No preview available
 /
     
pc_01 29 2004sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 29, 2004 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock Gary Langlais Bob Lowry Robert Stebbins Norm Floyd Mizan Rahman Bill Rector Jerry Meyer Fred Allen, Jr. Darrin Williams Chauncey Taylor Members Absent: None City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 4, 2003 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JANUARY 29, 2004 4:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-08-01) in the Central City Planning District for 1858 South Chester Street a change from Single-family to Mixed Use. A.1. Featherstone Short-form PD-C (Z-7498), located at 1858 Chester Street. B. Dyke Annexation – 368 Acre Annexation between Crystal Valley and David O Dodd Roads west of I-430. C. Shackleford Farms Preliminary Plat (S-1408), located along the east side of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway and south of Champlin Drive. C.1. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-19-02) in the Chenal Planning District along the east side of Kirk Road between Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road from Single Family, Low Density Residential, Multifamily and Office to Commercial, Multifamily and Office. C.2. A Master Street Plan Amendment (MSP03-04) to remove three collectors along the proposed Minor Arterial named Wellington Hills Road / Champlin Road between Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway. C.3. Rezoning from R-2/R-3/MF-6/O-2 to MF-18, O-2 to C-3, O-2 to O-3 and MF-18 to O-2 (Z-4807-E), located along the east side of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway and south of Champlin Drive. D. Chenal Plaza Lot 1 Revised Long-form PCD (Z-3292-G), located on the southwest corner of West Markham Street and Atkins Road. E. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-18-03) in the Ellis Mountain Planning District on the south side of Chenal Parkway east of the Wellington Hills Road intersection from Suburban Office to Commercial. E.1. Pinnacle Ford Long-form PCD (Z-4841-B), located south of Chenal Parkway, east of the Kanis Road intersection. F. Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long-Form PD-R (Z-6120-I), located at the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue. Agenda, Page Two II. NEW ITEMS: 1. Mabelvale Business Park and Shopping Center Revised Preliminary Plat (S-993-K), located on the south side of the I-30 Frontage Road at Mabelvale Pike. 2. Boen Center Lot 1 Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1301-C), located on the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430. 3. Plaza Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1413), located on the northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430. 4. Markham Methodist Church Short-form PD-O (Z-5040-A), located on the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Ellis Drive. 5. Webster Shell Short-form PD-C (Z-5156-A), located at 10801 West Markham Street. 6. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU04-01-01) in the River Mountain Planning District, located north of Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop Road, a change from Transitional to Commercial. 6.1. Cantrell Loops Retail Center PCD – Lot 2 (Z-7022-A), located north of Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop Road. 7. Miracle Land Company Revised Short-form PCD (Z-7351-A), located on the south side of Stagecoach Road at I-430. 8. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU04-09-01) located in the I-630 Planning District, located near 3503 West Capitol Street, a change from Single Family to Suburban Office. 8.1. Dempsey Short-form PD-O (Z-7560), located at 3503 West Capitol Avenue. 9. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU04-15-01) located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District, located near 10601 I-30, a change from Light Industrial to Industrial. 9.1. Coburn Short-form PD-I (Z-7561), located at 10601 I-30. 10. Buchanan Short-form PID (Z-7562), located at 3700 Old Shackleford Road. Agenda, Page Three II. NEW ITEMS: (Cont.) 11. Rock House Short-form POD (Z-7563), located at 715 North University Avenue. 12. Chenal – Highway 10 Mini-Storage Planning Commission Appeal of a Notice of Violation of the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance (NOV #208), located at 24300 Chenal Parkway. 13. Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-4336-R), located on Wolfe Street between 11th and 13th Streets. 14. Dover’s Manufactured Home Conditional Use Permit (Z-7522), located at 1021 Kirby Road. 15. Mabelvale Church of Christ Planning Commission Appeal of Notice of Violation of the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance, located at 10820 Mabelvale West Road. 16. Watershed Project Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1400-A), located on Springer Street, south of I-440. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: LU03-08-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Central City Planning District Location: 1858 S. Chester St. Request: Single Family to Mixed Use Source: David Featherstone PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from Single Family 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 operate a cleaning service at this location. Prompted by this Land Use Plan amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the west side of Chester Street from the area currently shown as Mixed Use to 19th Street. This change would eliminate the Single Family shown on west side of the 1800 block of Chester Street from Wright Avenue to 19th Street. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is two houses and a vacant lot currently zoned R-4 Two Family and is .517 acres ± in size. The expanded area consists of the applicant’s properties and a vacant lot zone R-4. The property north of the expanded area is zoned O-1 Quiet Office for a college community center operated by Philander Smith College. The east side of the 1800 block of Chester Street south of the auto shop consists of houses zoned R-2. Rightsell Elementary School is located on the east side of the 1900 block of Chester Street. The remainder of the area surrounding the expanded application area consists of houses and vacant property zoned R-4. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On March 19, 2003 multiple changes were made from Single Family, Mixed Office Commercial, Public Institutional and Mixed Use to Public Institutional and Multi-family in the vicinity of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital about ½ mile northwest of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development and to recognize existing conditions. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-08-01 2 On January 4, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use at 2311 S. Spring Street to accommodate proposed development about ½ mile east of the application area. On June 15, 1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family to Mixed Use and Public Institutional on Wright Avenue at Park and Howard Streets to recognize existing conditions and accommodate proposed development about 1 mile west of the study area. On April 20, 1999 multiple changes were made from Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Public Institutional to Mixed Use on Scott Street from 16th Street to I-630 to recognize existing conditions about ¾ mile northeast of the expanded area. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Commercial on Scott Street from 17th to 19th Street to recognize existing conditions located about 7/10 of a mile south of the expanded study area. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Multi-family to Low Density Residential on 13th to 15th Street to recognize existing conditions located about 1/3 of a mile northeast of the amendment area. The applicant’s property and the expanded area are shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The property to the north is shown as Mixed Use while the remainder of the surrounding properties are shown as Single Family, while Public Institutional is shown to the southeast for the school. MASTER STREET PLAN: Chester Street is shown as a Minor Arterial with a modified standard of a 60’ Right-of-Way, a four-lane cross-section, and additional requirements at intersections. Chester Street is built to the modified standard. A Class III Bikeway is shown on Chester Street from 14th to Roosevelt. There is no additional Right-of-Way or paving required for a Class III Bikeway. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 includes public school property, such as the Rightsell Elementary School located in the 1900 block on the east side of Chester Street and Dunbar Magnet Jr. High at the corner of Cross Street and Wright Avenue as an element in the eight-block strategy of providing park and open space facilities within eight blocks of all residents of the City of Little Rock. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-08-01 3 HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan for the Future Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not contain any goals, objectives, or action statements relative to this case. However, the Executive Summary of the plan goals did list a priority of rehabilitating decayed structures and overgrown vacant lots for residential and commercial uses. The Executive Summary also supports increasing home ownership rates in the area and improving protections for historic structures. ANALYSIS: The applicant’s property is located in a neighborhood where most of the non- residential uses are institutional in nature. A change to Mixed Use would expand the area shown as Mixed Use from its current location down to 19th Street. A change to Mixed Use would allow the non-residential uses to extend to the south along the west side of Chester but could protect the integrity of neighboring uses through the Planned Zoning Development process required for non-residential uses. Currently, most of the properties along Chester Street south of Wright Avenue present a residential character. All of the property located in the expanded area along Chester Street front the street and are accessed primarily from Chester Street. The houses located to the east face Chester Street, and would face any potential non-residential development within the expanded study area. The houses on Chester Street located south of 19th Street face Rightsell Elementary School and would not be directly effected by non-residential development north of 19th Street as long as 19th Street is established as the southern boundary for the area shown as Mixed Use. Another potential for conflicting uses would be at the northwest corner of the Chester and 19th Street intersection. A change to Mixed Use at the northwest corner of Chester and 19th opens the potential for development of a non- residential use near the school. Any PZD approved for non-residential uses on the north side of the Chester / 19th intersection would need to be implemented in a way that would protect the integrity of the uses located to the south. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-08-01 4 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Community Outreach Neighborhood Organization, Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association, Central High Neighborhood Association, East of Broadway Neighborhood Association, Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, MLK Neighborhood Association, Quapaw Quarter Neighborhood Crime Watch Assoc., South End Neighborhood Association, South End Neighborhood Developers, and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has requested a deferral of six weeks on this item. Staff supports this request for deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 16, 2003) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 4, 2003 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 4, 2003) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 29, 2004 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z-7498 NAME: Featherstone Short-form PD-C LOCATION: 1858 Chester Street DEVELOPER: David Featherstone 1858 South Chester Street Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: Laha Engineers P.O. Box 190251 Little Rock, AR 72219 AREA: 0.516 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family Residential ALLOWED USES: Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Mr. Klean’s carpet and Janitorial Service VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site encompasses three lots: Lot 8 is not developed; Lot 9 is the site of a 1-story frame building that has been employed as a warehouse for Mr. Klean’s Carpet and Janitorial Services, Inc. since its acquisition in 1995; Lot 10 is the site January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7498 2 of a 1-story frame building that has been the operational and administrative headquarters for Mr. Klean’s Carpet and Janitorial Service, Inc. since 1983. The home originally served as a City of Little Rock permitted home occupation and business site for the petitioner. The applicant moved his residence in 1995 while continuing to maintain his business at the site. Access to the site is restricted to a 10-foot alley from 19th Street that ends, functionally, at the northern property line of Lot 10. Chester Street access is not permitted. Entrances to both existing structures are via the aforementioned alleyway. Mr. Kleans’ Carpet and Janitorial Service, Inc. operates a residential carpet and institutional janitorial service from the site. The company does not conduct commercial services on the site. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to bring the illegal use into compliance with all applicable city codes and ordinances. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains two single-family structures with a gravel parking area in the rear. The units from Chester Street appear to be residential. In the immediate area there is a stable mix of residential and commercial uses. The property immediately north of the site is zoned O-1 and is the site of a former commercial bank that is now a part of Philander Smith College; a community building. Immediately east of the site across Chester Street is a C-3 zoned site containing a church and an automobile garage and detail shop. The Rightsell Elementary School is located one block south and east of the site. The area to the south and west of the site is developed with single-family residences. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls in support of the proposed use from area residents. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the Downtown Neighborhood Association and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hear. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A paved access should be provided for the proposed commercial use. Master Street Plan requires an 18' width sufficient for two cars to pass. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7498 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional water service is needed. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Driveway width must be increased to 20-feet wide. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Commercial for a cleaning business. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan for the Future Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not contain any goals, objectives, or action statements relative to this case. However, the Executive Summary of the plan goals did list a priority of rehabilitating decayed structures and overgrown vacant lots for residential and commercial uses. The Executive Summary also supports increasing home ownership rates in the area and improving protections for historic structures. Landscape: No comment received. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7498 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 25, 2003) The applicant was not present. Staff stated the request was to allow an existing use to become conforming. Staff noted they would contact the applicant and resolve any outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted the requested additional information from the September 25, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the property. The applicant has revised his request to only include the existing structures and not expand with the construction of a new building on an adjoining lot. The applicant has not requested signage as a part of the development. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. The applicant has indicated there are five (5) employees reporting to the site daily. The applicant has indicated the proposed hours of operation and the number of employees is consistent with the existing non-conforming use. Staff is supportive of allowing the site to continue to operate in the current configuration (two converted single-family homes with access from the rear alley). The only access to the site is from the rear of the structure along an 18-foot unpaved alley and there is no parking or commercial activities taking place in the front yards of the structures. Uses in the immediate area (to the south and west) are well-maintained single-family homes. There is an elementary school at the intersection of Chester and 19th Street and an automobile repair and detail shop immediately east of the site. Staff feels since the use has existed for approximately 20 years in the current location and the appearance has remained residential, there should be limited negative impact on the adjoining properties. Staff recommends that the alley be increased to a minimum of 20-feet to comply with the requirements of the Little Rock Fire Department. Staff also recommends the alley be constructed of a hard surface material to adhere to existing ordinances. The rear of the existing structures is a gravel parking area. Staff would recommend this area be constructed of a hard surface paving material to eliminate tracking of gravel into the streets/alley and adjoining properties. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7498 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the existing structures to continue to operate as an office and warehouse for Mr. Klean’s Janitorial service subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the alley be increased to a 20-foot right-of-way and constructed of a hard surface driving material. Staff recommends the applicant pave a parking pad in the rear of the structure to eliminate tracking onto the public right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 16, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the December 4, 2003, Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve any outstanding issues. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had contacted them and was working to provide the additional information requested with regard to the site plan. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the applicant additional time to revise the proposed site plan. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the request was to recognize an existing use on the site. Staff stated the applicant had requested his application be amended to include single- family as an allowable use for the site. Staff presented a recommendation of approval January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7498 6 of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: 299 NAME: Dyke Annexation REQUEST: Accept the annexation of 368± Acres LOCATION: West of I-430 between David O Dodd and Crystal Valley Roads SOURCE: The Hathaway Group agent for property owner GENERAL INFORMATION: • The County Judge approved the annexation on August 28, 2003. • The area requested for annexation currently is wooded with an 18.5+ acre lake in the northern section of the area. • There is only one owner, Dyke Industries, Inc. • The annexation request is to obtain City Services (sewer). • The Site in question is generally rectangular in shape. North-south it covers over a section and east-west it extents three-quarters of a section. Total area is approximately 368 acres. • No Islands would be created by this annexation. • Currently the property is zoned R-2 Single Family. The applicant has indicated that the future development will be residential. • The property owner has expressed a desire to develop the site. AGENCY COMMENTS: Public Safety: Fire: The Fire Department reports that the area is beyond the limits for driving distance from any existing station. To annex this property could cause a reduction in the City of Little Rock’s ISO rating, thus effecting the fire insurance rates of all those in the City. The Department can not recommend the annexation of this area. The closest stations are Station 14, 8121 Colonel Glenn Road (Asher Avenue) and Station 18, 11500 Mabelvale West Road. Each of these stations is over 4 driving miles from the area requested for annexation. In fact, Station 18 is almost five driving miles from the closest part of the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 2 Police: No comment received. The annexation area would be part of the southwest patrol area if annexed. More particularly the area would become part of Patrol District 90. If the patrol car for this district were to travel along Colonel Carl Miller Road (to the southwest) as well as the Crystal Valley Manor Subdivision (to the southeast), it would currently have to pass by the annexation area. Until development, there will only be 266 feet for street or street frontage in the annexation area. Infrastructure and Community Facilities: Central Arkansas Transit: No comment received. There is not a Bus route near the site of the proposed annexation. Two bus routes exist approximately 2 miles from the area. One (Route 14) is to the northeast, with the closest point the Colonel Glenn/Shackleford intersection. The second (Route 17) is to the southeast, with the closest point Southwest Hospital across I-430 and I-30 from the area. Parks & Recreation: No comment received. The 2001 Parks and Recreation Master Plan designates McHenry Creek area for the “Take it to the Extreme Trail” for hiking, biking and equestrian trails. Currently the area requesting annexation is outside the ‘8 Block’ radius to an open space or recreational area. If the “Take it to the Extreme Trail” is developed through the area, part of the deficiency will be handled. There will be a need for additional recreational areas within or near the annexation area to achieve the ‘8 Block’ strategy of the 2001 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Public Works: The Solid Waste Division of Public Works has no issues or concerns about the proposed annexation. The Traffic Engineering Division reports that at full development there would be an annual cost to the City of $11,400 for streetlights. This assumes a density of 4 units per acre, with the developer indicating a density closer to 1 and a quarter units per acre. No structures currently exist, therefore there will be no garbage pick-up required initially. Since there are no roads within the annexation area, initially there will be no street maintenance required initially. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 3 Utilities: Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water indicates that the development should have only minor impact on the existing water distribution system. New facilities to serve the area will have to be sized and built per CAW requirements by the developer. This may include some off-site improvements. There is an existing 16-inch water line at David O Dodd to the northeast of the site. Several 12-inch lines exit to the south and southeast of the site. The developer will have to extend service lines to and into the annexation to provide service. Entergy: No comment received. There are utility poles along the roads adjacent to the annexation area. Reliant-Energy: No comment received. Wastewater Utility: The Wastewater Utility indicated they have no objection to the annexation and that sewer main extensions would be required at the developer’s expense to serve this area. The area is within sewer basin 142. A 12-inch sewer main is along McHenry Creek as it passes under Interstate 430. The developer of the area would have to extend the McHenry line to and into the site at their cost. Schools: Little Rock District: The Little Rock School District has no concerns or issues about the requested annexation. The area is not within the Little Rock School District. Pulaski County Special District: No comment received. The area is within the Pulaski County Special School District. Attendance zones for this area are: Baker Elementary, Joe T Robison Middle School and Joe T Robinson Senior High School. ANALYSIS: This site is within the City of Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction. The City currently exercises both subdivision and zoning jurisdiction over this land. The area is January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 4 zoned R2, Single Family. Whether annexed or not with the area zoned as it currently is, one could legally subdivide this acreage into over 2000 single-family lots (7000 square foot lots). If the area were not annexed, due to limitations of septic systems the site would likely only be divided into between 70 to 120 lots (3 to 5 acre tracts). Due to the topography and natural features of the land the owner has indicated that the area would be developed into only single family homes with a maximum number of units in the neighborhood of 500. The site is currently heavily wooded, with two ridgelines in a northwest to southeast orientation. Gardner Company Lake is in the northern section of the annexation area, it lies between the two ridgelines. The stream that flows from Gardner Company Lake moves northeast to empty into McHenry Creek. McHenry flows to the southeast moving under I-430 and Stagecoach Road before emptying into the Fourche Creek. Two smaller tributaries of Fourche Creek flow parallel to McHenry Creek with a ridgeline separating each stream. The streams as well as the ridges run in a northwest to southeast direction. The land varies from a low of around 320 feet to a high of approximately 460 feet. The southwestern ridge reaches highs of around 460 feet with the northeastern ridge reaching heights of around 450 feet. Each of the ridgelines has steep slopes. There is a Floodplain along McHenry Creek, which includes the northeast corner of the annexation area. Since the area is outside the City Limits there is no defined Floodway. There may well be a very small amount of Floodway at the extreme northeast corner of the annexation area. The only current street access shall be Crystal Valley Road approximately a half- mile east of Colonel Carl Miller Road. The Master Street Plan however shows several additional roads, which would provide access to the area under consideration. First the Master Street proposes a north-south arterial approximately along the eastern boundary of this property. This road would be a continuation of David O Dodd to Crystal Valley Road at Stagecoach Road. The resulting road would start at Hinson Road as Napa Valley Road changing to Bowman Road at MaraLynn Road, again changing name just at Colonel Glenn Road to David O Dodd Road and finally Crystal Valley Road at Stagecoach Road. An east-west arterial is proposed to intersect the David O Dodd/Crystal Valley Road arterial in the southeast section of this annexation area. The road would be an extension of Crystal Valley Road, which runs along the northern section lines of Sections 31 & 32 Township 1 North, Range 13 West. The City Land Use Plan recommends Single Family development of the area under consideration. The Plan has not been reviewed in this area in some time. The current zoning for the area is R2, Single Family. The property owner has indicated that the development plan for the area is residential. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 5 This annexation area is adjacent to sections of Little Rock, which though in the City Limits for several decades, have not development significantly. Over the last couple of years interest in development has began. Several preliminary and final plats for residential subdivisions have been filed with the City for areas to the northeast and east of this annexation area. A new multi-screen theater and other commercial uses have been built about a mile and half to the north east of the area. Development interest and pressure appears to be building in the areas to the northeast and east. To the south and southwest, the Otter Creek Subdivision and related subdivisions have experienced significant increases in the number of units permitted in the last decade. Several apartment developments have been constructed along Stagecoach Road to the south and Colonel Carl Miller Road at Baseline Road to the southwest of the annexation area. In addition to these residential developments there has been retail and shopping development both at Baseline and Stagecoach Roads as well as around Otter Creek Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The roads that service the annexation are currently two lane rural construction type roads. Crystal Valley Road is well below the design capacity of the current road. However Baseline Road, which Crystal Valley Road feeds, is nearing capacity. David O. Dodd Road is at less than a quarter of the capacity of its current design – 2 lanes. Both of these roads are beyond the annexation area, but are the route anyone would have to take either to or from the area. Since the developer is still determining the type of homes they will build, only an approximate impact on the roads and other services can be determined. We will assume that the 500 maximum indicated by the developer will be the development density for the annexation area. To determine the development rate, development in Planning Districts 16, 17 and 18 (Otter Creek, Ellis Mountain and Crystal Valley Planning Districts) since 1990 was review versus the development total for the City. Just under a quarter of the new residential homes have been constructed in the area south of Kanis Road and West of Bowman Road, including the Otter Creek area. If we assume that no more than this level of activity will continue and that no more than half of the activity from the overall area would occur in the annexation area, an average of fifty homes per year would be built in the annexation area. Since there is no approved preliminary plat and the utilities and roads to connect the annexation area to the ‘world’ must still be built, development of homes January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 6 should still be several years off. New home construction is not likely to start until at least 2005. At a rate of 50 units per year, with a maximum of 500 units, it would take ten years for build-out. If the annexation were approved, the area within Little Rock would increase approximately 0.5 percent to 119.47 square miles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to allow additional time to review the fire safety and other issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2003) The item was placed on Consent Agenda for deferral to December 4, 2003. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against (2 absent) the item was deferred. STAFF UPDATE: The Fire and Planning Departments have held numerous meetings with the City Manager’s Office to discuss the concerns that this annexation may have on the City Fire Insurance Rating. Options of requiring additional assistance from the Developers; working with the Crystal Hill Volunteer Fire Department to be the first responder; Special Taxing Districts and other issues were reviewed. The annexation location does not contain a site which the Fire Department would need for a station. Any new station would have to be located to the south or north of this annexation area. The City financially is not in a position to even take over the annual cost of a new station, if the Developer were to build and equip such a facility. Due to lack of financial ability and other factors, the City still has not built two stations in other areas where land has already been acquired. At this time the City does not see away to provide fire service to this area without adversely affecting the areas already served. The Little Rock Police Department has indicated they too have concerns about providing service at full development. Initially, service would have to be provided by an existing patrol unit covering the Otter Creek Subdivision area. The patrol units servicing the adjacent sections of Little Rock are already stretched in part due to staffing reductions over the last few years. Further stretching of patrol districts is not viewed as an appropriate action. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 7 For these reason, Staff cannot recommend the area be annexed to the City of Little Rock. Staff is prepared to recommend to the City Board of Directors that sanitary sewer service be granted to this area under the following conditions. A “pre- annexation” agreement must be signed by the owner and included in the Bill of Assurance to bind future owners to this agreement. Further all Little Rock building code requirements must be followed. Any construction within the area would be subject to the same fees and inspections as those within the City. At such time as the City has the financial ability to provide fire and safety services to the area, it will be incorporated into the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Staff and the applicant agreed to do an economic analysis for the annexation. In order to allow time to do this analysis, the item needs to be deferred. The item was placed on Consent Agenda for deferral. By unanimous vote the item was deferred to January 29, 2004. STAFF UPDATE: Staff completed the annexation reviewed requested by the applicant. The analysis assigns the annexation area a portion of the cost for needed new infrastructure and maintenance for a ten year period – fire, police, streets, etc. The model used assumes that the other areas, which will be served by the infrastructure, will supply the remaining costs. Since the developer will build all new water, wastewater and streets at standards required by the City, maintenance and repairs should be minimal. The model found that the revenue effect on the General Fund of the City of Little Rock should be positive at a 1 to 1.73 rate. Thus the area under consideration for annexation should pay its share for needed services. The areas of concern identified earlier in this report are generally pre-existing issues. The action of annexation does not produce the need. Further the needs identified are not currently required by the annexation area, but rather would be needed only after the area is 51 percent developed. The surrounding area is not currently developed as noted in the analysis section of this report. If the surrounding area does develop and the annexation area develops, at that time the fire needs will occur. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 8 The location of fire station(s) in the general area for the annexation should be identified. Since the annexation area and much of the surrounding area is not developed the City has time to locate sites and address the identified future need. If the area develops in the timeline suggested by the applicant, the City has at least five years to work on this issue. If the area were not annexed, as noted earlier, it would likely develop at a density of one unit per 3 to 5 acres. This would further surround the City with large lot, low-density residential development that does nothing to help the regional sprawl concerns. If annexed the development pattern is likely to be more dense. Since the annexation is cost/benefit positive to the City’s General Fund and the identified problems are long term and can be addressed, staff recommends the area be accepted for annexation to the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the requested annexation. Mr. Malone pointed out recent development activity to the north, east and south. He indicated that there have been concerns related to the public safety issues. However after review, this area when developed would provide more revenue to the general fund than cost. The issues of concern are into the future and will occur whether there is an annexation or not. The City still has time to address them. Based on all the information provided and the analysis performed, staff is supportive of the annexation. Commissioner Adcock asked additional questions about the fire and police service in the area. Mr. Malone responded by reviewing pages 11 and 13 of the “Review and Analysis”. Planning Staff is unable to provide information beyond that in the study. Some of those answers must come from the Department (Public Works, Police, and Fire). Chairman Rahman asked about the development pattern. Based on what Staff has been told and the current zoning, the analysis has been done on a total residential development. There was discussion about the impact of alternative uses. Jim Hathaway, of the Hathaway Group, provided some background on the ownership of the land, the need for sewer and the City’s efforts to review this annexation request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-299 9 Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, stated that the League is not against annexations or the particulars of this annexation. But they do have concerns about the infrastructure deficit of the City. There is a lot of new development being approved and it is very hard to get more money to maintain and improve the infrastructure we already have. There is a need to have a plan on how the City is going to “phase-in” the needed infrastructure, with a timeline. Mr. Hathaway returned to the podium to give six or seven reasons why this annexation should be approved. Staff is recommending after a lot of time and review. The revenue picture to the City should be very position (p. 26 of “Review”). The market for $200,000 homes in Little Rock is under supplied (which is the price of the homes they plan to build). A subdivision plat will be presented to this Commission in the next year or two. This annexation helps square up Little Rock’s western boundary. The fairness issue of providing sewer only if in the City and then not allowing annexation. The correlation between public agency and City policy i.e. Sewer Department at great cost extending sewer to the vicinity. When developed the area will have additional positive economic impacts; taxes, services purchased etc. This area is much closer to the city center than many areas already annexed. Commissioner Rector moved the approval of the annexation. By a vote of 11 for 0 against the item was approved. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1408 NAME: Shackleford Farms Preliminary Plat LOCATION: along the east side of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway and south of Champlin Drive DEVELOPER: Shackleford Family LLC c/o Wingfield Martin 221 West 2nd Street, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 120 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 4,875 LF CURRENT ZONING: O-2, MF-18, MF-6, R-3 and R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.10 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 5 - 9. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 120-acre tract into 21 lots of various sizes based on the proposed zoning. The applicant has indicated seven lots proposed as multi-family development, ten lots proposed as office development and four lots proposed as commercial development. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 2 The multi-family lots all will be accessed by Wellington Hills Road. The proposed lots range in size from five acres to thirty plus acres. The applicant has indicated four commercial lots. The lots are proposed adjacent to the proposed extension of Arkansas Systems Drive. The proposed office lots range in size from one-half acre to twenty-one plus acres. There are nine lots fronting Kirk Road, which average one hundred twenty-five feet by one hundred eight-four feet and a larger tract (21+ acres) proposed to front Wellington Hills Road. The applicant has indicated a new commercial street extending from Arkansas System Drive to connect to a proposed minor arterial Wellington Hills Road with for lots proposed as commercial development. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 5 – 9. The lots are proposed to front Wellington Hills Road and will also abut Kirk Road. The applicant has also filed a several requests for the area in association with an overall development plan. There is a request to rezone several parcels within the plat boundary (Z-4807-E – Item 6.3) along with a request to amend the City’s Future Land Use Plan (LU03-19-02 – Item #6.1). The applicant has also filed a request to amend the City’s Master Street Plan to remove three collectors along the proposed minor arterial named Wellington Hills Road/Champlin Road between Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway (File No. MSP03-04 – Item #6-2). Please see each of the individual items for specifics on each request. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant gently sloping; site the remnant of the old Shackleford Dairy Farm. The area to the west is developing as office and commercial uses abutting Chenal Parkway and the area to the southwest along Kirk Road has not redeveloped. To the east of the site are vacant lands owned by the developers of the Villages of Wellington. North of the site are the Carrington Park Apartments (zoned MF-18) and a vacant O-3 zoned tract. To the northwest is a MF-18 zoned tract, which the Commission recently approved for a multiple building site plan review for a multi-family development. South of the site is a PD-C zoned site for Riverside Acura automobile dealership. Small scale office development is occurring along Kirk Road on the east side. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents or property owners concerning the proposed development. The Parkway Place Property Owners Association and the St. Charles Property Owners Association January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 3 and all abutting property owners of the site were notified of the proposed plat additional notes were sent for the rezoning and plan amendment request. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The plat proposal for extending and improving the minor arterial, Wellington Hills Road, and the collectors, Wellington Village Road, Systems Drive and Kirk Road south of Systems Drive is acceptable. 2. North of Systems Drive, boundary street improvements would also be required for the remainder of the Kirk Road right-of-way, or a right-of-way abandonment should be filed as a part of this plat. 3. The plat should show access to the O-2 zoned property just north of the Arkansas Systems property. The current plan calls for the extension of Wellington Village Road to meet a cul-de-sac on that property. 4. Public Works has no objection to the removal of the collector street from the Master Street Plan that was to link Kirk Road to Wellington Hills Road. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Identify whether storm water detention facilities are to be provided on a regional basis or for each individual lot. 7. Provide the directional flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. Easements are required for all drainage areas. 8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinance. Contact Traffic Engineering at (510) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 9. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. This applies to Lots 8 through 21 and Lot 23. The lot widths must be increased to the ordinance standard of at least 125-feet if shared driveways are platted or 250-feet for individual driveways. The width of driveways must not exceed 36-feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 4 Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: A ten foot easement is required around the perimeter of the site as well as adjacent to all proposed roadways. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional information. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Water main extensions will be required for this project. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 6, 2003) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed project indicating the development also included a request for rezoning, an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan and a request to amend the Master Street Plan. Staff noted there were additional items necessary on the proposed preliminary plat to complete the review. Staff stated the source of title along with a phasing plan should be included. Staff stated the proposed lots along Kirk Road should be reconsidered. Staff stated with the current Master Street Plan there was a proposed collector street crossing a few of the lots, which would result in the lots being unbuildable. Staff also noted the proposed lots did not allow for proper driveway spacing per the Subdivision Ordinance or the Master Street Plan. Staff suggested the applicant review the proposed design in this area. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 5 Staff also questioned the dedication of right-of-way for the large O-2 zoned parcel to the north. Staff requested the applicant provide right-of-way extending Kirk Road to the north to allow access to the site. Mr. White stated the property owner of the un-served tract to the north would have access from Chenal Parkway through a tract of land extending between the Villages at Rahling Road and the MF-18 zoned parcel. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant provide the directional flow and all storm water flows entering and leaving the property. Staff requested the applicant to provide storm water detention facilities and the plans if the detention would be on-site or provided regionally. Mr. White stated he would address this issue upon resubmission. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the November 6, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated detention will be provided on a regional basis. The applicant has also indicated the final platting of the lots will be market driven. The applicant has revised the plan to meet the minimum requirements for driveway spacing for the proposed lots fronting Kirk Road. The applicant has indicated the lots will be 125 feet by 184 feet and contain a minimum of 23,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting the lots be zoned as O-3, which typically requires a minimum lot area of 14,000 square feet. The applicant has indicated a large tract (Lot 20), the majority of which is currently zoned O-2 as a separate lot. The typical minimum requirement for an O-2 zoned parcel is a minimum of two acres and two hundred feet of frontage. The proposed parcel is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements. The applicant has not indicted a collector street currently shown on the Master Street Plan, which is proposed to extend from Kirk Road to Wellington Hills Road through Lot 20. Staff feels the proposed collector should be indicated on the preliminary plat and the proposed lots abutting Kirk Road be modified to allow for the street location (Lots 10 – 19). Staff feels once the street is indicated on the proposed preliminary plat the number of lots will be reduced. Staff feels the subdivision of the smaller lots in this area is premature. Staff feels the applicant should leave this area with the larger tract and when development is secured revise the preliminary plat in accordance with the development’s needs. There is also the issue related to the proposed collector street shown on the City’s Master January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 6 Street Plan. Staff feels this street is critical until a development plan has been submitted for the proposed 21 acre tract of office zoning. The applicant has indicated an extension of Arkansas Systems Drive to Wellington Hills Road. The four lots abutting this new street are proposed as commercial uses. The applicant has indicated lot sizes ranging from 0.88 acres to 1.63 acres. The proposed lots meet the typical minimum requirement for commercially zoned property (C-1 – 7,000 square feet and C-3 – 14,000 square feet). The remainder of the lots proposed will take access from Wellington Hills Road. The proposed parcels range in size from five plus acres to twenty plus acres. The applicant has indicated multi-family zoning on these lots. The acreage is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum requirements for site area. The applicant has not indicated access to the northern O-2 zoned parcel (north of Arkansas System). Staff has requested the applicant extend Kirk Road to the north to access this site. Arkansas Systems has committed to one-half street improvements to Kirk Road to their northern property line. Staff feels this owner should also construct one-half street improvements in this area to match the improvements to the west. Staff feels there are many outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. There are unresolved street issues associated with the request. and staff feels the proposed lots abutting Kirk Road premature. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were several registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested this item be deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1408 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: C.1 FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: North of Chenal Parkway, South of Rahling Road Request: Area 1: Office and Multifamily to Commercial. Area 2: Commercial to Office. Area 3: Multifamily to Office. Area 4: Single Family to Park / Open Space. Area 5: Single Family to Public Institutional. Area 6: Low Density Residential to Multifamily. Area 7: Single Family to Multifamily. Source: Joe White, White - Daters & Associates PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Office, Multifamily, Low Density Residential, and Single Family to Office, Commercial, and Multifamily. The Office category represents services provided directly to the consumers (e.g., legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. 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 Multifamily category accommodates residential development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre. The applicant wishes to develop the property for commercial, office, and multifamily uses. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include an area shown as Low Density Residential at the end of Wellington Hills Road to recognize existing zoning and the proposed multi- family development. In addition, the application was expanded to include a change from Single Family to Park / Open Space at the northwest corner of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village Road (Area 4), and a change from Single Family to Public Institutional on the west side of Wellington Village Road (Area 5) to recognize existing zoning and the uses. The Park / Open Space category includes all public parks, recreation facilities, greenbelts, flood plains, and other designated open space and recreational land. The Public Institutional category includes public and quasi-public facilities that provide a variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations, and hospitals. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 2 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant’s property is about 120.0 acres ± of pastureland. The portion of the applicant’s property on the west side of the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial is zoned R-2 Single Family at the end of Champlin Drive, MF-18 Multifamily at the end of Kirk Road, O-2 Office and Institutional along Kirk Road, and MF-18 at the south end of the applicant’s property. The east side of the Proposed Minor Arterial is zoned R-2 at the end of Champlin Drive, R-3 Single Family in the middle, and MF-6 Multifamily at the end of Wellington Hills Road. The expanded area consists of vacant land zoned MF-18 near the end of Wellington Hills Road, a retention pond at the northwest corner of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village Road zoned R-2, and property zoned R-2 with a Conditional Use Permit for a church on the west side of Wellington Village Road. The vacant land neighboring the study area beginning at the end of Champlin Drive is zoned MF-18, R-2, and MF-6. The property wrapping around the east side of the expanded area consists of houses located in the vicinity of Wellington Hills Road zoned R-2. The property on the east side of the intersection of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village Roads consist of a church zoned R-2 with a C.U.P. and vacant land at the northeast corner zoned O-1 Quiet Office. The south side of Wellington Hills Road includes vacant land zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial at the Wellington Village intersection, plus offices and a radio station zoned Planned Office Development at the end of Wellington Hills. The land to the south along Chenal Parkway includes a church zoned R-2 with a C.U.P. at Kanis Road, and an automobile dealership zoned Planned Development - Commercial at Kirk Road. The property to the west along Kirk Road consists of a convenience store zoned C-3 General Commercial at Chenal Parkway, offices and vacant land zoned O-2 along the west side of Kirk Road on both sides of Systems Drive, and vacant land zoned MF-18 on the south side of Rahling Road at Chenal Valley Drive. A small parcel of vacant land zoned O-3 is located north of the applicant’s property on the end of Champlin Drive on the west side. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On June 17, 2003 multiple changes were made from Office, Multifamily, and Single Family to Multifamily and Low Density Residential along the south side of Rahling Road at Chenal Valley Drive within a 1 mile radius of the current study area, which includes some of the property addressed by this amendment, and resulted in the current Future Land Uses shown for the study area to accommodate proposed development and recognize existing conditions. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 3 On September 18, 2001 a change was made from Single Family, to Neighborhood Commercial and Office on Rahling Road at Chenal Valley Drive and Champlin Drive about 1/10 of a mile north of the amendment area to accommodate proposed development. On September 18, 2001 a change was made from Low Density Residential to Single Family for an area located northeast of the end of Lamarche Drive about 1 mile north of the study area to recognize existing conditions. On April 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family, Multifamily, and Park/Open Space to Community Shopping on Rahling Road & Chenal Parkway about ¼ of a mile west of the study area to accommodate proposed development. On January 4, 2000 a change was made from Office to Mixed Office Commercial at 15500 Chenal Parkway about 1/10th of a mile southwest of the amendment area to accommodate proposed development. The portion of the applicant’s property on the west side of the Champlin / Wellington Hills connection is shown as Multifamily, Office and Commercial. The land between the area shown as Office and the Proposed Minor Arterial is shown as Multifamily. The east side of the applicant’s property is shown as Single Family to the north and Low Density Residential to the south. The expanded area is shown as Low Density Residential at the end of Wellington Village Road, Single Family at the northwest corner of the Wellington Hills / Wellington Village intersection, and along the west side of Wellington Village Road. The neighboring property north of the study area is shown as Office and Multifamily at the end of Champlin Drive. The land wrapping around the east side of the expanded study area is shown as Single Family. The intersection of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village is shown as Public Institutional on the east side of Wellington Village and Suburban Office at the corner. The land on the south side of Wellington Hills is shown as Neighborhood Commercial at Wellington Village Road and Suburban Office at the end of Wellington Hills. The property to the south along Chenal Parkway is shown as Public Institutional at the intersection of Kanis Road and Commercial from Kanis to Kirk Road. The land to the west is shown as Commercial at the Chenal / Kirk intersection and Office along the west side of Kirk Road. The land at the northwest corner of the study area is shown as Multifamily. MASTER STREET PLAN: Champlin Drive / Wellington Hills Road is shown as a Minor Arterials. The Champlin end intersecting Rahling Road is built to a 5-lane standard while Wellington Hills segment is built to a 4-lane standard with a raised median. A January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 4 Proposed Collector Street is shown to link Wellington Village Road to the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial. The completed portion of Wellington Village is classified as a Collector Street built to Collector standards. A second Proposed Collector Street will link Systems Drive from Kirk Road to the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial. A third Proposed Collector Street will link Kirk Road to the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial and is the subject of a Master Street Plan Amendment on this agenda. There are no bikeways shown that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows a Potential Greenbelt along Rock Creek in the median of Chenal Parkway within an eight block walking distance south of the application area. The plan is to develop the median of Chenal Parkway as a linear park and will include the construction of the Class I bikeway shown on the Master Street Plan. Since this amendment covers a large area, the northern portions of the study area are located in a Service Deficit Area and would require the development of park and open space facilities to serve future developments. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no 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: Area 1: (Office & Multifamily to Commercial) This change would introduce an area of Commercial that would provide land to serve the offices to the west and residential areas to the east and significantly increase the potential intensity of development that could occur in the neighborhood. The location of this area between non-residential uses to the west and residential uses to the east could provide a focal point for the neighborhood as a center of activity that could serve both of the neighboring uses. However, this change would place an inappropriately high intensity of commercial uses in an area that would be more appropriately served is less intense commercial activity. Commercial land use category would allow uses that would not provide support services to the nearby office areas during business hours and uses that would have adverse impacts on the neighboring residential areas. The adverse affects resulting from increased January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 5 traffic, noise, and visual impacts would have a greater negative impact on the residential areas to the east while leaving the non-residential areas to the west relatively non-disturbed. The proposed change to Multifamily in Areas 6 is approved, the Multifamily designation for those areas could provide a transition from the non-residential areas to the west and the less intense Low Density Residential. If the change for Area 6 is not approved, a change to Commercial in Area 1 would place a conflicting use adjacent to the area shown as Low Density Residential. At this time all of the areas providing land for retail developments are located at along Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. The closest land to the study areas shown for non-residential uses consists of the areas shown as Office, located to the west. This change would provide vacant land for new retail development on Champlin / Wellington Hills located about halfway from the areas currently shown for retail uses. Area 2: (Commercial to Office) This change would reduce the amount of land shown as Commercial at the northeast corner of the Chenal Parkway / Kirk Road intersection. The area proposed for Office would be small enough that by itself would not require an amendment. However, this amendment is adjacent to Area 3, which for a proposed change from Multifamily to Office. The change from Commercial to Office in Area 2 is essentially an expansion for the proposed change in Area 3. The Commercial shown at the intersection of Kirk Road fronts and is accessed by Chenal Parkway. Kirk Road would front area #2. Area 3: (Multifamily to Office) This conversion would increase the area shown as Office and allow the assembly of land parcels suitable for larger office development between Kirk Road and the Champlin / Wellington Hills Connection. This alteration would allow a greater continuity of uses by establishing non- residential uses along the west side of the Champlin / Wellington Hills connection south of the Systems Drive extension. This modification would also be compatible with the Suburban Office to the east and the Commercial and Public Institutional to the south. In addition, a change to Office would provide double frontage for office developments between Kirk Road and the Champlin / Wellington Hills connection. The area shown as Office between Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway is near build-out. A change to Office provide more vacant land allow more future office development in the neighborhood. Similar to the change proposed for Area 1, the proposed change in Area 3 could have adverse affects resulting from increased traffic, noise, and visual impacts would have a potential negative impact on the residential areas to the east. If the proposed changes to Multifamily in Areas 6 are approved, the Multifamily designation for those areas could provide a transition from the non-residential areas to the west and the less intense Low Density Residential. As in Area 1, if the changes for Area 6 is not approved, a change to Office in Area 3 would place a conflicting use adjacent to the area shown as Low Density Residential. The proposal for Area 3 would also January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 6 increase the area of non-residential, requiring people live further from the proposed commerical and offices uses, further segregating uses. A change to Office in Area 3 would allow for a campus type office development. Area 4: (Single Family to Park / Open Space) A change to Park / Open Space would recognize existing conditions at the northwest corner of the Wellington Hills / Wellington Village intersection. Park / Open Space would also serve to protect the integrity of the retention pond located at the northwest corner of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village and preserve the hillside. A change to Park / Open Space would also buffer the Single Family uses to the north from the non-residential uses located to the south. In addition, Park / Open Space would also provide a transition along the north side of Wellington Village from the Suburban Office and Commercial shown south of Wellington Village and the residential areas to the west. This change along with the proposed changes for Areas 5 and 6 would buffer the less intense residential uses to the north from the more intense nonresidential uses to the south. As an existing use, or neighborhood amenity, a change to Park / Open Space should help re-enforce this area as an open space amenity to the neighborhood. Area 5: (Single Family to Public Institutional) The Public Institutional category would recognize the church and provide a transition along the west side of Wellington Village into the residential areas to the north from the non-residential areas to the south. A change to Public Institutional is intended to serve the civic needs of the neighborhood. A change to Public Institutional in Area 5, along with a change to Park / Open Space in Area 4, would complement the Suburban Office and Public Institutional on the east side of Wellington Village to create a gateway into the neighborhood. As in Area 4, this change would recognize an existing use, or neighborhood amenity, there would be little negative impact on the neighborhood as long as the present use of the property remains unaltered. However, unlike the property in Area 4, this property could be more easily converted from its present use to either residential or non-residential uses. Area 6: (Low Density Residential & Single Family to Multifamily) A change to Multifamily would eliminate the LDR fronting Wellington Hills Road and provide Multifamily along the east side of the proposed Champlin / Wellington Hills link. Although a change to Multifamily could also place a higher density of residential uses next to less intense LDR, the remaining area shown as LDR could provide a transition between densities of residential development. This change would also buffer the non-residential areas to the west from the residential areas to the east. This proposal along with the proposed change in Area 7 would create a continuous area of Multifamily from Area 4 and the Multifamily shown at the intersection of Rahling Road and Chenal Valley Drive. The change in Area 6 could also provide a transition of use intensity resulting from the proposed January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 7 change to Commercial in Area 1 from the less intense residential areas to the east. However, due to the possible densities of development in an area shown as Multifamily (up to 36 dwelling units per acre), a change to Multifamily in Area 6 compared to the possible densities in an area shown as LDR (as low as 6 dwelling units per acre), a large difference in densities could occur in developments located next to each other. Area 7: (Single Family to Multifamily) A change to Multifamily would link a change to Multifamily in Area #6 to the Multifamily shown at the end of Champlin Drive. The proposed change for Area #7 would also establish Multifamily uses on both sides of the Champlin / Wellington Hills connection between the Systems Drive extension and the proposed Wellington Village Road extension. However, as in Area 6, this could place a higher density of residential uses next to less intense residential uses without a buffer between densities of residential development. A change to Multifamily at this location would increase the area already shown as Multifamily at the end of Champlin Drive. A change to Multifamily in Area 7 could result in a greater difference between developments located in Area 7 and the lower densities allowed in the areas to the east. Multifamily developments located in Area 7 would also occur adjacent to Single Family developments that would occur in conjunction with an extension of the Wellington Village Road Collector Street. In summary, the changes proposed would establish Champlin / Wellington Hills as a boundary between residential and non-residential uses located south of systems drive. The changes for Areas 1, 2, and 3 would add place Commercial uses inside the neighborhood, expand the area shown as Office, and remove Multifamily from the west side of Champlin / Wellington Hills. The changes for Areas 4 and 5 would complement the land shown as Suburban Office and Public Institutional at the intersection of Wellington Hills and Wellington Village to establish a transition of uses along Wellington Village and create an entrance into the residential areas to the north. The change for Areas 6 would complement the changes proposed for Areas 1 and 3 to establish Champlin / Wellington Hills as a boundary between residential and non-residential uses. The change in Area 7 would increase the area shown as Multifamily currently shown at the end of Champlin Drive. These changes add a new area shown as Commercial with a slight reduction in the Office and Multifamily. The loss of Office and Multi-family in Area 1 would be offset by an increases in land shown as Office in Areas 2 & 3 and Multi-family for Areas 6 & 7. The changes to Office in Areas 2 and 3 also provides vacant land for Office uses in addition to the land already developed with Office uses along Chenal Parkway. A change for Area 5 would reinforce a neighborhood amenity, while both changes for Areas 4 and 5 January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 8 recognize existing conditions. New Multifamily in Areas 6 & 7 would add vacant land to the recent increase in Multifamily shown at the end of Champlin Drive and south of Rahling Road at Chenal Valley Drive. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners Association, Chenal Ridge Property, Du Quesne Place P.O.A., Eagle Pointe Property Owners Association, Glen Eagles Property Owners Association, Hillsborough Property Owners Association, Hunters Cove Property Owners Association, Hunters Green Property Owners Association, Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, St. Charles Property Owners Association, Charleston Heights/North Rahling Rd N.A., Margeaux Place Property Owners Association, and Parkway Place Property Owners Association. Staff has received one comment from area residents. The comment received was neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the following changes are appropriate: Staff believes the changes in Areas 2 - 5 are appropriate to establish the Proposed Minor Arterial as a boundary between intensity of uses and to provide a transition between uses along Wellington Village Road. In area 1, a change to Neighborhood Commercial is more appropriate than a change to Commercial and would also provide small-scale goods and services to the residential areas after business hours, while providing support uses to the office areas during business hours, creating a focal point for the neighborhood. In Area 6 - 7, staff supports a change to Multi-family with the addition of a strip of Park / Open Space along the boundaries adjacent to areas shown as Low Density Residential and Single Family would be more appropriate to provide a buffer between intensity of uses. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-19-02 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 4, 2003) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 29, 2004 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 11, 2004 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. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: C.2 FILE NO.: MSP03-04 Name: Master Street Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: Between Kirk Road and the Champlin/Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial Request: Removal of a Proposed Collector Street Source: Joe White, White - Daters & Associates PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Master Street Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District for the removal of a Proposed Collector Street and abandonment of the dedicated Right-of-Way running through the applicant’s property. Collector Streets are to provide access to and from the arterial network to a development, subdivision or large center of activity, as well as access to adjacent properties. The applicant wishes to remove the Proposed Collector Street to assemble land for office development. Staff has not expanded the application since the entire length of the segment consists of right-of-way running through the applicant’s property and does not extend beyond the two streets it connects. The length of the segment is about 1,390 + feet. CURRENT MASTER STREET PLAN: The Proposed Collector Street shown would connect Kirk Road to the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial. Kirk Road is shown on the plan as a Collector Street and is built as a rural two-lane road. Kirk Road will need improvements in order to conform to the Master Street Plan standards for Collector Streets. The Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial shown on the plan is intended to link Champlin Drive to Wellington Hills Road and would need to be built. The Master Street Plan also shows an extension to Systems Drive as a Proposed Collector Street. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: The intersection of the Proposed Collector Street with Kirk Road is shown as Commercial except for the northeast corner, which is shown as Office. The property where the Proposed Collector Street will intersect the January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP03-04 2 Champlin/Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial is shown as Multifamily on the west side of the intersection, while the east side is shown as Low Density Residential. All of the land along the segment in question east of Kirk Road is the subject of a Land Use Plan amendment and is a separate item on this agenda. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no 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: Pastureland lies on both sides of the Proposed Collector Street. The proposed street segment that would link the office developments west of Kirk Road to the residential areas located north and east of Wellington Hills Road. The removal of the Proposed Collector Street would necessitate that the adjacent property be accessed by other means and could result in more curb cuts, on Kirk Road, Champlin / Wellington Hills, and the Systems Drive extension. The Proposed Collector Street has a dedicated Right-of-Way of 60 feet. The design standards for Proposed Collector Streets are intended to serve a traffic count of 5,000 vehicles per day. Removal of the Proposed Collector Street with the suggested future development pattern would likely increase traffic on Kirk Road and the Champlin / Wellington Hills connection. If approved, the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial would serve the role of providing access to adjacent properties. Minor Arterials are intended to provide access between different sections of the city with the secondary purpose of providing access to adjacent properties. Although Kirk Road, as a Collector Street, is intended to link the neighborhood to an Arterial, this application would increase the traffic on Kirk Road by increasing its use for access to adjacent property. Since the Proposed Collector Street is a short segment that begins at Kirk Road and ends at the Proposed Minor Arterial, it is not as likely that it would become a cut-through street. The Proposed Collector Street would be more likely to be used to access adjacent property. The current street pattern shown on the Master Street Plan anticipated a higher density of land development. The three Proposed Collectors link properties to January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP03-04 3 the Champlin / Wellington Hills Proposed Minor Arterial. If the related land use plan amendments are approved, the Future Land Use Plan would accommodate higher densities of development than is currently shown. Any increased density would generate a larger amount of traffic that would need the proposed streets shown on the Master Street Plan. The Proposed Collector Street in question, as well as the one that would extend Systems Drive, would complement each other to link the office developments to the west with residential areas located east of Champlin / Wellington Hills. If this amendment is approved the Proposed Collector Street located at the end of Systems Drive would serve a higher volume of traffic as the only link between the residential areas to the east and the non- residential areas to the west. Due to the high number of land use plan amendments in this area, there is a need for roads. This amendment bisects an area under consideration for a Land Use Plan amendment for a change from Multifamily to Office, which could increase the intensity of development and could increase the amount of traffic generated. The plan amendment could result in a larger area of intense development between Kirk Road and the Proposed Minor Arterial from Chenal Parkway and the Systems Drive extension. The Proposed Collector Street currently shown lies approximately halfway between Chenal Parkway and the systems drive extension. This Master Street Plan amendment coupled with increases of intensity of development proposed by the Land Use Plan amendment would create a an area of intense development that would only be accessed from streets located at the periphery. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners Association, Chenal Ridge Property, Du Quesne Place P.O.A., Eagle Pointe Property Owners Association, Glen Eagles Property Owners Association, Hillsborough Property Owners Association, Hunters Cove Property Owners Association, Hunters Green Property Owners Association, Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, St. Charles Property Owners Association, Charleston Heights/North Rahling Rd N.A., Margeaux Place Property Owners Association, and Parkway Place Property Owners Association. Staff has received one comment from area residents. The one comment received was neutral. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP03-04 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change not appropriate based on the suggested land use pattern and information provided. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 29, 2004 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 11, 2004 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. January 29, 2004 1 ITEM NO.: C.3 FILE NO.: Z-4807-E Owner: Shackleford Family Trust Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: Along the east side of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway Area: Approximately 120 acres Request: Rezoning from Various Districts to MF-18, O-2, O-3 and C-3 Purpose: Future development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Apartment complex and undeveloped property; zoned MF-18, O-3 and C-1 South – Auto dealership, branch bank, dental clinic; zoned PD-C and C-3 East – Undeveloped property and mini-warehouse development; zoned R-2, R-3, MF-6, MF-18 and POD West – Single family residential, auto repair garage, office uses and undeveloped property (across Kirk Road); zoned O-2, O-3 and C-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Refer to all comments for the preliminary plat (Item 6.). Show all existing and proposed right-of-way dedications on the zoning plan. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the St. Charles and Parkway Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-E 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office, Multifamily, Low Density Residential and Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for O-2 Office and Institutional, O-3 General Office, C-3 General Commercial and MF-18 Multifamily for office, retail and multifamily development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Office, Commercial and Multifamily is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed an action statement that recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality development. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Shackleford Family Trust, owner of the 120 acres of property located along the east side of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway, is requesting to rezone the majority of the property from various districts to MF-18, O-2, O-3 and C-3. The rezoning is proposed for the future development of the property. In addressing an overall development plan for the property, the applicant has also filed a land use plan amendment, master street plan amendment and preliminary plat. Those issues are also items on this Planning Commission agenda. The property is undeveloped and mostly grass-covered pasture land. Portions of the property are sparsely tree-covered. The property has varying degrees of slope. There are two (2) single family residences located within the west one-half of the property, which take access from Kirk Road. The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There is an apartment complex and undeveloped MF-18, O-3 and C-1 zoned property to the north. There is an auto dealership, branch bank and dental clinic to the south, with a Kroger store development further south across Chenal Parkway. The Arkansas Systems Office Park is located across Kirk Road to the west, along with an auto repair business and three or four single January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-E 3 family residences. The majority of the property to the east is undeveloped and zoned R-2, R-3, MF-6 and MF-18. There is a mini-warehouse development at the southeast corner of the property, with the Villages of Wellington single family development being located further to the east. The applicant is proposing to rezone the majority of the property from various districts to MF-18, O-2, O-3 and C-3. The list of the proposed rezoning is as follows, with the “Area” numbers referring to the attached sketch map, and the acreage calculations being approximations. The acreage calculations do not include the proposed street rights-of-way. Area 1. Rezone from R-2 to MF-18 (5.5 Acres) Area 2. Rezone from R-3 to MF-18 (17.5 Acres) Area 3. Rezone from MF-6 to MF-18 (19 Acres) Area 4. Rezone from O-2 to MF-18 (4.5 Acres) Area 5. Rezone from MF-18 to O-2 (8.3 Acres) Area 6. Rezone from O-2 to O-3 (5 Acres) Area 7. Rezone from O-2 to C-3 (4.3 Acres) Area 8. Rezone from O-2 to MF-18 (4.3 Acres) Area 9. Rezone from R-2 to MF-18 (6 Acres) Area 10. Remain zoned MF-18 (19 Acres) Area 11. Remain zoned O-2 (13.3 Acres) The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Office, Multifamily, Low Density Residential and Single Family. The applicant has filed a land use plan amendment for a change to Office, Commercial and Multifamily. This issue is a separate item on this agenda (Item 6.1). Although staff is supportive of an overall development plan for this 120 acres, staff does not support all of the zoning changes as proposed. Staff supports the rezoning of Areas 5, 8 and 9 as described above, with Areas 10 and 11 remaining zoned MF-18 and O-2 respectively. Staff does not support the rezoning of Areas 1-4, 6 and 7 as requested. Staff feels that Areas 1-4 should be zoned to MF-12 (instead of MF-18), a lower multifamily density, with a 50 foot wide zoned OS (Open Space) strip along the east property line. Staff feels that this will provide a good transition from the minor arterial to the single family zoning to the east, and provide an adequate buffer between a multifamily development and the future expansion of the Villages of Wellington single family development. Staff also feels that Area 6 should remain zoned O-2 January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-E 4 (instead of O-3) and maintained as part of the overall O-2 tract to the east. Staff does not feel that small O-3 zoned tracts will be appropriate for this area along the east side of Kirk Road (see Item 6. – proposed preliminary plat). Additionally, staff feels that it would be more appropriate to zone Area 7 to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District (instead of C-3), as it is adjacent to proposed multifamily zoning to the north and east. According to Section 36-299 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, “The C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District is designed to accommodate limited retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas for the purpose of supplying daily household needs of the residents food, drugs and personal services.” Staff feels that C-1 zoning would be more compatible with the overall zoning plan for the property, given the total amount of multifamily zoning proposed. Staff feels that the overall zoning plan for the property, as suggested by staff, will have no adverse impact on the adjacent property or the general area. Staff feels that the 46.5± acres of proposed MF-18 zoning on the east side of the future minor arterial is too much multifamily density of the area, given the 29 acres of MF-18 zoning proposed for the west side of the arterial along with the existing multifamily zoning and development to the north and southeast. In addition, staff believers a 50 foot wide zoned OS buffer along the east property line, north of the future minor arterial, will provide an adequate buffer between a future MF-12 development and future expansion of the single family development to the east. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning plan, as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were several registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested this item be deferred to the December 18, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they would recommend the application be deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C.3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-E 5 to allow all the related item to be considered at the same time. The applicant indicated they were agreeable to this recommendation. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-3292-G NAME: Chenal Plaza Lot 1 Revised PCD LOCATION: On the southwest corner of West Markham Street and Atkins Road DEVELOPER: SB & G of Arkansas, Inc #5 Shaclkeford Plaza Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.6 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Commercial/Office Mix PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant/Retail/Office Mix VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 13,580 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 16, 1979, established O-3 zoning for the southern 3 acres of the site. The northern 1.64 acres was zoned O-3 prior to that date, with the Rock Creek Zoning Plan in 1977 – 78. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 2 The Little Rock Planning Commission denied a proposed site plan for the site on January 21, 1999, because of site design issues. The applicant revised the site plan and resubmitted the application, which was approved on March 4, 1999. The approved site plan included at two story office building containing 46,200 square feet, a one story office building containing 25,000 square feet and 231 parking spaces. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,272 on May 2, 2000, establishing Atkins Road Partnership – Short-form PCD located at the southwest corner of West Markham Street and Atkins Road. The approval included the development of the site with eight smaller buildings located on the southern portion of the site containing 28,800 square feet and a single 21,420 square foot commercial center located on the northern portion of the site. The approval limited the uses of the site to O-3 permitted uses for the office area and C-2 permitted uses (except restaurant) for the proposed commercial building. The hours of operation were approved as 8:00 am to 5:00 pm for the office uses and the commercial hours would be from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. The signage was approved as a monument style sign located at each entrance, which would comply with city standard for office zones. On August 14, 2000, staff at a staff level approved a revised site plan, which decreased the number of building and total square footage on the site. The approval included the development of five single-story buildings on the southern portion of the site and a single story commercial center located on the northern portion of the site. The total square footage of the retail center was decreased to 18,240 and the total square footage of the office buildings was decreased to five buildings containing 27,200 square feet. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,640 on February 5, 2002, revising the PCD for Lot 2 only. The applicant revised the PCD for the southern lot to allow lot lines to be placed along previously approved phasing lines. The required improvements have not been completed for Lot 1. There are broken box culvert tops, there is significant settling around the storm drainage structure and the forms were not removed from the drainage structure resulting in water standing in the storm drain. The applicant has indicated all required improvements will be completed prior to the December 4, 2003 Public Hearing. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved PCD to allow Lot 1 to develop with a two (2) story 20,020 square foot building. The building will contain a 5,000 square foot restaurant, 7,420 square feet of retail space and 7,600 square feet of office space. The applicant is also proposing the placement January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 3 of 90 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height of 35-feet. The applicant has indicated an outdoor seating area along the north side of the building. This outdoor seating is associated with the proposed restaurant. The hours of operation are indicated as 7:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per week. The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in one phase. Any site lighting will be low level and directional, directed inward away from adjoining residentially zoned properties. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 1 of the site is vacant and cleared. Lot 2 has two office buildings currently constructed with the service drive in place. The property is in an area of mixed uses and zoning. The property north of this site, across West Markham Street, contains a bank office building and the Office Max/Old Navy site. The property across Atkins Road to the east contains an auto dealership and a commercial development. The property to the west contains a vacant R-2 zoned strip of property, a church, the Bale Chevrolet detail shop, one single-family residence and an undeveloped O-3 zoned tract of property. There is an existing single- family neighborhood to the south and southwest of Lot 2 and across Atkins Road southeast of Lot 2 is also a single-family neighborhood. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls concerning the proposed development. The Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association, all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Improvements in the right-of-way from the previous PCD have not been completed. All work needs to be completed, inspected, accepted and a maintenance bond posted. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 4 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Grease traps will be required. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. 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. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a new branch bank, restaurant, and office development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Landscape: A minimum twelve (12) foot wide land use buffer is required along the western perimeter of the site. Since the zoning buffer ordinance doesn’t allow utility easements to count as land use buffer area, the plan submitted fails to provide for the required land use buffer area along the western perimeter. A six (6) foot high opaque screen is required along the western perimeter of the site. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 5 The plan submitted fails to provide the minimum 317 square feet of building landscaping required. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will 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 listed an action statement that recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood- friendly and better quality development. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 6, 2003) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff introduced the item indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review. Staff stated there were concerns with the previous development not completing the required street improvements. Mr. White stated the owner had contacted the contractor and improvements should be completed in the next few days. Staff requested the applicant provide the location of any proposed dumpster(s) along with a note concerning the required screening. Staff also requested the applicant provide a cross access parking agreement between the two lots if applicable. Staff noted the original submission included the development of a bank facility on the site. Mr. White stated this was no longer the case. He stated the development would include 5,000 square feet of restaurant space, 7,420 square feet of retail space and 7,600 square feet of office space. He noted the development included 90 on-site parking spaces, which would typically meet the minimum parking demand. Staff stated the previous approval did not allow for the development of the site with food service as an allowable use. Mr. White stated he felt the area had changed and food service was a use that could be developed on the site and be an asset to the neighborhood. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the site and requested the applicant indicate a detention area on the plan. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the plan submitted fell short of the required eight (8) percent of the interior landscaping requirement. Staff also noted screening would be required along the western perimeter of the site. Staff stated the required land use buffer along the western perimeter was not being satisfied. Staff noted the area was being requested as a utility January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 6 easement therefore not allowing the required twelve (12) foot wide land use buffer. Staff suggested the applicant contact Entergy to determine if the easement would be required. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water, the Little Rock Wastewater Utility and the Little Rock Fire Department. Mr. White stated he would contact these agencies individually for specific questions. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the concerns raised at the November 7, 2003, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated all site improvements will be completed prior to the December 4, 2003 Public Hearing. Should the improvements not be completed staff would recommend the item not be considered by the Commission and the item be withdrawn from consideration until all improvements are installed, inspected and accepted by the City. The revised site plan indicates the proposed dumpster to be located behind the new two (2) story building. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed around the dumpster as required by the zoning ordinance or on three sides at least two feet above the top of the container. The applicant has also indicated a six-foot high wood fence or dense evergreen plantings along the west property line. The area set aside for the land use buffer along the western perimeter is located in a 15-foot drainage and utility easement. Typically easements are not allowed to count in fulfilling the buffer requirement [Section 36-521(f)]. The applicant is requested a variance to allow the easement to count in meeting the buffer requirement. Staff is supportive of the request to allow the western perimeter land use buffer. The site buts a church located on R-2 zoned property. Staff feels if the site redevelops it will be with a use other than residential based on the redevelopment pattern in the area. The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted monument style sign to be located on Lot 1. The sign is proposed as a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The proposed signage is consistent with signage allowed on office zones per the zoning ordinance. The applicant has indicated 90-on-site parking spaces. The typical minimum parking demand for a development of this type would be 89 parking spaces based on square footages of each proposed use. The applicant has also indicated an outdoor seating area, which would generate additional required parking. Based on the size of the outdoor seating area an additional seven (7) January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 7 spaces would be required. Staff feels the proposed parking adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand for the site based on each use per the zoning ordinance. Staff is supportive of the proposed development. The previous approval did not allow food service on the site but the development allowed a 21,420 square foot commercial center. The proposed parking was 41 parking spaces less than the typical minimum parking required for a commercial building of this size. The primary concern was related to the available parking and the demand for parking with a food service facility. Staff feels the location of the building, adjacent to West Markham Street allowing the office to act as a buffer to the residentially properties to the south is a good transition. The site was previously approved for a commercial center and the applicant has indicated approximately 40 percent of the building to be used as office uses. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the landscape/buffer strip along the western perimeter to be located within a drainage/utility easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were several registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not installed the required infrastructure as noted in the staff write-up and requested the item be deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing to allow additional time for the installation of the required improvements. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Mr. White stated the proposed request was less intense than the previously approved site plan. Mr. White also stated the proposed request did not allow food service due to January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 8 insufficient parking. He stated the proposed site plan included sufficient parking for the office, commercial and restaurant use. He stated the proposed request included the development of forty percent of the building as office uses. He stated the previous proposal included the development of the site with one hundred percent commercial uses. Mr. White stated he and the owner had meet with the neighbors and it appeared their primary concern was the restaurant portion of the proposed development. Mr. White stated with decreasing the building footprint and increasing the building height to two stories the development was able to secure the required parking. Mr. White stated other uses in the area included an automobile dealership, several commercial uses and a bank. He noted there was a church located to the west of the site and the office development to the south would act as a buffer or transition to the single-family to the south. Ms. Mary Douglas addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed development. She stated the site did not allow for a “restfulness” area or an area of green space between the proposed building and the street. She stated the developer had indicated in their meeting the restaurant would seat one hundred and twenty patrons in addition to the required staff. Ms. Douglas stated the neighborhood action plan indicated neighborhood friendly businesses to located in the area. She stated food service did not meet these criteria. Ms. Douglas stated concerns of the hours the dumpsters would be serviced and when deliveries would be made to the site. She also stated the proposed restaurant was not conducive to traffic flows and circulation since the primary hours of the business would overlay with residents returning from work. Ms. Douglas stated West Markham Street and Atkins Road were both two-lane roadways. She stated it was important to not allow West Markham and Atkins Road to become a Chenal Parkway. She stated she was not sure a bar and grill was an asset to the neighborhood. She stated there were sixty-eight restaurants within the three and one-half square miles around the neighborhood. Mr. Keith Dover addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. Mr. Dover stated the Master Street Plan indicated West Markham and Atkins Road as collector streets. He stated typically a collector street was designed to handle 5000 cars per day. He stated the 2003 traffic counts on West Markham Street were 3900 vehicles per day, prior to the Kohl’s Department Store opening. He stated since the store had opened traffic in the area had increased. Mr. Dover stated based on Metroplan Projects the traffic at the intersection of West Markham and Atkins Road would be 9100 vehicles in 2025. He stated Atkins Road was basically a pig trail in comparison to the other roads around. He stated currently Atkins Road was carrying 2500 vehicles per day. He stated the roadway was a chip-seal roadway with twenty foot of pavement. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 9 Mr. Dover stated according to the Microtrans Trip Generation figures, the current driveway volume for building at this office development was 55 vehicles per day. He stated the proposed development would generate a driveway volume of 652 vehicles per day. Mr. Dover stated this figure was unacceptable to both commuters and the safety and security of the neighborhood. Mr. Melvin Clifford addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was the pastor of the church located to the east of the site. Mr. Clifford stated the church was not planning to relocate but to expand on their current site. He stated the traffic flow in the neighborhood did not lend itself to a restaurant on the site. He stated the proposed site was hardly adequate to meet the parking demand required for the use. Mr. Clifford stated according to City Code if the restaurant were to locate on the site they would be unable to serve alcohol. He stated City Code Chapter 4-93 dedicated the sale of alcohol near schools and churches. Staff agreed the buildings would not meet the minimum three hundred foot spacing requirement. Mr. Henry Reyes, Jr. chose not to address the Commission. Ms. Shirley McFarlin addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the neighborhood had furnished the Commission with a petition of 136 signatures in opposition of a restaurant at the proposed location. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the intensity of the development, the days and hours of operation and the dumpster. She stated with a food service dumpster rodents are almost always present. She stated the proposed development had indicated the business would operate until 2:00 am seven days per week. She stated the proposal currently approved for the site included hours from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. She stated this was more conducive to a neighborhood. Ms. McFarlin stated the neighborhood had fought to keep several other developments from locating on the site and she stated she was appreciative of the Commission and their support. She stated the neighborhood was now requesting support once again to not allow a business to locate on the site, which would negatively impact the residents. Ms. Kathy McFarlin addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed request. She stated she was the current property owner. She stated her desire was to develop the site with commercial businesses and with the economic down turn she was not longer able to do so. She stated she currently owned four businesses in Hot Springs and lived above one of the businesses. She stated the proposed development would be an asset to the area. She stated the proposed developer was looking to develop the site with a Hillcrest feel and gear the development to that of a local restaurant. She stated the Bank of the Ozark’s currently located north of the site was also a two story building. Mr. Joe White addressed the Commission stating the intersection was a major traffic intersection. He stated the Master Street Plan had indicated the two abutting streets as January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3292-G 10 collector streets designed to handle the projected traffic flows. He stated the hours of trash pick-up could be regulated. He stated the owner did however wish to maintain the 2:00 am closing. Commissioner Rector questioned the need for the late hour for closing. He stated typically restaurants did not stay open until 2:00 am. Mr. White stated most of the applicant’s establishments did close by 10:00 pm but the desire was to allow this site a later hour. Mr. James Williams addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the request was to be allowed the particular uses but the applicant had not indicated the uses would be present. He stated the sale of alcohol was not being discussed. Commissioner Rector agreed the Commission had no jurisdiction over the sale of alcohol but the Commission had to review the development as the most intense that would be allowed. This was the sale of alcohol and being open until 2:00 am. Commissioner Rector stated parking was not an issue. A motion was made to approve the request as amended to limit the hours of dumpster service. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU03-18-03 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District Location: 15500 Chenal Parkway Request: Suburban Office to Commercial Source: Joe White, White-Daters & Associates PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Suburban Office to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to build an automobile dealership. Staff is not expanding the application since a land use review is a part of a Neighborhood Action Plan currently being updated. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is mostly vacant land with a few small buildings located on the curve of Kanis Road currently zoned O-2 Office and Institutional and is about 13.5 acres ± in size. The land in the median of Chenal Parkway is zoned PR - Parks and Recreation while the north side of Chenal Parkway is vacant land zoned C-3 General Commercial. The houses in the subdivision east of the applicant’s property are zoned R-2 Single Family. A strip of vacant land along the north side of Kanis Road is zoned O-2. The south side of Kanis Road consist of vacant land zoned O-2. The neighboring land to the west consists of a business zoned R-2 on the north side of Kanis Road and a house built on a large lot south of Kanis Road. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On June 17, 2003, multiple changes were made from Office, Single Family, and Multifamily to Multifamily and Low Density Residential for an area north of Chenal Parkway and south of Rahling Road about 1/3 of a mile northwest of the study area to accommodate proposed development and recognize existing conditions. On April 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family, Multifamily, and Park / Open Space to Community Shopping at Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-03 2 starting over ¾ of a mile to the west of the application area to accommodate proposed development. On January 4, 2000 a change was made form Office to Mixed Office Commercial at 15500 Chenal Parkway across the street north of the applicant’ property to accommodate proposed development. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Office to Mixed Office Commercial on Chenal Parkway east of Kirk Road about ¼ of a mile west of the application area to accommodate proposed development. On March 2, 1999 multiple changes were made from Low Density Residential, Transition, and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family, Low Density Residential, Single Family, Suburban Office, and Mixed Office Commercial along Kanis Road within one mile east of the property in question to recognize existing conditions. The applicant’s property is shown as Suburban Office on the Future Land Use Plan. The median of Chenal Parkway is shown as Park / Open Space while the land to the north is shown as Commercial. The land to the east is shown as Single Family with a small strip of Suburban Office shown on the north side of Kanis Road. The south side of Kanis Road is shown as Suburban Office. To the west, a strip of Park / Open Space is shown along the floodway of Rock Creek while Commercial is shown further to the west at the intersection of Kanis Road with Chenal Parkway. MASTER STREET PLAN: Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial built with a four-lane Parkway cross section as required by ordinance. Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial and is built as a rural two-lane road. Kanis Road needs improvement in order to conform to the Master Street Plan standards for Minor Arterials. A Class I bikeway is shown for Chenal Parkway from Bowman Road to State Highway 10. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 show a Potential Greenbelt along Rock Creek in the median of Chenal Parkway. The plan is to develop the median of Chenal Parkway as a linear park and will include the construction of the Class I bikeway shown on the Master Street Plan. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-03 3 City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed an action statement that recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality development. ANALYSIS: This amendment would increase the area shown for Commercial uses along Chenal Parkway at the expense of areas available for office developments. A change to Commercial at this location is a further break with the original Rock Creek Parkway (now Chenal) plan, which recommended office and multifamily use along this portion of Chenal Parkway (formerly Rock Creek Parkway). The original land use pattern for the area placed low intensity land use patterns along Chenal Parkway (formerly Rock Creek Parkway) and the more intense land uses away from Rock Creek. This change would further intensify land development along the Rock Creek portion of Chenal Parkway. The primary purpose of the areas shown as Park / Open Space in the vicinity of the applicant’s property is to protect the integrity of Rock Creek. The strip of PK/OS shown along the banks of Rock Creek provides a buffer between the more intense uses west of Rock Creek from the less intense uses to the east. Development of the applicant’s property would need to be done in a manner that would minimize any run-off towards Rock Creek with the goal of preserving the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Rock Creek. This change would introduce a use in an area that is incompatible with neighboring uses. Any non-residential development of this site needs to be compatible with the adjacent residential properties. If this amendment were approved, the Planned Zoning Development process governing the development of the applicant’s property should be required. If a proposed development has design characteristics that are incompatible with residential properties, potential negative impacts from non-residential development could be minimized if the PZD process governed future proposals. The current Suburban Office category would allow non-residential development to take place at this location under the PZD process. The development of the property should be minimized in size dimensions and avoid the mass and bulk typical of commercial developments that are incompatible with neighboring residential uses. The development of the property with Suburban Office uses with a PZD increases the likelihood that the negative impacts of size, mass and bulk of development would be minimized. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-03 4 Any development of the applicant’s property would require access that may affect the flow of traffic on Chenal and Kanis, and would need to be designed in a manner, which would minimize any potential disruptions. The applicant’s property is situated to benefit from double frontage along two arterials. Chenal Parkway is intended to have a daily traffic count of 25,000 vehicles per day, while Kanis road is intended to have a daily traffic count of 18,000 vehicles per day. Principal Arterials are intended to serve through traffic on a regional level, while Minor Arterials are intended to serve through traffic at a more local level. The proposed change, along with vacant areas shown as Commercial, and the possibility of commercial development in vacant areas shown as Mixed Office Commercial could result in a corridor of commercial development along Chenal Parkway from the intersection of Wellington Hills Road to the western intersection of Kanis Road west of Kirk Road. The removal of Suburban Office could reduce the area of land available for the development of small-scale offices and increase the intensity of office development in areas, which would remain for quite office uses. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Gibraltar/Pt. West/Timber Ridge, Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners Association, St Charles Property Owners Association, SW Little Rock UP, and WCLR Coalition of Neighborhoods. Staff has received one comment from area residents. The comment received was opposed to the change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change is incompatible with the uses to the east. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (December 4, 2003) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 29, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1 recuse. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-03 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 11, 2004 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. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-4841-B NAME: Pinnacle Ford Long-form PCD LOCATION: South of Chenal Parkway, east of the Kanis Road intersection DEVELOPER: Pinnacle Ford 11200 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 13.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: O-2 ALLOWED USES: Office and Institutional District PROPOSED ZONING: PCD and O-2 PROPOSED USE: Automobile dealership for Lot 1 and Lot 2 remaining undeveloped at this time and zoned O-2 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: In June 1987, two rezoning application, Z-4840 and Z-4841 were filed for a portion of the land under consideration. The initial request involved 12.1 acres and a second added five acres for a total of 17 acres. One request was for an O-3 reclassification, January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 2 and the other one requested a change to O-3 and C-3. Z-4840 was withdrawn without prejudice, and Z-4841, the O-3 proposal was denied by the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 15,552 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 6, 1988, reclassified the property from R-2, Single-family to O-2, Office and Institutional District. The adopted ordinance also placed restrictions on the development of the tract. The site was to have a 33-foot landscaped or undisturbed buffer along the Rock Creek Parkway; a 35-foot height limit for buildings; one access point on the Rock Creek Parkway; and a 40-foot minimum building setback from the property line on the Rock Creek Parkway side. The developer indicated the development would be constructed as an “attractive office park”. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from O-2, Office and Institutional District to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) to allow the site to develop with two (2) lots, one containing an automobile dealership and the second lot remaining zoned O-2. Lot 1 will contain 11.49 acres and Lot 2 will contain 2.0 acres. Pinnacle Ford is requesting to develop Lot 1 for their new car and used car operations. At present there are no development plans for Lot 2, which would be developed and final platted at a later date. The applicant is requesting a two year deferral of street improvements to Kanis Road for Lot 1. The applicant has indicated street improvements to Kanis Road for Lot 2 will be constructed with the final platting of the lot. The applicant has indicated two structures will be constructed on Lot 1. One will house the new car showroom and service areas and contains up to 31,400 square feet. The building also contains “hospitality zones” such as children’s play area, customer work area with phone access, laptop stations, desktops etc., and a café for customers while waiting (not food service). The other building is for pre-owned vehicle sales and clean-up and contains approximately 3,600 square feet. Other development considerations included by the applicant are all exterior lighting will be focused inward to minimize or eliminate ambient light into adjacent neighborhoods, there will be no outside paging allowed at the dealership and there will be no off-loading of vehicles in the public right-of-way. The applicant has indicated a 100-foot buffer along the east side of proposed Lot 1 with the area to be set aside as an undisturbed buffer adjacent to the residential property. There are no development plans for Lot 2 which is proposed to remain zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The western portion of the site is vacant and cleared with trees remaining on the site along the eastern perimeter. The site is relatively flat with roadway access to both Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. Chenal Parkway in this area is a divided roadway with the two eastbound lanes adjacent to the site. Kanis Road is an unimproved narrow road with open ditches for drainage. To the east of the site is a fully developed single-family neighborhood, Wood Creek. To the north of the site is the divided parkway with C-2 zoned property located to the north. The area to the south of the site is vacant O-2 zoned property abutting Pride Valley Road extending to the west. A PCD is located southwest of the site which is currently an agriculture nursery. West of the site is Rock Creek with Kinco Construction Company buildings located on the western bank of the creek. Other uses in the area include a PD-C approved (construction has not taken place) for Parker Saturn automobile dealership located on the corner of Wellington Hills Road and Chenal Parkway, a church, a PCD for a home improvement store and a vacant C-3 zoned tract. The Kroger shopping center, also zoned PCD, is located on the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and the current Kanis Road intersection. The Master Street Plan indicates Kanis Road turning north along the western boundary of the Kinco property to align with Wellington Hills Road. Kanis Road adjacent to this site is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial street. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls and letters of opposition to the proposed development. The Parkway Place Property Owners Association, the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. In addition a neighborhood meeting was held November 11, 2003 at the Parkway Place Baptist Church. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed right-of-way dedication on Kanis Road meets the minor arterial standard. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 4 2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one- half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Traffic Engineering comments are as follows: - Driveway needs to be designed according to Chenal Master Plan Standards - Driveway taper needs to be 150-feet 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities. Submit cross sections demonstrating compliance with the terracing provisions of the land alteration ordinance. 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 of storm water detention facilities on the plan. 5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 6. Hauling of fill material on or off the site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. 7. The eastern-most driveway location does not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The drive can be moved west to 150-feet from proposed Lot 2 or can share a single driveway with Lot 2. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: A 20-foot easement behind the new right-of-way line for relocation of existing 3Ø overhead power line. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional details. 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. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. This development will have minor impact on the January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 5 existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a car dealership. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (Item #13 – File No. LU03-18-03). Landscape: The proposed western land use buffer is less than the fifty (50) foot average width requirement of the zoning ordinance. 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 eastern and western perimeters. Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and vegetation that satisfies this year-around requirement. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide approved landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed an action statement that recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood- friendly and better quality development. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 6 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 6, 2003) Mr. Tim Daters and Mr. Gary Dean were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development indicating the site would require an amendment to the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Staff noted there were additional items needed to complete the review of the proposed development. Staff questioned the applicant’s intent with regard to the median. The applicant indicated they would not request the median be cleared as a part of the Master Parks Plan. Staff questioned placement of any proposed dumpsters, where the delivery of automobiles would be taken, the location of the service shop, the hours deliveries would be taken and if there would be an on-site auto body repair shop. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted special grading permits would be required prior to development. Staff also noted the storm water detention ordinance applied to the property. Staff requested the applicant relocate the driveway along Kanis Road to the west to 150-feet or to share a drive with proposed Lot 2. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the western land use buffer was less than the fifty foot average width required per the zoning ordinance. Staff also noted a six foot high opaque screen would be required along the eastern and western perimeters. Mr. Dean questioned if the 100-foot buffer would suffice for the required screening. Staff stated if the buffer remained evergreen, then the area would meet the requirement, otherwise the applicant would be required to plant shrubs in this area to provide the year around screening. Mr. Dean commented the property located to the west was zoned residentially but was not being used as a residential use. Staff noted the Planning Commission could deem the required screening unnecessary. Staff noted the required screening to the west was a fifty foot average. Staff also noted screening would be required adjacent to proposed Lot 2. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing a few of the issues raised at the November 6, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the location of the proposed dumpster and the required screening. The proposed dumpster is to be located adjacent to the proposed 100-foot January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 7 undisturbed buffer. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed on three sides as required by the zoning ordinance at least two feet above the top of the container. The applicant has indicated there will not be a body shop at this site. The applicant has indicated the parts and service hours of operation from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Saturday. The sales hours of operation are proposed from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday. The applicant has indicated 125 customer and employee parking spaces, 56 service parking spaces and 419 display spaces. One hundred of the employee and customer parking spaces are around the new car showroom, which is adjacent to the proposed 100-foot buffer. This area has separate gates for security to be closed during non-business hours. The applicant has also indicated a gates at all entrances to limit activity on the site when the business is not open. The gates are proposed as steel gates located across each drive of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. The applicant has not relocated the driveway along Kanis Road. The applicant has indicated with the drive at the shown location there is a “straight shot” to the service shop for customer traffic and for delivery of automobiles. The driveway does not meet the minimum requirement for driveway spacing per city ordinances. In addition, the proposed street construction along Chenal Parkway does not meet the Chenal Parkway street design criteria established through Ordinance Numbers 16,622 and 16,652. The applicant has indicated signage on Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. The proposed signage will comply with the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District requirement for a monument style sign not to exceed eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. There is also a ground mounted monument sign proposed for Kanis Road. The applicant has indicated this sign will also comply with the Chenal Overlay requirements. The site plan includes a tract of O-2 zoned property. Through the PCD the applicant is requesting the subdivision of this tract but is requesting the parcel remain zoned O-2. The proposed lot meets the minimum requirement for the O-2 zoning classification. The applicant is proposing the placement of 11.23 percent of the site including a 1.29 acre buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site as interior landscaping. The applicant has indicated the screening will be zoned OS too ensure the vitality of the area. The applicant has also indicated should the 100-foot buffer not provide year around screening additional plantings will be installed. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 8 Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed use is too intense for the site. The site adjoins a single-family neighborhood to the east and an elementary school is located in close proximity to the southeast. Currently the infrastructure is not in place to allow customers traveling west bound to access the site. The applicant has indicated customers will access the site from Kanis Road, which staff questions. Staff also has concerns with the delivery of automobiles, both the logistics of how the automobiles will be delivered and the hours the automobiles will be delivered. The applicant has not indicated the proposed delivery hours. Staff also has concerns with the location where deliveries will be taken. Currently staff has problems with automobile dealers in the general area taking deliveries in the right-of-way. The site is adjacent to two principal arterials and delivery in the right-of-way would be extremely dangerous. Kanis Road is a two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage, Chenal Parkway is a four lane road with a median but is well traveled. Staff feels allowing the use to locate on the site will invite cut-through traffic through the existing Wood Creek Subdivision. Staff has concerns of the noise from the site. The applicant has indicated there will be no outdoor paging as a part of the development but there are other noises that the site will generate. The applicant has indicated a repair shop to be located on the site. The shop will potentially hold twenty-eight cars waiting for service and the applicant has indicated an area for express service with a potential for eight cars. Staff feels this would generate a large amount of noise from impact wrenches and traffic moving around the site. The applicant has requested a two year deferral of the required street improvements to Kanis Road. Staff is not supportive of this request. If the site is developed with a heavy commercial use (a C-4 commercial use) staff feels the street improvements should be put in place at the time of development. The applicant has indicated Kanis Road will be used to access the site for service and for the off-loading of inventory. As stated, staff is not supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the rezoning of this site to a commercial classification will encourage additional commercial development in the area. The Parkway has commercial uses at each end and along the divided median the area is predominately residential. Staff feels this should remain the case with the office zoning providing a transition between the single-family homes to the east and the non-conforming commercial use located across Rock Creek. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4841-B 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were several registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested this item be deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 Recuse (Commissioner Pam Adcock). January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6120-I NAME: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long-form PD-R LOCATION: On the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue DEVELOPER: Jay DeHaven 10650 Maumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 31.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PD-R, Planned Development - Residential ALLOWED USES: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R PROPOSED USE: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre – deferral of the street construction of Rushmore Avenue VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Deferral of the street construction of Rushmore Avenue until adjacent Lot 3 is developed. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 2 BACKGROUND: On June 20, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone 42.58+ acres from R-2, Single-family to MF-12, Multi-family. The rezoning request was associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi-family was located in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue), south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The application was the third version of proposed multi-family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates. The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, which is adjacent to the south. The application was later withdrawn by the applicant at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed multi-family property was in two tracts, a 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) and a 7+ acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi-family property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street (Rushmore Avenue) and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center with their concern of locating the 7+ acres of Multi-family property adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors’ agenda and filed a third version of the proposed rezoning request. The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 3 Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a “reserved” tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2 to MF-12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer improvement district, expansion or the existing sewer improvement district or some other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property zoned MF-12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty (20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regraded area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50) percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12 and Tract C, 14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12. Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres). The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on 11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of 5.3 units per acre.) On July 11, 2002 the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development – Residential to allow the development of a 528 unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed for a property zoned MF-12 and located to the east of the PD-R site. The request to rezone the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20, 2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the western MF-12 property to PD-R and Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the eastern MF-12 site to R-2. The applicant proposed the PD-R development to be constructed in three phases with 156 units being constructed in Phase of One and Two and 216 units in the third and final phase. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction and will be completed with Phase I to allow access to the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 4 Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003 approved a revision to allow the creation of a three lot plat following the previously proposed phasing lines. The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take access through a cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan did not changed from the original submission. The applicant revised the building placement ever so slightly to allow for landscape strips between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access parking agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking demand for multi-family development. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,963 on October 21, 2003, revising the PD-R to allow the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The applicant indicated a private contractor will service the compactors once a week. The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should allow the driver easy accessibility and minimal disturbance of the residents in the early morning hours when the compactors are serviced. The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request included a restoration plan for the buffer areas. The restoration plan included plantings in the area previously designated as the land use buffer area be replanted at double the plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the south and the west on Lot 1 of the development. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer be maintained in the future. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of the site until Lot 3 is developed. The site was originally approved as a single tract development and was later revised to allow three lots to develop following previously approved phasing lines. The applicant is now requesting since the PD-R for Capitol Hills Apartments was revised to allow the creation of the three lots a deferral of street improvements be granted until the lot abutting the roadway is developed (Lot 3). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is currently zoned PD-R with the remainder of the area being zoned R-2, Single-family. The Oasis Renewal Center is located northeast of the site and the January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 5 Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located south of the site. Cooper Orbit Road borders the eastern boundary of the property. The roadway is a narrow unimproved roadway with deep ditches in several locations. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been cleared and are currently under construction and will be completed with Phase I to allow access to the site. Phase I of the development is also under construction with a majority of the site currently cleared. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received numerous informational phone calls from area residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association, along with all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ANALYSIS: The current request is to stage street construction for Rushmore Avenue. When the site was originally reviewed by the Commission the site was a single tract and there was not a request for phasing of boundary street construction. The Planning Commission approved street completion concurrent with Phase 1. Sections 36-453 (a) and (d) of the zoning ordinance allow staging including streets and required adherence to the plan. The applicant did not contemplate nor request any such staging. In addition, submitted a grading plan to staff indicating development was imminent. The roadway has been cleared the roadway. Additional language in the ordinance requires final plan approval before the first building permit with the PD-R can be issued. This approval has already occurred. Creating lots through a revision to the PD-R is an option for the owner/developer, but does not preclude the conditions and plan established for the PD-R. Staff feels the road should be constructed as was originally approved and the deferral not be granted to allow the street construction with Lot 3 of the development. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 4, 2003) Mr. James Dreher and Mr. Bill Dean of Civil Design were present representing the request. There were three registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request. Staff stated the applicant had presented road construction with Phase I of the apartment development. Staff stated the changing of the proposed development from phasing lines to lot lines did not change the required street improvements. Staff stated phasing of street improvements was usually approved as a part of the initial request. Mr. Ross Phillips addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the intent of the development was to construct the roads as a part of the original development and was approved in 1996. He stated the road was to be constructed to allow traffic to flow from the neighborhood and to cut-through from Colonel Glenn Road. He stated the applicant did not request the road to be phased with the apartments and he requested the Commission keep the proposed road as was previously approved. Ms. Anita Spence addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated her concern was with the traffic from the neighborhood meeting with the apartment traffic. She stated if Rushmore Avenue was not constructed then the traffic from the neighborhood and the traffic from the apartments would meet at the existing narrow two-lane bridge. She stated it was critical for Rushmore Avenue to be constructed with the existing phase of the apartments. Mr. Roger Lewis addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. Mr. Lewis stated the proposed road name was not consistent with the existing road name. He questioned why Rushmore Avenue was not being called Cooper Orbit Road. Staff stated Rushmore Avenue was a proposed collector street, which would turn to the west a point south of the apartments. Staff stated Cooper Orbit Road would then travel south following the existing alignment. Mr. James Dreher addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the request was to not construct Rushmore Avenue at the present time. He stated with the development of the area to the east of Rushmore Avenue and the proposed single- family development located to the south of the apartment development the construction of Rushmore was premature. He stated the proposed layout was not the most advantageous for development. He stated with the deferral of the street construction until a later phase of the apartment development the roadway location could be firmed up. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the proposed request, if the application should be an amendment to the PRD or the preliminary plat for the single-family development. There was also a discussion concerning the ability of Mr. Dean and Mr. Dreher to address the Commission on behalf of the owner. Staff stated they did not January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-I 7 have an executed affidavit on file to allow these two men the ability to make binding decisions on behalf of the owner. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the January 29, 2004, Public Hearing to allow the applicant, Mr. Andy Francis to be present and/or allow the owner to submit all the necessary forms to allow Civil Design to act as the owner’s agent. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-993-K NAME: Mabelvale Business Park and Shopping Center Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: on the south side of the I-30 Frontage Road at Mabelvale Pike DEVELOPER: Ashley Development Company 2851 Lakewood Drive Little Rock, AR 72116 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 13.53 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a letter requesting this item be deferred to the March 25, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1301-C NAME: Boen Center Lot 1 Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: on the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 DEVELOPER: Landers Toyota (Boen Enterprises LLC) 10600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 11.92 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-4, Open Display District PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1301-C 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1413 NAME: The Plaza Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: on the northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 DEVELOPER: Boen Enterprises LLC 10600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 5.509 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-2, Shopping Center District PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow reduced minimum lot sizes. The applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of the request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1413 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5040-A NAME: Markham Methodist Church Short-form PD-O LOCATION: On the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Ellis Drive DEVELOPER: Markham Methodist Church 9820 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 2.79 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential and a church PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: Funeral home VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5040-A 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-5156-A NAME: Webster Shell Short-form PD-C LOCATION: 10801 West Markham Street DEVELOPER: Webster Shell 10801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: Donald Brooks Surveying 20800 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.427 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Retail Uses, Gas Station PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C PROPOSED USE: Outdoor display and sale of automobiles, General Retail Uses, Gas Station VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Waiver of right-of-way dedication to West Markham Street. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5156-A 2 BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 15,659 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 4, 1989, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family District to C-3, General Commercial District. The request was to rezone the site to allow the existing 20 plus year use, a gas station/car wash, to become a conforming use. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant currently operates a full-service gas station and garage. The applicant is requesting to continue the existing uses and be allowed to place and sell automobiles from the site. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial which does not allow outdoor sales activity. The applicant has indicated the automobiles to be sold will be consignment vehicles and vehicles that have been repaired by the garage, but abandoned by their owners. The applicant has indicated space for five display vehicles on the site plan. The station manager will be in charge of all auto sales activity. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation will be consistent with the existing business hours. The applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication to West Markham Street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located at the intersection of two principal arterials and contains a gas station with an automobile repair shop. West Markham is a four lane roadway with a left turn lane at the intersection. Shackleford Road is a four lane roadway with dual lefts at the intersection. Other uses in the area are also commercial uses. There is a strip retail center located to the east containing a self service copy business, paint store and smaller office uses. To the northeast is a self-serve gas station/quick stop shop. To the south is a restaurant and furniture store. To the west of the site is also a restaurant and to the north are restaurants and office uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Birchwood Neighborhood Association and the Beverly Hills Property Owners Association, all property owners located within 200 feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public hearing. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5156-A 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. In accordance with the Boundary Street Ordinance, an additional 10-feet of right-of-way will be required on West Markham for a future right-turn lane. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a used car lot at a gas station. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Birchwood – Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not contain any goals, objectives, or action statements relative to this specific case. Landscape: No comment. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5156-A 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) The applicant was present. Staff stated the request was to allow the sale of automobiles from the site. Staff requested additional information to complete the review of the proposed request. Staff requested the applicant locate on the site plan the location of the proposed display of automobiles and provide the number of vehicles to be placed on the site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested additional right-of-way along West Markham Street to allow for a right-turn lane. The applicant stated they did not own the site and would contact the owner to determine if the dedication was a possibility. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated on the site plan two locations to display automobiles for sale. The applicant has indicated along the western property line a space for the display of three (3) automobiles and along the southeast property line an area for the display of two (2) automobiles. The applicant has also indicated the days and hours of operation will be consistent with the current hours of operation for the station. The applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication to West Markham Street. Staff is not supportive of this request. The intersection of West Markham and Shackleford Road is currently under review for improvements. The design indicates a right-turn lane for southbound traffic to increase the level of service for the intersection. With most rezonings, right-of-way is secured to allow future street widening to occur in an economically feasible manner. Staff feels the right- of-way dedication should be made to the City to allow the lane to be installed at this intersection. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District and staff feels the proposed location is not best suited for a C-4, Open Display District use. The site is located at a very busy intersection of the City and allowing outdoor display of automobiles on the site could further compound the current problem of access and traffic flows. In addition, staff has concerns with potential future uses of the site by allowing the placement of automobiles and potential future requests for a more intense use of the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5156-A 5 As stated, staff feels the proposed location is not the best location for the placement of outdoor display and/or a used car lot. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow the placement of five (5) automobiles to be offered for sale from the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Mike Montgomery was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the requested rezoning and denial of the requested waiver of right-of-way dedication. Mr. Montgomery stated he was not the property owner and was not able to dedicate the required right-of-way. He stated the site was selling 90,000 gallons per month a few years ago. He stated currently the station was selling 30,000 gallons per month. He stated the sale of the automobiles was necessary to supplement the income of the business. He stated he would limit the number of autos to three and not place signage on the automobiles if this was the desire of the Commission. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the opposition was to open display in areas not suited for the business. Ms. Bell stated the addition of automobiles at the intersection would add stress to an already crowded intersection. Mr. Montgomery stated his lease was to expire in January of 2006. He stated once the road was widened the gas pumps adjacent to West Markham would be eliminated. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the right-of-way and if a deferral was an option. Staff stated with zoning actions typically right-of-way was secured. Staff stated if it was the desire of the Commission they could waive the right-of-way for this zoning action only, which would not eliminate the possibility of obtaining the right-of-way through some future zoning action. A motion was made to approve the proposed zoning request as amended to include limiting the automobiles to three, placing the auto’s behind the building and not placing any signage on the auto’s. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. A motion was made to waive the right-of-way dedication for this zoning action only. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU04-01-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District Location: Northwest corner of Cantrell Rd. at Taylor Loop Rd. Request: Transition to Commercial Source: Frank Riggins, The Mehlburger Firm PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District from Transition to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to develop the property for a commercial retail shopping center. Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was reviewed within 10 months ago. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is about 4.27 acres ± in size. The vacant land to the north is zoned R-2 Single Family while the property to the east consists of vacant property zoned C-3 General Commercial (owned by the applicant) and a shopping center farther to the east also zoned C-3. A drug store zoned Planned Development-Commercial sits next to the application area, while further to the south is a Planned Commercial Development for a bank on the south side of Cantrell east of Taylor Loop, a house zoned R-2 at the southeast corner of Cantrell and Taylor Loop, a bank zoned Planned Office Development on the southwest corner of Cantrell and Taylor Loop, and an antique store zoned PCD on the south side of Cantrell west of Taylor Loop Road. The property to the west is a large lot single-family house zoned R-2. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On August 19, 2003 a change was made from Transition to Commercial at 14410 Cantrell Road about 1/3 of a mile to the east of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-01 2 On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made from Transition and Low Density Residential to Suburban Office, Single Family, Commercial, Park / Open Space, Office, and Public Institutional within a 1 mile radius of the application area along both sides of Cantrell Road to recognize existing conditions. On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Commercial at Pankey Park a little less than 1 mile to the east of the study area to recognize existing conditions. On April 20, 1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family and Low Density Residential to Commercial, Office, Multifamily, and Park / Open Space at Cantrell and Black Road about a ½ mile to the east of the property in question to accommodate proposed development. The applicant’s property is shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. The neighboring properties to the east are shown as Commercial. The land to the northeast is shown as Transition. The neighboring property to the west is shown as Transition while the neighboring property to the north is shown as Single Family. MASTER STREET PLAN: Cantrell Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built as a four-lane highway with an additional center turn lane. There is a Class I Bikeway shown starting at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road running south from Cantrell Road to Alexander Road. This bikeway begins on the south side of Cantrell Road opposite from the applicant’s property and would not be affected by the proposed amendment. The applicant’s property does not front directly onto Cantrell Road. However, the property would be accessed from a stub-out built on the north end of the Cantrell / Taylor Loop intersection. Improvements would need to be made to the Taylor Loop stub-out to insure access to the applicant’s property. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows the Taylor Loop Park located a short distance to the southwest of the applicant’s property. Taylor Loop Park is about 35.0+ acres. Taylor Loop Park is listed as an undeveloped Community Park intended to remain as a passive open space parcel of undeveloped land and is designed to serve the open space needs of several neighborhoods. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-01 3 HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed an objective of promoting the vigorous enforcement of the Landscaping & Excavation Ordinance. This action could result in the removal of trees in order to accommodate the development of uses possible in the Commercial land use category. ANALYSIS: The application area is located in an area of expanding commercial development. Most of the property shown as Commercial in the vicinity of the applicant’s property is developed with existing commercial uses. For some Commercial uses, such as the larger retail uses, the land available is built-out. For some of the less intense commercial uses some vacant land remains available. This application will expand the area already shown as Commercial at the intersection of Cantrell and Taylor Loop Roads. The commercial node located at the intersection of Cantrell and Taylor Loop is affected by uses located at Cantrell and Pinnacle Valley Road. The close proximity of intersections between two Minor Arterials with Cantrell Road creates pressure to develop both intersections with non-residential uses, which would result in a large node of non-residential uses on Cantrell Road with a center on both intersections creating a “double node.” However, the creek and flood-plain running parallel to Pinnacle Valley Road with the accompanying land use designation of Park / Open Space should be used to minimize the intensification of non-residential uses expanding northward from Cantrell Road from Taylor Loop to Pinnacle Valley Road. If the stub-out at the north end of the Taylor Loop / Cantrell intersection is extended further to the north to form a link with Pinnacle Valley Road, the stub-out would result in a link between two Minor Arterials and create pressure to develop non-residential uses to the north, as well as resulting in a street that would be used as an arterial even though it would not be intended or designed to be used as such. The development of the applicant’s property should be done in a manner that would limit non-residential use expansion to the north and be done in such a way to buffer the area shown as Single Family to the north and the existing R-2 residential units to the west. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-01 4 The current category of Transition shown for the applicant’s property is intended to serve as a step between less intense land uses and more intense land uses. The Transition shown for the applicant’s property provides a step down of intensity from the Commercial uses to the east to the less intense uses to the west and from the Commercial fronting Cantrell Road to the Single Family shown to the north. A change to Commercial would reduce the buffer between the intense uses fronting Cantrell Road and the less intense uses located to the north and west. This action would also reduce the amount of land available for office or residential development along Cantrell Road in areas shown as Transition. The pattern for office developments in the area has been to show Office or Suburban Office to recognize existing offices. The changes to Office and Suburban Office have reduced the likelihood of new residential development fronting Cantrell Road. However, most of the new residential development has taken place in areas shown as Single Family, Low Density Residential, and Multi- family on land not directly accessed from Cantrell Road. The Transition category along Highway 10 accommodates mixture of office or residential uses intended to prevent the development of commercial strips along Cantrell Road. The pattern for new office developments in areas shown as Transition has been the conversion of residential structures into offices. The application area is located in an area of expanding Commercial development. Most of the property shown as Commercial in the vicinity of the applicant’s property is developed with existing Commercial uses. For some commercial uses, such as the larger retail uses, the land available is built-out. For some of the less intense Commercial uses some vacant land remains available. Much of the area shown as Transition to the south and west of the applicant’s property was changed on February 18, 2003 Board of Directors meeting. The changes discussed at the January 9, 2003 Planning Commission involved a proposed change from Transition to Commercial to recognize the drug store adjacent to the application area fronting Cantrell Road and a change from Transition to Suburban Office to the west along Cantrell Road east of Rummel Road where it was felt that future residential development was unlikely. The areas west of the applicant’s property and along Pine Mountain Road remained shown as Transition and consist of land developed with residential uses. The areas shown as Transition were preserved do in large part to the vacant land available for future residential development. The remaining areas shown as Transition could also provide access to areas shown as Single Family, which do not have direct access to Cantrell or Pinnacle Valley Roads. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-01 5 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, River Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey Community Improvement Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, Walton Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood Association, Westbury Neighborhood Association, Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, Chenal Ridge Property Owners, and Charleston Heights/North Rahling Road N.A. Staff has not received comments from area residents or Neighborhood Associations at the time of this writing concerning this change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate with a required PZD to review any development for compatibility of massing and relationship issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 11, 2004 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 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-7022-A NAME: Cantrell Loops Retail Center Short-form PCD LOCATION: North of Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop DEVELOPER: Grayson Revocable Trust 5317 JFK Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm 201 South Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.265 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-3/R-2 ALLOWED USES: Retail and Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3 listed retail uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and approved a proposed preliminary plat and recommended approval of a proposed rezoning request for this site at their May 31, 2001 Public Hearing. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,516 on July 3, 2001, establishing Cantrell Loops Subdivision (Lot 1) Short-form January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 2 PCD. Lot 2, the lot currently under review was not rezoned as a part of the request and remains zoned C-3 and R-2. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site is located north of Cantrell Road at the Taylor Loop Road intersection. The western portion of the site is currently zoned R-2, Single-family while the eastern portion of the site is zoned C-3, General Commercial. The proposed site plan indicates two (2) buildings totaling 38,400 square feet and 189 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the main façade of the buildings will be a maximum of 19’-4” above the finished grade and the tower element will be a maximum of 25’-0” above finished grade. The site plan indicates the lot will take access from an existing driveway extending north from the intersection of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The applicant has also indicated storm water detention storage will be provided for the development on-site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly wooded along the northern perimeter and vacant grass covered along Cantrell Road. There is a Walgreen’s Store located on Lot 1 of the development and the driveway to serve the development and a traffic signal has been installed at the intersection with Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road. There is a commercial development located to the east, with both occupied and vacant single-family residences to the west. There are commercial uses at the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop Road, with a vacant single- family residence at the southeast corner. The property to the north is undeveloped and zoned R-2, Single-family District. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls (as a result of the posted sign) from persons requesting additional information on the application. All property owners located within 200-feet of the proposed development, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the proposed development, the Westchester/Heatherbrae, the Secluded Hills, the Westbury and the Charleston Height/North Rahling Road Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3. Traffic Engineering recommends a wider street width (36-feet) into the shopping center (24-feet is provided). 4. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. One-way traffic should be provided in the aisle areas near the drive through windows. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: A 10-foot easement is required for 1Ø or 3Ø underground service or a 30-foot easement is required for 1Ø or 3Ø overhead service along the northern and eastern perimeters. Contact Entergy at 954-5162 for additional details. 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 the size and location of the water meter(s). 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. Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer’s expense. Contact CAW at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 4 CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a new commercial building. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU04-01-01 Item No. 6) City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed an objective of promoting the vigorous enforcement of the Landscaping & Excavation Ordinance and also lists an action statement encouraging the preservation of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Landscape: The proposed eastern perimeter landscape strip width is 3,079 square feet less than the average 25-feet required by the Highway 10 Overlay District. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the request. Staff stated the request to rezone the site from C-3 and R-2 to PCD to allow the development of a retail center. Staff indicted to Mr. Riggins there were additional items necessary to complete the review. Staff requested details concerning any proposed signage, the days and hours of operation, any fencing and to provide the maximum building height in the general notes section of the site plan. Staff also noted any additional site lighting must be low level and directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 5 Staff requested the applicant provide details concerning the rear of the development. Staff stated the buildings would abut single-family zoned property and care should be taken to limit the impact of the commercial development on the future single-family homes. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested Mr. Riggins provide the location of detention storage on the proposed site plan. Staff requested the driveway be increased to 36-feet to allow for fewer traffic conflicts and ease of circulation. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be required along the northern and western perimeters of the site. Staff also stated the landscaping strip along the eastern perimeter should be a minimum of 25-feet as required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff on January 14, 2004, addressing the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District or a maximum of ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. The applicant has indicated 189 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. The applicant has also indicated two buildings containing a total of 38,500 square feet. The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this type would be 128 parking spaces. The proposed parking is sufficient to meet the minimum parking demand for a commercial development. The applicant has indicated drive-through lanes on the ends of each of the buildings. Staff is not supportive of the placement of the drive-through lanes as presented. The proposed drive through lanes cross traffic both entering and exiting the drive. The existing circulation does not lend itself to drive through lanes on the site. Staff recommends the applicant provide details concerning how the drive-through will function without traffic conflict or remove the drive- through lanes from the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the rear of the building will be used in screening but has indicated a drive to the rear of the eastern building. The western building is proposed with limited openings; only those required to meet fire code. The applicant has indicated the building will be finished on all non public sides using a January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 6 combination of decorative MCU from finished grade to the finished floor level and decorative metal siding from the finished floor to the roof. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height will be twenty-five feet. Along with this decorative finish, a number of evergreen trees will be planted in the area designated for landscaping on the plan to exceed the number required by ordinance. The applicant has stated there will be no deliveries taken in the rear of the buildings. The area to the north is zoned R-2, Single-family and staff feels efforts should be made to screen the adjoining properties. Staff feels the development should make efforts to limit the negative impact of any potential residential development. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to vary depending on the particular businesses located on the site. The applicant has indicated a variety of tenants are expected to lease space in the center, including the possibility of a restaurant or two. The applicant is requesting to be allowed some flexibility in order to attract quality tenants to the development. The applicant has indicated the days and hours would be customary and common to other retail centers in the area. Staff would recommend the applicant provide details concerning the anticipated days and hours of operation. The applicant has indicated no fencing is proposed for the eastern property line. The applicant has indicated screening will be provided as required by ordinance along the perimeter of the site. The applicant has indicated detention and storage on the site plan. The proposed detention storage is a dry pond located in the front of the development adjacent to Highway 10. The applicant has not increased the driveway width to the requested 36-feet. The applicant is requesting a 24-foot drive to act as a traffic calming device. The applicant has stated a wider street might encourage higher speeds and parking along the driveway. The applicant has stated a desire to keep the driveway at the 24-feet for these stated reasons. Staff feels for better access and traffic flows a 36-foot drive is required and would recommend the driveway width be increased to 36-feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed concept but feels there are too many outstanding issues associated with the proposed request to recommend approval. Staff feels all the issues associated with the proposed request must be answered prior to approval of the proposed development. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed request as filed. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-A 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request for deferral to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated the request would take a waiver of the By-Laws for the deferral due to the timeliness of the request. Staff stated they were supportive of the requested deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion for the waiver of the By-Laws carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 Recuse (Commissioner Bill Rector). The motion for deferral carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 Recuse (Commissioner Bill Rector). January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-7351-A NAME: Miracle Land Company Revised PCD LOCATION: South of Stagecoach Road, west of I-430 DEVELOPER: Miracle Developments 8001 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. 217 West 2nd Street, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.67 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: C-3 listed uses and a carwash PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3 listed uses, carwash and mini-warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A waiver of the rear land use buffer requirement. 2. A variance to allow a sign without public street frontage. BACKGROUND: The mini-warehouse site was reviewed and approved by the Commission at their February 17, 2000 Public Hearing as a Conditional Use Permit to allow the site (3.75 acres) to develop with six buildings on C-3, General Commercial zoned property. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 2 All the buildings were to be one story and the site would contain a 1500 square foot apartment and office for a live-in manager. The site was also to contain 4500 square feet of climate controlled storage and five buildings were to contain 45,900 square feet of regular storage cubicles of varying sizes. The applicant proposed the days and hours of operation to be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days per week. The approval also included no signage (ground mounted or wall signage) on the east side of the property or on the building facing the interstate. On the western portion of the site the applicant proposed to subdivide the site into three commercial lots and to rezone the site from C-3 to PCD to allow for the development of the site with a mini-warehouse development (Lot 3), a carwash (Lot 1) and an unidentified C-3 uses to be located on Lot 2. The applicant later revised his request to remove the Lot 3 development from the site plan and resubmit when plans were finalized. The plat required a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-231] to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage (S-1374). Lot 3 was to be served by a 30-foot access easement located on the lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,823 and Ordinance No. 18,824 on March 4, 2002 establishing the Planned Commercial Development zoning and creating the plat variance for the development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the PCD to allow the development of the previously proposed mini-warehouse on Lot 3. The applicant intends to construct 7,200 square feet of conditioned space with the intended user primarily office and file storage users. The applicant also intends to construct two (2) additional buildings of mini-storage (each building being 40-feet by 240-feet or 9,600 square feet each). The applicant has also indicated RV and boat storage located along the southern perimeter containing 28 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in two phases with all the slabs being installed in the first phase. The applicant has indicated access to the site will be from the existing mini-warehouse development located to the east. The applicant has indicated there will not be any additional ground mounted signage but is requesting wall signage on the mini-warehouse building located on the northern portion of Lot 3. The requested signage will require a variance to allow signage without public street frontage. The applicant has also indicated the existing Lot 3 of the Miracle Land Subdivision will be replatted to encompass the area of the existing mini-warehouse buildings. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with trees covering the southern perimeter of the site; currently zoned PCD. The site adjoins the flood plain/floodway to the south in an area zoned OS. There is a mini-storage development located to the east of the site adjacent to I-430. A carwash has been constructed on Lot 1. Other uses in the area include a church located north of the site, a welding shop and a mixture of auto related uses; ABC Salvage, a tire company, a used car lot. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Otter Creek Homeowners Association, the Crystal Valley Property Owners Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. No new or additional comments on the proposed revision. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer main on the property. No permanent construction within sewer easement. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. On-site fire protection will be required to Lot 3 with a water main extension from Stagecoach Road installed. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the location of proposed fire hydrants. Additional water facilities will be installed 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 4 Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to an existing Planned Commercial Development for expansion of a mini-warehouse. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Otter Creek / Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and Commercial Development goal listed an action statement of discouraging the construction of large warehouse type facilities in the “heart” of the study area, which is defined as both side of Stagecoach Road between Otter Creek and Baseline Roads. The applicant’s property lies outside the “heart” of the study area as defined by the plan. Landscape: A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the western perimeter of the site. Additionally, a 6-foot high opaque screen is required along the southern perimeter. However, since the southern perimeter is located in and abuts floodway, and is adjacent to a very wide OS strip, screening may be deemed unnecessary. A landscaping upgrade, in deficient areas, toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, will be required equal to the percentage (49%) of building increase proposed. A land use buffer with an average width of 16.8 feet is required along the western perimeter. Utility easements cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement. Landscaped areas will be required to be irrigated. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 5 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) Mr. Kelton Price was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was a revision to the existing PCD to allow the development of three mini-warehouse buildings on the site. Staff stated the applicant was requesting the buildings as an extension of the existing mini-warehouse development located to the east. Staff requested the applicant revise the final plat for Lot 3 to include the area to the east of the existing lot. The applicant questioned the request. Staff stated the location of the proposed buildings extended beyond the previously platted lot. Staff stated Central Arkansas Water also was concerned with the placement of lines to serve the lot with fire protection. Staff stated the areas should be combined into one lot to eliminate concerns. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted all comments related to the original PCD would continue to apply. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted an upgrade, in deficient areas, toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, would be required equal to the percentage (49%) of building increase proposed. Staff also noted the required buffer adjacent to the floodway may be deemed unnecessary by the Planning Commission. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated signage will be placed on the rear wall of the building located nearest the lot line of existing Lot 3. The applicant has indicated the proposed wall signage will comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or no more than ten percent of aggregate sign area for the building façade area. The applicant has indicated the sign area will be approximately two-hundred twenty square feet in area and will not protrude from the wall more than twelve inches. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation of the new structures will be consistent with the existing development (7 am to 7 pm seven days per week). The applicant has indicated a few customer have twenty-four hour access to the site by way of a keypad entry. The development has an on-site manager to also monitor the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 6 The applicant has indicated there will not be any additional dumpsters located on the site. The existing development has sufficient dumpster space to handle the additional refuse from the new buildings. The applicant has also indicated the roof will be constructed of materials similar to the existing development. The buildings are proposed as single-story buildings not to exceed twenty (20) feet in height. The applicant has indicated an eight-foot wood fence to be located along the western property line for screening. Typically a six foot fence is allowed in commercial zones. Staff is supportive of the requested eight-foot fence along the western property line. The applicant has also requested the use of the 20-foot easement located along the western perimeter of the site as a portion of the required land use buffer. Staff is supportive of this request. The area to the west is zoned residentially and is shown on the future land use plan as mixed office commercial. Staff feels it is unlikely the site will redevelop as a residential use and feels the buffer in this area is sufficient. The applicant has indicated proposed RV and boat storage located along the southern perimeter containing 28 parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the placement of this activity in this area. The site adjoins a floodway but is located outside the floodway. The proposed use should have limited to no impact on the adjoining properties. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the screening requirement adjacent to the southern perimeter. A portion of the area is zoned OS, Open Space District and as stated the areas adjoins a dedicated floodway. Staff feels screening is this area is not necessary and supports the applicant’s request for a waiver of the screening requirement. The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in two phases with all the slabs being installed in the first phase. The applicant has indicated access to the site will be from the existing mini-warehouse development located to the east. Staff is supportive of the phasing plan and the access and circulation proposed for the development. The applicant has indicated Lot 3 will be replatted to include the land area of the existing mini-warehouse buildings. Staff is supportive of the replatting. The proposed replatting will eliminate the previously created lot without public street frontage and will eliminate the Water Department’s concern for extending fire service to the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 7 To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed development should have minimal to no adverse impact on the adjoining properties if developed as proposed. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow Lot 3 of the Miracle Land Subdivision to develop with three buildings of mini-warehouse. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow the 20-foot access and utility easement along the western property line as a portion of the required buffer. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the required screening along the southern property line. Staff recommends Lot 3 of the Miracle Land Subdivision be replatted to combine the land area of the existing mini-warehouse development into a single lot. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a wall sign without public street frontage for Lot 3. The signage is to be consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones and is to be placed on the building located nearest the northern property line of the existing Lot 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request to allow the 20-foot access and utility easement along the western property line as a portion of the required buffer and the requested waiver of the required screening along the southern property line. Staff presented a recommendation for Lot 3 of the Miracle Land Subdivision to be replatted and to combine the land area of the existing mini-warehouse development into a single lot. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351-A 8 Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow a wall sign without public street frontage for Lot 3. Staff stated the signage was to be consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones and was to be placed on the building located nearest the northern property line of the existing Lot 3. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LU04-09-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-630 Planning District Location: 3503 W. Capitol Avenue Request: Single Family to Suburban Office Source: Sharon Dempsey, Robert Palmer PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the I-630 Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office. The Suburban Office category shall provide low intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required. The applicant wishes to convert a house into an office for a security company. Staff is not expanding the application since the application is in an area where the Plan has been review recently. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is a house currently zoned R-3 Single Family and is about .15 acres ± in size. The property to the north consists of two duplexes zoned R-4 Two Family while the remainder of the surrounding property is houses located on land zoned R-3. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park / Open Space at Stephens Park about ¾ of a mile south of the application area to recognize existing conditions. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Public Institutional in the 1700 block of Pine Street about ¾ of a mile south of the property in question to recognize existing conditions. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use along both sides of W. 12th Street from Woodrow Street to Oak Street about a ½ mile south of the study area to recognize existing conditions. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use on W. 11th Street at Elm Street about a ½ mile southwest of the area in question to recognize existing conditions. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-09-01 2 On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use on W. 12th Street at Elm Street about 2/3 of a mile southwest of the applicant’s property to recognize existing conditions. On April 20, 1999 a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use on Pine Street at W. 18th Street about ¾ of a mile southwest of the application area to recognize existing conditions. The applicant’s property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. All of the surrounding property neighboring the applicant’s property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. MASTER STREET PLAN: Capitol Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Collector Street and is built to standard. Valmar Street is a standard residential street and is built to standard. There are no Bikeways shown that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The applicant’s property is located two blocks west of Lamar Porter baseball field and within an eight block walking distance of the Woodruff Elementary School. The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 includes public school property, such as the Woodruff Elementary School located on the northwest corner Booker and W. 7th Street next to Lamar Porter Field as an element in the eight-block strategy of providing park and open space facilities within eight blocks of all residents of the City of Little Rock. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: The applicant’s property is not located in a historic district that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Woodruff Neighborhood Area Plan (Capitol View / Stifft Station). The Community Preservation goal listed an objective of preserving housing stock in the neighborhood. The Community Preservation goal also listed an action statement of enacting a “No Net Loss” January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-09-01 3 policy in the neighborhood that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in the land use plan. This action would result in the loss of property available for housing. ANALYSIS: The applicant’s property is located in a stable neighborhood. Although two churches are located on Valentine Street, they are located in buildings built on a mass and scale compatible with existing surroundings suitable to serve the needs of the neighborhood. Churches are also treated as Public Institutional uses similar to schools, which are often located, near the center of residential neighborhoods away from more intense uses that would normally locate on or near arterial streets at the edge of a neighborhood. However, not every religious institution is or needs to be shown as Public Institutional. The change to Suburban Office would introduce non-residential uses into an area physically separated from non-residential uses. A change to Suburban Office at this location could introduce future uses that would draw people into the neighborhood and serve a larger market area. The areas shown as Office along the north side of Markham Street between University Avenue and Pine Street are more suitable, and provide property available for redevelopment, for Office developments than the isolated location of the applicant’s property. A change to Suburban Office would also reduce the amount of land shown as Single Family and reduce the amount of housing stock available in the neighborhood. The removal of housing stock at the location may reduce the residential viability of neighboring housing stock. Any non-residential development of this site needs to be compatible with the adjacent residential properties. The current Suburban Office category would allow non-residential development to take place at this location under the PZD process. The development of the property should be minimized in size dimensions and avoid the mass and bulk typical of developments that are incompatible with neighboring residential uses. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association, Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association, Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, Goodwill Neighborhood Association, Hope Neighborhood Association, Love Neighborhood Association, Midway Neighborhood Association, Oak Forest Neighborhood Association, Pine to January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-09-01 4 Woodrow Neighborhood Association, S. O. A. Neighborhood Association, Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood Association, War Memorial Neighborhood Association, Oak Forest Acorn, Oak Forest Initiative, Central High Neighborhood Association, Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association, Cedar Hill Terrace Property Owners Association, and Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received comments from area residents or Neighborhood Associations at the time of this writing concerning this change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change would introduce an isolated area of non-residential uses in an area surrounded by Single Family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Donna James made a presentation of item 8.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 8. See item 8.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned Development - Office. Sharon Dempsey made a presentation to the commission in support of the item. She stated that her office would be an asset to the neighborhood and that the house is still functional as a single-family house with the kitchen intact. Herb Hawn, Capitol View Stiff Station Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amendment and the zoning change. He spoke of CDBG investments and the CDC building three homes in the area that have enhanced the neighborhood. Stewart Yancey spoke in opposition to the amendment and the zoning change. He rehabs residential property in the area and finds a business in that location to be inappropriate. He spoke of available commercial space in the neighborhood. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, spoke that this neighborhood is on the upgrade and that this is an inappropriate use. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8.1 FILE NO.: Z-7560 NAME: Dempsey Short-form PD-O LOCATION: 3503 West Capitol Avenue DEVELOPER: Sharon Dempsey 3503 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: Donald W. Brooks, Inc. 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O PROPOSED USE: Private Security Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7560 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant intends to utilize an existing single-family residence as a security sales office. Statco Security has zero walk-in traffic and no employees. There are three sales persons, one installer and one bookkeeper. Persons associated with the business are self-employed and/or contract laborers who work out of their homes and visit potential clients’ homes for sales and installation of security systems. The applicant has indicated the arrangement allows employees to only access the site to pick-up or drop-off paperwork. The applicant has indicated the company does not solicit the neighbors on behalf of the business. The applicant’s cover letter indicates all persons self employed or contracted have received a background check, been finger printed, which are on file with the State Police and the FBI, and have been issued licenses from the Arkansas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies through the office of West Adams. The applicant indicates there are typically only two (2) employees who report to the site regularly, one being the owner and the second a bookkeeper. The applicant has indicated there are no deliveries to the site and only one pick-up per week from Federal-Express. The applicant is requesting a single identification sign to be located in the front yard area. The sign proposed is one square foot of sign area with a maximum of six feet in height; signage allowed in single-family zones. The applicant has stated the days and hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The applicant has also stated the request is for her only and should the business relocate, the structure will resume single-family occupation. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a structure currently being used as an office use by the applicant. The site is contained by a four foot chain link fence with a double gate in the rear. The rear area is grass covered and has a concrete apron extending to Valmar Street. There is not a sidewalk in front of the site but sidewalks are along West Capitol Avenue up to the property line and continue across Valmar Street to the east. It appears a public utility has disturbed the sidewalk and not replaced the walkway. Currently there are automobiles being parked in front of the structure in the public right-of-way. West Capitol Avenue is shown on the City’s Master Street Plan as a collector street. The roadway is curbed and guttered and as indicated sidewalks are in place for a large portion of the roadway. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7560 3 Other uses in the area are primarily single-family with a small number of two-family residences. There is a church located on Valentine Street with an adjoining structure serving as the church office. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Parking of vehicles in the public right-of-way is prohibited, except in designated on-site parking area. 2. For office uses, a paved on-site parking or extended apron should be provided to prevent tracking onto city streets. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development – Office for a security company office. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7560 4 A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU04-09-01 Item #8). City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Woodruff Neighborhood Area Plan (Capitol View / Stifft Station). The Community Preservation goal listed an objective of preserving housing stock in the neighborhood. The Community Preservation goal also listed an action statement of enacting a “No Net Loss” policy in the neighborhood that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in the land use plan. This action would result in the loss of property available for housing. Landscape: If a parking area is to be established, then landscaping and screening will be required in compliance with zoning and landscaping ordinance requirements. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) Ms. Sharon Dempsey was present representing the request. Staff noted the request was to allow a private security office to locate in a single-family structure located on the corner of West Capitol and Valmar Street. Staff noted there were a few additional items needed to complete the review. Staff questioned the number of employees of the company, both contract and hourly. Staff also noted the parking area proposed for the rear should be constructed of a hard surface material. Public Works comments were addressed noting parking in the right-of-way was not permitted. Staff stated the applicant would be required to extend the apron of the parking area or provide an on-site parking pad for a minimum number of cars. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated if the parking area was developed, then screening would be required per the zoning ordinance. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a two (2) car parking pad in the rear of the structure accessed from Valmar Street. The applicant has indicated the parking pad will be constructed of concrete and areas will be set aside for landscaping as required by the landscape and zoning ordinances. The applicant has indicated plantings along the southern property line to screen the adjoining properties. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7560 5 The applicant is requesting a single sign located in the front yard area of the site. The applicant is requesting signage of one square foot in sign area and a maximum of six feet in height, which is consistent with signage allowed in single-family zones. The applicant has indicated there are five (5) employees of the business all contract laborers. The applicant has also indicated the site will not house the monitoring service but be an office for storage of files and limited equipment. The applicant has indicated representatives will access the site to “pick-up” equipment on an as-needed basis and drop off paper work after an installation has been completed. The applicant has also indicated there is a single bookkeeper that reports to the site more frequently; approximately three to four times per week. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the location is not suitable for non-residential use. Although there are non-residential uses located near the area, the site is located in the heart of a residential neighborhood. There are two small churches located to the southwest of the site and from appearances driving through the neighborhood the uses along Capitol Avenue. Valmar and Valentine Streets appear to be one and two family residences. The Neighborhood Action Plan states the desire of the residents to maintain a no net loss of housing units policy due to changes in the land use plan. The applicant has applied for a change to the Future Land Use Plan (Item # 8 File No. LU04-09-01) as well as the rezoning request. With the exception of the school property (Woodruff Elementary School) the area is shown as Single Family on the City’s Future Land Use Plan. Staff feels to introduce a non-residential use in the area would erode the neighborhood by introducing non-residential possibilities along West Capitol Avenue. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Ms. Sharon Dempsey was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Ms. Dempsey stated she was leasing the site with a purchase option. She stated when the site was originally secured the owner had indicated the site was zoned for her business use. She stated she had competed renovations on the interior and January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7560 6 modifications to the exterior. She stated there were no structural changes being made to the unit and once she vacated the structure could return to single-family. Mr. Herb Hawn addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the applicant had paced a four-foot chain link fence around the site, which was out of character of the neighborhood. He stated West Capitol Avenue was primarily single-family and two-family homes. He stated the neighborhood and the City had taken great efforts to rehabilitate the neighborhood through Community Development Block Grant funds and the CDC had constructed three new homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Hawn stated the applicant did not live in the neighborhood and did not have an investment in the neighborhood. Mr. Hawn stated his desire for the Commission to deny the request and allow the area to remain residential. Mr. Stewart Yancey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he currently owned two homes in the area and had rehabbed several other homes in the area. He stated the fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated the applicant did not live in the house and did not have a stake in the neighborhood. Mr. Yancey stated the applicant should not have taken for granted the site was zoned for the use requested and should have checked prior to spending the money to upgrade the site. Ms. Dempsey stated she had placed a sign in the front yard to let the neighbors know she was there. She stated she had contacted the neighborhood association to meet with them but no one had returned her calls. She stated she was requesting to be allowed to remain on the site, her business was a quiet business and of the neighbors she had spoken to they were supportive of her being there. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: LU04-15-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs - West Planning District Location: 10605 Sibley Hole Road Request: Light Industrial to Industrial Source: R. C. Coburn, Coburn Service Co. PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs - West Planning District from Light Industrial to Industrial. The Industrial category encompasses a wide variety of manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, processing, and industry related office and service activities. Industrial development typically occurs on an industrial tract basis rather than according to an overall development plan. The applicant wishes to use the property for sand blasting operations. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include all of the area shown as Light Industrial along both sides of Sibley Hole Road west of the creek flowing approximately parallel to Nash Lane south of Interstate 30. This expansion would provide land shown as Industrial with frontage along I-30. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant’s property is an outdoor sand blasting operation currently zoned I-2 Light Industrial and is 6.42 acres ± in size. The expanded area consists of equipment storage yards zoned I-2 along Sibley Hole Road and Meadow Lane for a total of 27.51 + acres of land, including the applicant’s property. Most of the land north of the expanded area is on the north side of I-30, with the land west of Sibley Hole Road consisting of vacant land zoned R-2, a miniature golf course, and an equipment sales lot zoned C-4 Open Display Commercial on the east side of Sibley Hole. The property to the east consists of large lot homes zoned R-2 and a church zoned R-2 with a conditional use permit. The land to the south is undeveloped property zoned O-3 General Office. The land to the west consists of the Southwest Regional Medical Center zoned O-2 Office and Institutional, vacant property zoned C-3, and houses on large lots zoned R-2. The I-30 / I-430 interchange occupies a considerable amount of acreage northwest of the expanded area. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-01 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On August 4, 2003 a change was made from Light Industrial to Commercial on Mabelvale Pike south of I-30 about ¾ of a mile northeast of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development. On April 2, 2002 a change was made from Single Family to Public Institutional on Mabelvale Main Street at Woodman Street about ¾ of a mile southeast of the application area to recognize existing conditions. On October 17, 2000 a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial to Service Trades District on the south side of W. Baseline Road west of Childers Drive about a ½ mile north of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development. On September 19, 2000 a change was made from Mixed Use to Neighborhood Commercial at the northwest corner of Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Main Street about a ½ mile southeast of the property in question to accommodate proposed development. On May 16, 2000 multiple changes were made from Single Family to Services Trades District, Park / Open Space and Commercial on the west side of I-430 at W. Baseline Road starting about ¾ of a mile west of the application area to recognize existing conditions. The expanded area is shown as Light Industrial on the Future Land Use Plan. The land to the north of I-30 is shown as Mixed Office Commercial with some Public Institutional shown at the northwest corner of Sibley Hole and I-30. The land to the east is shown as Park / Open Space for a creek, Light Industrial north of Sibley Hole, Public Institutional for the church located on the south side of Sibley Hole at Nash Lane, and Single Family south of Sibley Hole along Nash Lane. The land to the south is shown as Office. The land west of Meadow Lane is shown as Commercial with Public Institutional shown for the hospital to the southwest. MASTER STREET PLAN: I-30 is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Freeway. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department is making improvements to I-30 to widen the freeway and improve access. Sibley Hole Road is shown as a Collector Street from I-30 to Mabelvale Pike and is built with open drainage. Meadow Lane is a street that is built with open drainage and serves as an industrial street at the intersection of Sibley Hole and serves as a residential street to the south. The Master Street Plan also shows the South Loop as a Proposed Principal Arterial that will link I-430 at the I-30 interchange to I-530 and will have a right-of-way line January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-01 3 located west of the expanded area. There are no Bikeways shown that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the study area is located west of a strip of land shown as a Potential Recreational Opportunity along the banks of a creek. Development of the study area will need to respect the integrity of the drainage system located in the 100-year flood plain of the creek as well as the integrity of the Potential Greenbelt shown in the plan. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The study area lies in the area covered by the Chicot West / I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an action statement of concentrating development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area and leaving the southern portion of the study area as an “urban reserve.” The study area lies near the northern boundary of the study area. The Economic Development Goal lists an action statement of attracting more Light Industrial uses to the area. This action would reduce the area shown for Light Industrial in favor of more intense industrial uses. Although the plan does not specifically mention the Industrial Future Land Use category, the overall theme of the plan is to improve the image of the study area by minimizing the objectionable impacts of new development on affected neighborhoods. If a development more intense than allowed in a Light Industrial category, the PZD process would need to be followed in order to minimize potential negative impacts on the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: Areas shown as Industrial and Light Industrial need good access to good transportation facilities such as freeways and railroads. The expanded area is characterized by good access to I-30 due to the frontage of much of the property along the I-30 access road located on the south side of the freeway. The study area may also be accessed from both directions on I-30 at the Baseline / Mabelvale interchange. The Baseline / Mabelvale interchange is also situated near the I-30 / I-430 interchange, which would further connect an area shown as Industrial to the Interstate Highway network. Although most of the study area is developed with existing uses, a large portion of the area shown as Light January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-01 4 Industrial remains undeveloped to allow future Light Industrial uses to move into the neighborhood. Industrial and Light Industrial areas are needed in the city. The Industrial areas are listed in order of decreasing size are located at the Port; 65th Street and Scott Hamilton; Asher Avenue; and the Airport. Light Industrial areas are listed in order of decreasing size are located at Otter Creek, the Airport, the Shackleford Road corridor and at Sibley Hole and I-30. A change to Industrial in the study area would allow property to be redeveloped for more intense industrial uses, which could move into the area in the future, although land is available in other areas of the city shown as Industrial. The uses located in areas shown as Industrial typically need to be isolated from less intense uses. The isolation of this property from less intense uses is achieved through the presence of the PK/OS along the nearby creek floodway to the east, which is intended to serve as a buffer between the applicant’s property and the houses to the east. However, depending on the mass and scale of industrial development, the buffer provided by the area shown as Park / Open Space may not be enough to properly protect the area shown as Single Family from negative affects produced by outdoor industrial activity. Steps need to be taken to insure that the area shown as PK/OS provides a sufficient barrier to minimize the visual, noise, and possibly odor impacts on the residents located on Nash Lane. A strip of PK/OS is typically more effective as a buffer for Light Industrial uses since LI is characterized by industrial processes that take place indoors thus allowing the industrial buildings to hide any objectionable effects of industrial processes from neighboring uses. The uses that are more typical of the Industrial category are characterized by activities that take place outdoors in which objectionable effects are not hidden by a building, and would therefore negate any buffer provided by a strip of PK/OS. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: SW Little Rock UP, WCLR Coalition of Neighborhoods, Santa Monica Neighborhood Association, Allendale Neighborhood Association, Chicot Neighborhood Association, Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, Pinedale Neighborhood Association, Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Association, Shiloh Homeowners Association, Town & Country Estates Neighborhood Association, West Baseline Neighborhood Association, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, Oxford Valley Homeowners Association, and Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association. Staff has received one comment in support of the change. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-01 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change would allow outdoor uses that would not be negated by the buffer provided by the PK/OS, which currently works to help protect the residential integrity of the Single Family shown on Nash Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Donna James made a presentation of item 9.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 9. See item 9.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned Development - Industrial. RC Colburn made a presentation supporting the application and included some of the history of the site. He spoke of the fact that he had been in business at the site when it was in the county. Jim Bershen, with Scott Equipment, spoke in opposition to the land use plan amendment and of future development along I-30. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes, and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9.1 FILE NO.: Z-7561 NAME: Coburn Short-form PD-I LOCATION: 10601 Sibley Hole Road DEVELOPER: Coburn Service Company, Inc. 10601 Sibley Hole Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 6.42 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial ALLOWED USES: Industrial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PD-I PROPOSED USE: I-2 uses and outdoor sandblasting VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property at 10625 Sibley Hole Road was reviewed by the Commission at their January 25, 2001 Public Hearing for a subdivision site plan review. The site was zoned I-2 and being used as a heavy equipment/machinery sales and service. A business of January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 2 this type had been operated on the site and adjacent property (west) for a number of years. Based on the fact that multiple buildings were proposed, the site plan had to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The proposal included a two-phase development plan for the property. Phase I included construction of a 7,000 square foot building just south of the existing one-story brick office structure. A ground-mounted sign location and dumpster were also indicated in Phase I. Phase II included the construction of two (2) 7,000 square foot buildings within the southern portion of the property. The buildings were to be used to perform certain service work (mechanical and cosmetic work) on heavy equipment. The Phase I building has been constructed. The majority of the property was gravel-covered and has been used for heavy equipment and truck storage and maintenance for a number of years. The applicant proposed to continue the use of the existing gravel area. The applicant also indicated intentions of working with Public Works to improve access to the property from Sibley Hole Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from I-2 to PD-I to allow the use of the site for outdoor sandblasting. The area designated for sandblasting is located along the southeastern property line. The applicant is currently utilizing the eastern portion of the site for sandblasting. This case is an enforcement case for zoning violation. The previously approved site plan included the development of the proposed “future buildings”. The location of the buildings will be as was previously approved. The applicant has indicated no new signage will be placed on the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are two single-story structures and an asphalt parking area within the north portion of the property. The remainder of the property is gravel-covered and has been used for heavy equipment and truck storage in the past. The area located along the eastern property line is the area the applicant has been using for sandblasting and painting large beams. The area located to the southwest is being used as a contractor’s staging area for a company doing work on the I-30 upgrades. There is a mixture of industrial uses (including heavy equipment sales and service) to the west and north along I-30. There is undeveloped O-3 zoned property to the south, with a church and single-family residence to the east and southwest. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Pinedale, Mavis Circle, West Baseline and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing along with all residents located within 300 feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site. As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls and letters in opposition of the proposed request. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Boundary Street work was completed in a previous project except for the removal of a utility pole from the right-of-way. The change is use would not required additional improvements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer’s expense. 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. Contact CAW at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs – West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development – Industrial for exterior sand blasting operations. A land use plan amendment for a change to Industrial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West / I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an action statement of concentrating development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area and leaving the southern portion of the study area as an “urban reserve.” The applicant’s property lies near the northern boundary of the study area. The Economic Development Goal lists an action statement of attracting more light industrial uses to the area. This action would reduce the area shown for Light Industrial in favor of more intense industrial uses. Landscape: A six foot high opaque barrier, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern and southern perimeters and that portion of the western perimeter abutting residential property. In addition to the screening, trees and shrubs are required within the land use buffers. The land use buffer width required along the eastern and western perimeters adjacent to residential property is 17 feet. The southern land use buffer width required is 26-feet. A landscaping upgrade of the existing vehicular use area toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required. Landscape areas are required to be irrigated. Prior to a building permit being issued, the Landscape Plan must be stamped by a registered Landscape Architect. Since this is an existing development some flexibility with the landscaping requirements is allowed. Buildings Codes: The proposed and future buildings will require fire rated walls with limited window openings along exterior walls where they are in close proximity to the various property lines. Details on the type and method of construction would be worked out later; there was not enough detail to make specific comments. Contact Mark Whitaker at 371-4839 for additional details. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 5 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) Mr. Ray Coburn was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant was approved for a site plan of the proposed development in January of 2001 which was soon to expire if none of the proposed improvements had been put in place. Staff stated the current request was to allow outdoor sandblasting to continue on the site. Staff noted the applicant was currently under enforcement for operating the operation without the proper zoning. Public Works indicated all boundary street improvements had been completed as were previously required. Staff noted the removal of a utility pole located in the right-of-way had not been taken care of but the proposed request did not require any additional improvements. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted screening would be required along the eastern and southern portions of the site were abutting single- family zoning. Staff noted the land use buffer required along the eastern and western perimeters was 17-feet and along the southern perimeter was 26-feet. Staff also stated a landscaping upgrade of the existing vehicular use area toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance would be required and landscape areas were required to be irrigated. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised drawing to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated there are six to ten employees of the business, the days and hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm or daylight hours and the applicant has indicated there is no new signage proposed for the site. The applicant has indicated on the revised site plan an area for the proposed sandblasting operation. The applicant has indicated sandblasting will take place on the southwest corner of the site. The applicant has indicated sandblasting has taken place in this area for approximately twenty years. The site was formerly owned by a heavy equipment company and the applicant provided sandblasting services for the owner. Staff was not aware of sandblasting taking place on the site until recently. The applicant is currently conducting the sandblasting operation on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has indicated there are currently four sandblasting machines operating at a time, which increases the level of noise on January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 6 the site and adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated he has a contract, which will be completed on or before March 1, 2004, after which time he will no longer use the eastern portion of the site for sandblasting. The applicant has indicated on the site plan screening will be provided adjacent to residential areas as required by ordinance. The applicant has indicated dense evergreen plantings will be placed along the east, west and southern property lines. The applicant has also indicated if necessary a portable partition will be used to assist in the deflection of noise and dust. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The proposed sandblasting operation would be an I-3, Industrial District use. As indicted in the Purpose and Intent Section of the I-3, Industrial District the district is designated to accommodate industrial uses, which involve potentially objectionable uses and hazard, and which, therefore, cannot be reasonably expected to conform to a high level of performance standards, but are essential to the economic viability of the city. The ordinance further states the expressed purpose of the district is by locating them in areas where the negative influences have least impact. Staff feels the placement of such an intense use adjacent to single-family residences is not the best interest of the residents or the City. The area is currently zoned I-2, Light Industrial District which allows for a variety of industrial activities which conform to high development standards. In this district all activities are to take place indoors with the exception of outdoor storage of equipment, materials or merchandise. Staff feels allowing the site to be utilized to the I-3, Industrial District standard would have a negative impact on the adjoining properties and neighborhood. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. R.C. Coburn was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Coburn stated he had operated on the site since 1970 prior to the site being annexed into the City. He stated the original owner was a tractor salvage company and he conducted sandblasting of equipment for the owner. Mr. Coburn stated in 1987 he moved to a permanent location in North Little Rock. Mr. Coburn stated he purchased the site from the previous owner to move his sandblasting operation from North Little Rock to Little Rock in 2000. He stated since he had conducted sandblasting on the site previously he felt he would be able to continue to operate his sandblasting business. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 7 Mr. Coburn stated he would stop sand blasting on March 1, 2004 after the completion of a current contract to allow time to resolve the concerns of the neighbors. He stated the current contract was a large contract, which was not typical for his business. Ms. Dorothy Sesser addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her concerns were the noise and dust. She stated the road was narrow and not sufficient to meet the needs of residents and heavy equipment. Ms. Lydia Smalling addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her property was located east of the site and she had live there for over thirty years. She stated she did not want buildings located adjacent to her property line as indicated on the site plan. She stated the noise was first noticed a few months ago and at first she thought the noise was from the highway construction. Mr. Perry James addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed rezoning. He stated the noise first started a few months ago and was continuous. He stated the noise sounded like a jet airplane trying to take-off. Mr. James stated there was also an objectionable noise when the property owner was moving steal. He stated his family had lived in the area since 1962. Mr. Jerry White addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the use of the site was not a good mix for the neighborhood. He stated the dust and noise was interfering with the quality of life of the residents. Mr. Randy Blue addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was the President of the Pinedale Neighborhood Association. Mr. Blue stated the noise was a major concern of the residents in his neighborhood. He stated the dust was also a problem but his neighborhood was farther away and they were not as affected by the dust as the residents living adjacent to the site. Mr. Woodrow Butler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the noise was similar to a freight train. He stated the noise was interfering with his quality of life. He stated Mr. Coburn did some sandblasting on the site for the previous owner but there was nowhere near the level of activity that was currently taking place. Mr. David Henderson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he had lived at this residence for approximately thirty-two years. He stated with the sandblasting it was no longer pleasant to be outdoors. He stated the sound was similar to a rocket taking off and never leaving the ground. He stated he had been in business several times in the past and before he move to a location and made any investment he checked the zoning to see if his use was an allowable use for the property. He stated the neighborhood did not have a problem with the sandblasting. He stated the outdoor January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 8 activity was the nuisance. He stated the activity was taking place seven days per week and late into the evening. He stated this was interfering with the resident’s enjoyment of their homes. Mr. Lem Dreher addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed rezoning request. Mr. Dreher stated he had lived in the neighborhood for twenty-five years and at no time had the sandblasting been a problem until recently. Mr. Benny Reynolds addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the noise began in August or around Labor Day and had been going seven days per week since that time. He stated the applicant had spent money without checking the zoning and he did not feel the City had a responsibility to resolve the applicant’s financial hardship. Ms. Sue Bearden addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was an employee of Scott Construction Equipment. She stated her car had been painted by the applicant. She stated there were five to six cars, either employees or customers of Scott Construction Equipment that had been painted by over spray from the Coburn site. Mr. Joshua Ball addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his car had also been painted from drift from the Coburn site. He stated efforts to detail the vehicle had not been fruitful. Mr. Nicholas Williams did not address the Commission. Mr. Ralph Cerly addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was the General Manager of Scott Construction Equipment. He stated his company was not in direct competition with Mr. Coburn. He stated the previous owner did contract with Mr. Coburn to sandblast equipment but only on occasion. Ms. Barbara Henderson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her family