use area to downtown passing by the new Heifer International complex as
well as the Presidential Park and Library
Phase II of the River Rail project will add additional trolley service between the
Presidential Center and Park and Heifer International connecting it to the existing
system. Tracks are partly in place on 3rd Street adjacent to the Presidential Park
and completion is expected within a year. This will result in a trolley line
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
4
relatively close to the proposed Mixed Use area. Future plans for rail expansion
indicate a rail connection to the airport, which could increase the amount
pedestrian and transit traffic in the area.
A majority of this amendment area is located on the wet side of the levee and
has traditionally been recognized as Park / Open Space. The Master Parks Plan
has recognized that this Park Open Space area will facilitate the “Take it to the
Edge Trail.” Development of a Mixed Use area in the Park Open Space area
could disrupt plans for a future trail connection through the area. However, the
applicant has indicated that an Open Space strip will follow the levee, which
could serve as a trail corridor through the site to facilitate the “Take it to the Edge
Trail.” This Open Space strip will allow for connections between park areas east
and west of the site. Staff had expanded the Mixed Use area to the west and
has carried on the similar Park Open Space strip pattern proposed for this
development.
The addition of Mixed Use to this area could be more appropriate than the
existing Park Open/Space. The Mixed Use area will decrease the amount of
public lands shown on the Arkansas River Water front but could lead to quality
design that could incorporate an open space element into any development on
the site. This Mixed Use area could also introduce commercial, office, and high
density residential to the waterfront. Staff has concerns about the introduction of
private use adjacent to the waterfront. Over the last decades the city has
envisioned the Arkansas River as an icon to the city and has envisioned a public
waterfront for all. Not only would developments in the Mixed Use area
compliment one another, an intricate public right of way system could be
established through individual developments maintaining the city’s goal of
providing access to the Arkansas River waterfront.
The Park Open Space strip would not only serve as an east-west parks
connection, but could serve as a buffer from the Mixed Use area and the Low
Density Residential area to the south. Since a PZD is required within the Mixed
Use category proposed developments would be subject to more stringent review
and a public hearing. This additional level of review could lead to quality
developments linking the traditional Low Density Residential area to the Mixed
Use Urban areas and the Public Institutional areas. It is important to assure that
development is compatible with adjacent land uses, especially the nearby Low
Density Residential area. With numerous employment opportunities area, the
short commute to downtown, and new development the entire area can be
considered a prime area for future redevelopment.
Since this Mixed Use area will be located in an area originally planned for future
parks and recreation use, an internal trail system could compliment the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
5
development and connect it to nearby recreation areas. This internal trail
system could connect individual elements of any project with each other, and
nearby elements. The Presidential Park is less than 500 feet west of the
application area and the Carver school is less than 100 feet southeast of the
application area and could be easily connected to new development in the
proposed Mixed Use area. The current design of the River Trail system
meanders from west of downtown, to an area just west of this application. This
trail passes through several activity nodes along the way that include Riverfront
Park, the River Market, the River Market Pavilion, and the presidential library.
The “node concept” could be continued through the Mixed Use area and include
links to the proposed marina and other activities. Not only does this trail pass
through park activities, it also connects nearby residences and businesses with
the conveniences of the downtown, public facilities, and activities on the river.
This “node trend” could be carried on as the River Trail approaches additional
activity centers to the east.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notice was sent out to the following neighborhood Associations: River Market
Neighborhood Association, East Little Rock Neighborhood Association, Hanger
Hill Neighborhood Association, Downtown Neighborhood Association, and
MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate because it will allow for new
development in East Little Rock, compliment nearby uses, and could serve as a
catalyst for additional area development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
Mr. Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the Land Use Plan in the area. The
importance of the trail connection was addressed which is part of the City Parks
Plan. A brief review of the neighborhoods history and recent changes in the area
were outlined. Mr. Malone indicated Staff believed and hoped that with a change
to Mixed Use and inclusion of a trail connection in the design would help
strengthen the neighborhood. (Donna James of Planning Staff next reviewed the
PZD application for the site.)
Ms. Ruth Bell of the League of Woman Voters indicated that the ‘league’ felt at
least half the area (two acres) should be left in true, park or open space use
rather than allowing development of the entire area.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-06-02
6
Mr. Ron Tabor, representative of the developer, indicated that the marina use
was a type of open space use, further that a path with either hard surface or
boardwalk would be a part of the development.
For a complete review of the discussion see the Item 13.1 minute record.
By a vote of 9 for, 0 against the Planning Commission recommended approved
of the Land Use Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Mixed Use.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 13.1 FILE NO.: Z-7919
NAME: Lighthouse Point Long-form PCD
LOCATION: North of East 3rd Street, East of Bond Street
DEVELOPER:
Irwin Partners, LLC
1701 Centerview Drive, Suite 201
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Carter and Burgess Engineers
10816 Executive Center Drive, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 12.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two Family
ALLOWED USES: Two Family District
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development, Commercial, Marina
and Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The area of Lighthouse Point is 12.67 acres – 3.71 acres owned by the City of
Little Rock would be leased from the City, and 8.958 acres owned by VGH Inc.,
LLC. The applicant proposes to construct a mixed used development containing
apartments, commercial, a marina and a public boat launch ramp. The
apartments at Lighthouse Point will occupy 4.5 acres; the restaurant, public
launch ramp, and marina, 5.0 acres; the retail facility 1.5 acres; and the surface
parking areas will occupy 1.67 acres.
The applicant has indicated there is no full service marina on the Arkansas River,
and there is only one public launch ramp on the south bank in the Little
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
2
Rock/North Little Rock reach of the river. The applicant has indicated the City of
Little Rock has been trying to create a marina and supportive facilities in the
River Market area since 1996. With the proposed development of Lighthouse
Point, according to the developer, that vision will become a reality.
The applicant has indicated a 206-covered slip Marina at Lighthouse Point to
provide both public and private access to boat slips, dockage, storage and
launching. The applicant has indicated amenities include a ship’s store, fueling
facility, pubic launch ramp and boardwalk. The applicant has also indicated there
will be covered and uncovered slips and transient moorage that will be able to
support 336 boats.
The applicant has indicated the design of the facility will conform to the riverbank,
so that the navigation channel is not obstructed. The applicant has indicated the
existing dikes and revetment in the area for fishing piers and transient moorage
slips without diminishing their function for the waterway.
The applicant has indicated river-accessible restaurants will provide both Little
Rock and the surrounding area with an upscale, profitable venue that’s
accessible from the river to draw the community to the River Market District and
Alltel Arena. The applicant has indicated it will complement the full-service
marina, Clinton Presidential Library and the Heifer Project Headquarters sites
and will provide a unique dining experience for visitors whether they choose to
eat inside or on the large deck.
The applicant has indicated there is also an opportunity for the restaurant
operator to develop specific conferencing space at the restaurant to serve the
needs in the area, as well as the Clinton Presidential Library and Heifer Project.
The applicant has indicated the development will contain 9,000 square feet of
freestanding retail space. The shops at Lighthouse Point will bring boutique or
specialty shops to the area. The applicant has indicated after a full day of
boating, shopping, fabulous food and entertainment, home could be just a few
steps away. The applicant has indicated two hundred twenty (220) upscale
apartments constructed upon a one-level parking deck to provide comfortable
living accommodations with beautiful view and easy access to downtown. The
applicant has indicated the residents of the apartments will enjoy the amenities of
suburban living with the convenience of the City’s financial and business districts,
the River Market area, hotels and Alltel Arena.
The developers are also requesting the City’s support in the development of an
east/west corridor that will provide adequate public access from the site and the
current downtown and River Market districts across the south side of the Clinton
Presidential Park property and around the Heifer Project’s Headquarters. The
applicant has indicated the new corridor will provide access for visitors to the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
3
Clinton Presidential Library and Heifer Project Headquarters and provide vehicles
pulling boats on trailers easy access to the marina and public launch ramp,
residents direct access to their apartments, and customers a route to the
restaurant and shopping. The applicant has indicated the corridor will enhance
the east/west access for current residents and businesses in the area and
improve the image and safety of the area with appropriate lighting and
streetscapes. The applicant has indicated the road will have two lanes, with a
median that could accommodate a light rail system. The applicant has indicated
not only will the corridor benefit current developments in the area, but it also
would help pave the way for future developments in the area ranging from
residential to recreational to a direct transportation link with the airport.
The applicant has indicated the Developer is requesting the City of Little Rock to
form a Redevelopment District (the “TIF”) that will encompass only the property
within the Lighthouse Point development, including sites for the apartment
project, restaurant, retail market, public launch ramp, and full service marina.
The applicant has indicated the corridor would be developed and constructed
with financing through the formation of a Municipal Improvement District and
contributions from Lighthouse Point Development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a scattering of trees. The Arkansas River is located to the
north of the site and single-family homes on smaller lots are located to the south
of the site. To the east of the site is the FOP meeting facility and further east of
the site is the Pulaski County Health Building.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident’s. The East Little Rock Neighborhood Association and the Hanger Hill
Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners located within 200-feet
of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the
site were notified of the public hearing.
The Planning Commission By-laws typically require the placement of a sign on
the site for a minimum of 30-days prior to the public hearing. Staff is aware the
sign was not posted as required by the Commission’s By-laws. The site was
“pick-up” from staff on September 14, 2005, 15 days prior to the public hearing.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
4
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Property is within the floodway of the Arkansas River. Per Section 13-62(1)
encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory
floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrology and hydraulic
analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practices that
the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels
within the community during the occurrence of the base flood event. Obtain
conditional approval from Public Works and the Federal Emergency
Management agency.
2. Alteration of the watercourse or encroachment within the flowage
easements of the Arkansas River will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
3. Alteration or use of the levee will require approval from the Little Rock
Levee District especially the parking area and street crossings.
4. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five-foot contour
interval. Show the limits of the 100-year floodway and floodplain.
5. Per Section 36-341 no structure shall be closer than twenty-five (25) feet to
any established floodway line. The storage or processing aboveground and
the storage belowground of material and fuel which is flammable or
explosive or which could other wise be injurious to human, animal or plant
life in time of flood shall be unlawful. Floodways shall be kept free of
structural involvement including fences, open storage of materials and
equipment, vehicle parking and other impediments to the free flow of
floodwater.
6. The proposed land use would classify 3rd Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
7. The proposed land use would classify 2nd Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
8. With site development, provide design of streets conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
9. Provide abandonment request documents for 2nd Street.
10. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
11. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
12. 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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
5
13. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
14. The maximum finished floor elevation of 1 foot greater that the base flood
elevation is required for all insurable structures in the floodplain. The
finished floor elevation must be shown on the plat and grading plan.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing Sewer Outfall on this property with an existing 50-foot
easement. No construction will be allowed within the 50-foot easement and any
construction over or in close proximity to the easement must be approved by
Little Rock Wastewater Utility. This includes any crossing of the easement by
construction equipment of any kind. 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.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
Fire Department: Install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located adjacent to a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the East Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Park / Open Space for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-4, C-3, and I-3 to PCD to allow for
construction of a marina, commercial activities, and apartments. A land use plan
amendment for a change to Mixed Use for part of the project area is a separate
item on this agenda. (LU05-06-02)
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
6
Master Street Plan: Bond Avenue is shown as a Collector and 3rd Street and 2nd
Street are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary
function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to
Arterials and the primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties; while 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. The applicant has indicated
additional street improvements will be made in the area, consistent with the
Master Street Plan.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown paralleling the Arkansas River through
this site. This class I bikeway is part of the River Trail System that is currently
under construction west of the site. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or
alongside a road and additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: The schematic plan submitted is not detailed enough for a full
review of the cities minimal landscaping and buffer requirements. Submittal of all
future plans must comply with the City of Little Rock’s minimal zoning buffer and
landscaping requirements.
An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were several outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request. Mr. Ron Tabor addressed the
Committee members indicating the development needed several factors to
“come together to make the development happen”. He stated there were on-site
and off-site improvements necessary to complete the project. He stated the
developers were requesting a conceptual approval of the site plan to allow the
developers to move forwarded with FEMA and Corp of Engineers approval.
Commissioner Rector questioned if the approval was to get City input on the site
development and the allowable uses for the site. Mr. Tabor stated once FEMA
and Corp of Engineers approval was received there was very little lead way for
shifting buildings.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
7
Staff stated roadways to the south would also require relocation and right-of-way
acquisition. Mr. Tabor stated his firm was working with property owners in the
area to acquire the required right-of-way to extend Bond Street to the
development as a collector street. He stated at some point in the process the
developers would possibly require City assistance to secure the remaining
right-of-ways.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated site plan did
not provide enough detail to ensure all buffer requirements were being met. Staff
stated the proposed development would be required to meet the minimum zoning
buffer and landscaping requirements.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted development would
require approval from the Corp of Engineers and FEMA prior to construction.
Staff also noted all boundary streets would require construction to Master Street
Plan standard.
Staff noted the site was identified in the City’s Master Parks Plan with a trail.
Staff stated the proposed site plan did not include the placement of the identified
trails. Mr. Tabor stated he and the developers had met with the Parks
Department on a number of occasions and the intent was to provide the trail
connection through the site and keep the connection of the trail as identified on
the Master Parks Plan.
Staff stated Little Rock Wastewater Utility had raised concerns with regard to
construction near the existing wastewater line easement. Mr. Tabor stated he
had contacted the wastewater utility and they were agreeable to working with the
developers to allow a crossing and the development to occur.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and the committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised drawing to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has not located the proposed trail on the site plan but has indicted intentions of
working with staff to ensure the trail connection along the Arkansas River bank is
not broken. The applicant has also indicated they will not construct the trails but
will provide the City with easements to allow the City access to the trail network.
The applicant has also indicated boundary street construction and right-of-way
dedication will be completed per the Master Street Plan.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
8
Staff is supportive of the proposed development but staff feels the development
lacks adequate detail to approve the site plan without further review. Staff feels
there are a number of issues, which remain outstanding related to access, the
trail system and the public launching ramp. The applicant has indicated road
realignment to the south of the site.
Staff feels the proposed uses are appropriate for the area and feels the
redevelopment of the site could have a positive impact on the area. As a
conceptual plan staff is supportive of allowing the site to develop with the
proposed mixture of uses containing residential, commercial and a marina both
public and private. Staff would however recommend the applicant provide a final
development plan for final review and approval by the Planning Commission and
the Board of Directors prior to construction.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a conceptual PCD to allow the site to develop with
the indicated uses subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report. Staff would further
recommend once the applicant received all necessary approvals from the Corp of
Engineers and FEMA the applicant provide a final site plan for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors through a revised
PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff indicated
the proposed development would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with
regard to the late posting of the sign. Staff stated the signs were posted only fifteen
days prior to the public hearing not the thirty days as required by the Commission’s
By-laws.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the posting of the sign and the typical
requirements for the posting of the sign announcing the rezoning request.
Commissioner Rector questioned those in attendance if they felt there would be
additional participants if the sign had been posted the full thirty days. Comments made
indicated there would be more in attendance but in support of the proposed
development. A motion was made to waive the By-laws with regard to the posting of
the sign. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 recuse and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
9
Mr. Ron Tabor addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
proposed developers had been meeting with the area residents, the Airport Commission
and State and Federal regulatory agencies. Mr. Tabor stated there had been numerous
meeting with staff and he was well aware the plan was far from finalized. He stated
there were a number of pieces to put together and it would be a costly project. He
stated without knowing if the City would support the proposed use of the site the
developers were reluctant to move forward. He stated the trail of parks would be
maintained through the site as requested by the City but the developers would not
construct the park trail.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the site was a large tract of land being removed from the City’s Parks Plan. She
stated the League of Women Voters felt it vital to maintain the open space for all the
residents of the City. She stated the development had three strikes against them. She
stated the uncertainty of the airport, the possibility of approving a TIF District and the
loss of four acres of park lands. She stated the area was not a blighted area and did
not need a TIF District to support redevelopment. She stated she agreed a marina in
the area would be an asset to the area but she questioned the loss of park lands to gain
the marina. She stated she did not feel taking four acres from the public for private
development was an advantage to the City. She stated she also felt finding the public
boat launch ramp would be difficult for the patrons due to the location of the proposed
launch ramp. She questioned if the developers would consider leaving two acres along
the river bank for public access and enjoyment.
Mr. Tabor stated the developers were maintaining the trail of parks and would allow
public access to the site. He stated he felt there would be a multiplicity of construction
material along the trail. He stated the development itself would be a park like
atmosphere. He stated the marina would utilize the waters beauty to for the park
atmosphere.
Mr. Tabor stated the developers were looking for support from the City for a defined site
plan before moving forward. He stated the alignment of the roadway and the parking
areas would be better defined prior to the final development plan being submitted. He
stated he would work with the area property owners to ensure the redevelopment of the
area offered the best protection for the area and their property.
Mr. Bob Rossen addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He
stated he represented area property owners most of which supported the proposed
development.
Mr. Rahman Ehhmin addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request.
He stated he represented 45 property owners in the area all of which supported the
proposed development. He stated the area felt the request would enhance the
neighborhood and property values.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7919
10
Mr. Nathan Denny addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the Commission
should consider the development with regard to the current criminal element in the area.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
appropriateness of the indicted uses. A motion was made to approve the request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse (Commissioner Gary Langlais) and
1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: LU05-19-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District
Location: Kanis Road, approximately 0.4 miles west of Chenal Parkway
Request: Multifamily to Commercial
Source: Pat McGetrick
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Multifamily and
Office and to Commercial and Office. 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 wishes to
construct a commercial strip center and mini-warehouses on the site.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the areas east and west of the application. The
end result will represent all Multifamily land on the north side of Kanis Road
between Chenal Parkway and Rock Creek. Staff believes that this would make
the application more logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The application area is undeveloped, wooded, zoned R-2, and is 15.5 acres ± in
size. North of the application is land zoned POD and developed with several
office buildings. Northeast of the property is undeveloped land zoned R-2 and
undeveloped land zoned O-2. East of the application area is undeveloped land
zoned C-3 and to the southeast is a PCD developed with a vacant golf driving
range. South of the application is land zoned R-2 with one rural single family
home on a large lot. West of the application is land zoned AF for the Rock Creek
Pet Resort. Further west is undeveloped R-2 and C-3 land.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
December 7, 2004, A change was made from Single Family to Neighborhood
Commercial northwest of the Kanis and Denny Road intersection three quarter
miles west of the application area for a proposed development.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-19-03
2
January 20, 2004 two changes were made from Office to Mixed use one mile
northeast of the site on the south side of Rahling Road for a proposed
development.
The application area is shown as Multifamily on the plan. Additional Multifamily
area is indicated northwest and southeast of the application. Northeast of the
application is a large Office area. Immediately south of the application area is
shown as Public Institutional. West of the application is a Park/Open Space strip
followed by additional Multifamily.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and is built as
a rural two-lane road with open ditches through this section. The purpose of a
Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Kanis
Road will require dedication of right-of-way and will require half street
improvements.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class I bikeway is shown along the Kanis Road corridor. Currently this Class I
trail is undeveloped. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a
road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
PARKS:
This application is in the West Little Rock Park Planning District. The Master
Parks Plan identifies a lack of public parks in the west Little Rock area and
recognizes private neighborhood parks and recreation facilities as parkland in the
west Little Rock area. The nearest public park is located less than a mile east of
the application area along Chenal Parkway. This park consists of a trail
approximately a mile long located within the median. Additionally, nearby POA
parks, churches, and schools, could provide additional recreational opportunities
for the area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-19-03
3
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
This application is located immediately outside of the city limits, within the city’s
extraterritorial land use and zoning area, abutting a large Community
Shopping/Office area. In recent years, west Little Rock has seen significant
single family growth northwest of the application at the Chenal Country Club, and
east of the application as part of the Villages at Wellington Subdivision.
Multifamily developments have occurred in the area resulting in new apartments.
Additionally, non-residential development has occurred in Office, Community
Shopping, and Mixed Office Commercial areas.
The current land use plan for the area plans for intense Commercial activity
located at the Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway intersection. This is shown on
the plan as an 80-acre Community Shopping area and a 22 acre Commercial
area. Currently the Community Shopping area at the southeast corner of
Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway is developed with a mixture of Office and
Commercial Uses. The southwestern side of the intersection is currently
approved for a regional “lifestyle center” development to be anchored by a
Dillard’s Department Store. The Commercial area at the northeast corner is
approximately 22 acres in size and undeveloped representing approximately
27% of the Commercial/Community Shopping land at the Chenal Parkway-
Rahling Road activity node. Additional Commercial land outside of the Chenal
Parkway-Rahling Road activity node remains undeveloped including vacant golf
driving range and a partially constructed shopping center. The grocery store is
part of an approved PCD for a retail shopping center and is the only partially
constructed. More Commercial land (roughly 12.5 acres) exists at the
intersection of Kanis Road and Edswood Road less than a quarter mile west of
the property that is also undeveloped.
Overall, over 270 acres of land in the surrounding one-mile area is shown for
possible commercial development, and over 400 acres is zoned for commercial
development and not fully developed. At this time it could be considered
premature to add additional commercial land to an area that has not fully
developed.
In the area, a significant amount of land has been identified for future Multifamily
development and represents over 200 acres of area land. Of the acreage
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-19-03
4
earmarked for Multifamily, new construction has been seen in areas east of
Chenal Parkway. These new multifamily developments include apartments,
assisted living facilities, and retirement homes and account for just under half the
available Multifamily land in the area. This application would result in a 5%±
reduction in areas shown Multifamily. Such a small decrease may not hinder
future multifamily development because additional acreage is available to
facilitate future demand.
The northern part of the application is intended to recognize existing land uses,
and allow for construction of new offices. The proposed change from Multifamily
to Office is an expansion of the Office area at the La Grande/Arkansas Systems
Drives and Chenal Parkway intersection. This large Office area is approximately
100 acres and size and over 90 percent developed. The proposed change to
office will better identify current and future office developments on the western
edge of the office area.
Currently non-residential use has been occurring north east of this application
focused on Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. Currently, new development
has not been occurring in the area of the application, and an expansion of a
Commercial area could be considered premature. Present areas of growth in
the area are Office lands to the north and Commercial and Multifamily lands east
of Chenal Parkway. Since the Office area is growing its expansion may be
warranted.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Hillsborough Property Owners Association, Marlowe Manor Property Owners
Association, Du Quesne Place P.O.A., Chenal Ridge Property, St Charles
Community Association, Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Maywood
Manor Neighborhood Association, Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association,
Hunters Cove Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners
Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Eagle Pointe Property
Owners Association, Glen Eagles Property Owners Association, Hunters Green
Property Owners Association, and Parkway Place Property Owners Association.
Staff has not received any comments from area residents or property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. The proposed addition of
Commercial land would result in an expansion of Commercial in an area where
Commercial properties are abundant. Staff is supportive of the change to Office
for the northern portion of application.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-19-03
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff presented the Land Use around the application
area. He indicated there was still abundant commercial available and to change
this area from Multifamily to Commercial would be premature. (Donna James of
Planning Staff next reviewed the PZD application for the site.)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, representative of applicant, indicated there was too much
Multifamily in the area and that Rock Creek made a logical boundary for the node
at Kanis and Chenal Parkway. Thus this property should be the west boundary
of commercial node, not be just outside the node.
Ms. Ruth Bell commented that there was a need to not increase the land use with
out increasing the infrastructure of the area. She gave a few examples. She
agreed with Staff that there was more than enough available commercial in the
area still to be developed.
For a complete review of the discussion see Item 14.1 minute record.
By a vote of 5 for, 5 against the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the Land Use Plan Change from Multifamily to Commercial.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 14.1 FILE NO.: Z-7920
NAME: Baker Long-form PCD
LOCATION: North of Kanis Road, 0.4 miles West of Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Darrell Baker
15 Solonge Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 8.80 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: Strip retail with C-3, General Commercial District uses
as allowable uses and Mini-warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the construction of a strip retail center and
mini-warehouses on the site. The applicant has indicated a strip retail center will
face Kanis Road and contain 27,300 square feet of space and be marketed to
C-3, General Commercial District users. The applicant has indicated six
buildings of mini-warehouse will be constructed to the rear of the strip center
totaling 47,100 square feet of space. The applicant has indicated the rear of the
mini-warehouses will act as screening for the proposed residentially zoned
properties to the north, east and west of the site. The applicant has indicated the
buildings will be single story buildings with a maximum building height of 25-feet.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two single-family homes all accessed from Kanis Road. The
property to the north is cleared and also contains a single-family home. There is
a treed buffer between the northern property and the GMAC office development.
Kanis Road is a narrow rural roadway with open ditches for drainage. The
property located to the west of the site is being used as a dog training facility and
single-family home. The property to the east of the site is also single-family.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls from area residents
many indicating opposition to a commercial development on the site. The
Parkway Place Neighborhood Association, along with all property owners located
within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within
300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. 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.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4. Provide existing topographic information at maximum five-foot contour
interval. Show the limits of the 100-year floodway and floodplain.
5. Provide access agreement for Lot 2.
6. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section 31-207,
private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets. A
minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street width of
24 feet from back of curb to back of curb. A standard 80-foot cul-de-sac or
tee type turnaround is required.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Minimum driveway spacing from
property on a minor arterial street is 150 feet and 300 feet from another
driveway.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary no comment. Annexation will be
required to receive sewer service from Little Rock Wastewater Utility.
Entergy: A ten-foot easement is required around the perimeter of the site.
Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Energy: Center-Point has a 12-inch high-pressure main located in
the area. Additional information is needed from the applicant to determine if the
line will require relocation. Contact Center-Point Energy at 377-4539 for
additional information.
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 39-inch raw water line
crosses this site within a 50-foot wide waterline easement. Care must be taken to
protect these water lines and any appurtenances, such as access and air release
vaults, or monumentation, which may be in the area. No signs, light poles,
dumpster pads or other structures on foundations will be allowed within the
existing 50-foot waterline easement. Paved parking and driveways are allowed. 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). A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to
Lot 2 This project is within Water Improvement District 349 and there may be
charges assessed by the Improvement District in conjunction with water service
to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Install fire hydrants per code. The turning radius indicated
adjacent to proposed Building 6 appears to be insufficient. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning:
1. Provide a 40-foot setback for all buildings from all property lines.
2. The applicant must receive a driveway permit from the Pulaski County Road
and Bridge Department.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
4
3. Provide a copy of the proposed development’s ADEQ Storm water permit, if
required.
4. Obtain a flood plain development permit from Pulaski County.
CATA: The site is not located adjacent to 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 Multifamily and Office for this property. The applicant has
applied for a rezoning from R-2 to PCD to allow for construction of a commercial
strip center and mini-warehouses. This request is inconsistent with the Land
Use plan and requires a change to the City’s Future Land Use Plan. A land use
plan amendment from Multifamily to Commercial is a separate item on this
agenda. (LU05-19-03)
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and is built as a rural two-lane road with open ditches through this
section. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through
an urban area. Kanis Road will require dedication of right-of-way and will require
half street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown along the Kanis Road corridor.
Currently this Class I trail is undeveloped. A Class I bikeway is built separate
from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: Property to the east and west are zoned residential, therefore, the
zoning ordinance requires average twenty-four (24’) foot wide land use buffers
along both of the perimeters. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement.
A portion of the property to the north of lot number one (1) is zoned residential,
therefore, the zoning ordinance requires an average thirty-five (35’) foot wide
land use buffer.
A portion of the property to the west of lot number two (2) is zoned multi-family;
therefore, the zoning ordinance requires an average twelve (12’) foot wide land
use buffer.
Areas set side for landscaping appear to meet with landscape ordinance
requirements.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
5
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
northern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around requirement.
An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an
overview of the development indicating there were several outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated the northern portion of the
property was currently zoned POD as a part of the GMAC overall development
plan. Staff stated to remove the POD zoned portion from the previously
approved site plan, the GMAC POD would require amending. Staff also stated
Central Arkansas Water had indicated there was to be no development such as
signs, dumpster pads or light poles within the existing 50-foot waterline
easement. Staff questioned the treatment of the rears of the proposed
commercial buildings and stated the indicated dumpsters should be relocated
away from the residentially zoned properties.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication and street
construction would be required along Kanis Road to minor arterial standards.
Staff requested the applicant provide an access agreement for proposed Lot 2
with the adjacent property owners. Staff noted driveway locations and widths did
not meet the traffic access and circulation requirement per the current
ordinances.
County comments were addressed. Staff stated a 40-foot building setback from
all property lines would be required. Staff also noted a driveway permit from
Pulaski County Road and Bridge would be required. Staff stated a storm water
permit from ADEQ would be required and a flood plain development permit from
Pulaski County would be required prior to construction. Mr. McGetrick stated the
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
6
developers would apply for annexation to the City of Little Rock if the rezoning
request were approved to receive City services.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the eastern and western
perimeters abutted single-family zoned property, which would require a 24-foot
wide land use buffer. Staff stated easement could not count in full-filling the land
use buffer requirement. Staff also stated screening would be required along the
eastern and western property lines.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and 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 September 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has removed the office portion of the proposed request leaving only the
commercial development located along Kanis Road. With this revision the
applicant is no longer required to provide an access easement with the property
owner to the north nor is the applicant required to revise the previously approved
GMAC POD.
The applicant is requesting the placement of a 27,300 square foot retail building
marketed to C-3, General Commercial District users. The applicant has indicated
the site will contain 135 parking spaces to serve the retail development. Based
on typical minimum parking requirements for a commercial development
91 parking spaces would typically be required.
The applicant has not relocated the dumpsters on the site away from the
residentially zoned and used property. The applicant has indicated the dumpster
hours will be limited to day light hours Monday through Friday.
The applicant has indicated the development of the rear portion of the site with
mini-warehouse buildings. The applicant has indicated a total of six buildings
with one of the six buildings wrapping the site. The applicant has indicated three
parking spaces to serve the mini-warehouse development. The applicant has
indicated the development as a single lot, which should provide ample parking for
both of the proposed uses.
The applicant has indicated the rear of the buildings will act as a screen for the
adjoining properties. The applicant has also indicated a minimum landscape
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
7
strip behind the buildings to screen the adjoining properties per the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant has indicated a single sign located near the proposed entrance to
the development. The applicant has indicated the sign will comply with signage
allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160-square
feet in area.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The site is shown as Parks and
Open Space and Multi-family on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. There are
areas located to the east and west of this site that are indicated on the plan for
commercial development. Staff does not feel this location an appropriate
location for a commercial activity. Staff has concerns with the stripping of Kanis
Road if the existing commercial areas are expanded to include a commercial
activity at this site. The applicant is proposing a use, mini-warehouse, that is
allowable as a “by-right” use in the C-4, Outdoor Display District, of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff feels a commercial development this intense should be located
nearer the Parkway or at an indicated commercial node.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated
according to the Future Land Use Plan there was as much multi-family as commercial
indicated on the City’s Future Land Use Plan in the area. He stated the Commercial
Node at Kanis and Chenal Parkway and there was commercially zoned property at that
node. He stated the site backed up to the Rock Creek and there was a power
substation located to the east of the site. He stated it would be difficult to place a multi-
family development in the indicated location due to the existing site constraints. Mr.
McGetrick stated a mini-warehouse development was a low impact commercial
development. He stated the developments typically did not generate a great deal of
traffic. He stated the strip center would be geared to neighborhood commercial type
uses to serve the residents in the area.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the request was both a planning issue as well as a use issue. She stated
typically the City had approved segments for commercial uses that would support
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7920
8
commercial activities. She stated if the infrastructure was not in place it did not make
sense to support a commercial activity in the area. Ms. Bell stated Chenal Parkway was
a good example of how the plan was not followed. She stated with the lack of
infrastructure traffic congestion was significant in the area.
Mr. Randy Hoffman addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated if
the City was going to fix the traffic problem on Kanis they should have started a long
time ago. He stated he did not oppose the change in classification. He stated change
was inevitable and felt the development appropriate for the area.
Mr. McGetrick stated the developers would widen the roadway adjacent to their property
frontage. He stated with the improvements there would be approximately 400 feet of
Kanis left unimproved to the east before connecting into the existing widening at Chenal
Parkway. He stated based on the current traffic flows in the area a neighborhood
commercial center to serve the region and a mini-warehouse facility to serve the multi-
family residences in the area would be an asset.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed use and the availability of
commercial properties in the area. A motion was made to approve the request. The
motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7921
NAME: Kumpuris Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: 5921 Lee Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Dr. Dean Kumpuris, MD
417 North University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Allison Architects, Inc.
200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1400
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.25 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Parking lot to serve an existing office building located
to the west.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site located at 5921 Lee Avenue
from R-3, Single-family to PD-O to allow the development of an employee
parking lot to serve an existing office building located to the west. The applicant
has indicated the existing single-family dwelling will be removed from the site in
order to construct the future parking lot for the staff of the medical offices located
at 415 and 417 North University Avenue. The site plan includes the placement of
22 parking spaces with designated landscaped areas.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a
reduced land use buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site. The Zoning
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7921
2
Ordinance typically requires the placement of a land use buffer when abutting
residentially zoned or used property. The site located to the east is zoned and
used as a residential unit, which would typically require a land use buffer with a
minimum width of six feet nine inches. The applicant’s site plan includes the
placement of a two-foot land use buffer along the eastern perimeter. The site
plan includes the placement of a six-foot wood fence in this area to screen the
adjoining property owner.
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Landscape Ordinance
requirements, which were approved by the City Beautiful Commission at their
September 8, 2005, Public Hearing. The City Beautiful Commission approved
the applicant’s requested variances to allow a reduced perimeter landscape strip
along the eastern and western perimeters of the site and the variance request to
allow a reduced number of trees or vines required in the perimeter-planting strip.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing vacant single-family home. To the west of the site
is an office development accessed from North University Avenue. To the north
and east of the site are single-family homes fronting Lee Avenue. To the south
of the site is the approved PCD for the Mid-Town Mall. In this area the homes
have been removed. Across University Avenue there are a number of residential
and non-residential uses including assisted living, residential, a school, a
shopping mall and high-rise office buildings.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls 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:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Lee Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A
dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to this street. This project
would qualify for an in-lieu contribution.
3. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7921
3
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Entergy will not be responsible for relocation of any of its facilities and
associated cost. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
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.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located adjacent to 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 Multifamily for this property. Immediately
west of the application is shown as Office on the Land Use Plan. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-3 to POD to allow for a parking lot to serve an
adjacent office building. Since this parking lot will serve existing medical uses in
the office area next door, and the plan is general in nature, an amendment is not
necessary.
Master Street Plan: Lee Avenue is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from
Local Streets to Arterials. Since the proposed parking lot will serve the adjacent
office use, access could be from the existing development and not require
access from Lee Avenue. Lee Avenue may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown on Lee Avenue. 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.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7921
4
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use goal lists one objective related to this application. The objective is to
recreate a neighborhood that is a pleasant place to work and live, and to
preserve the net number of residential units by not demolishing them or
converting them to other uses. This application will result in the removal of a
single-family home to add parking for an adjacent office use.
Landscape: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 6’-9” wide land use
buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site which abuts residential property.
The applicant is proposing to provide a two (2) foot wide land use buffer along
the sites eastern perimeter and provide the required landscaping along the
northern and southern perimeters and within the interior of the parking lot. Also,
the applicant proposes to fully screen the parking lot from the neighbor to the
east with a 6’ high opaque good neighbor wooden fence and provide the required
number of trees.
Additionally, the Landscape Ordinance requires a 6’-9” wide perimeter-planting
strip along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property. The
City Beautiful Commission approved the applicant’s variance request at its
September 8, 2005 hearing.
These requirements take into account the reduction allowed within the
designated mature area.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 8, 2005)
Dr. Dean Kumpuris was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed application indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request. Dr. Kumpuris stated the
development was to allow additional parking for his staff. He stated the site plan
included the placement of 22 parking spaces and the parking lot would be gated
to only allow access during business hours. He stated lighting was not
anticipated and screening would be provided to the property located to the east.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated an additional five feet of
right-of-way would be required along Lee Avenue. Staff reviewed the provided
landscape strip along Lee Avenue and determined the additional dedication
would not reduce the perimeter strip below the minimum landscape strip required
by the Landscape Ordinance.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the City Beautiful
Commission had approved a variance request to allow a reduced perimeter strip
around the vehicular use area. Staff noted the applicant was providing a two-foot
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7921
5
landscape strip along the eastern property line and a zero landscape strip along
the western property line.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies; suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
No additional plans were required from the September 8, 2005, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The applicant has addressed staff’s concerns with regard to
lighting, dedication of right of way and indicated landscaping. The applicant is
proposing a rezoning of this site from R-3, Single-family to PD-O to allow the
construction of a new parking lot to serve medical offices located to the west.
The applicant has indicated the new parking lot will not be lighted and will contain
25 parking spaces. The applicant has also indicated a gate will be placed at the
street to eliminate persons from entering after hours and loitering.
The site plan includes a zero perimeter landscape strip along the western
property line and a 2-foot perimeter landscape strip along the eastern property
line. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the eastern
perimeter of the site and is requesting a reduced land use buffer along the
eastern perimeter. Both the Landscape and Zoning Ordinance require a
minimum 6-foot 9-inch wide landscape buffer along the site’s eastern perimeter.
The City Beautiful Commission approved the Landscape Ordinance variance at
their September 8, 2005, Public Hearing.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant is proposing to
develop the site as a parking lot to serve an existing office building located to the
west. The applicant is proposing to provide a 2-foot wide landscape strip along
the site’s eastern perimeter (a 6-foot 9-inch landscape strip would typically be
required) and providing the required landscaping along the site’s northern and
southern perimeters but within the interior of the proposed parking lot. The
applicant has not indicated a landscaping strip along the western perimeter of the
site, which would not typically be required a land use buffer since the property to
the west is zoned for office uses.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above agenda staff report.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7921
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had requested a
deferral to the October 13, 2005, public hearing.
Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the By-laws with regard to the later
deferral request. A motion was made to approve the By-law waiver with regard to the
later deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-7922
NAME: Hayne Short-form PID
LOCATION: 2701 West 7th Street
DEVELOPER:
John Hayre
822 East 6th Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.42 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: Air Conditioning and Sheet Metal
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 6, 2005, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated September 6,
2005, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff
stated they were supportive of the applicant’s withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 29, 2005
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7923
NAME: Hayman Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 2460 Howard Street
DEVELOPER:
Rhonda Hayman
12125 Day Street, #E301
Moreno Valley, CA 92557
ENGINEER:
Ron Woods Architects
2200 South Main Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Duplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 8, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 8, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,
2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s deferral
request.
September 29, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7923
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.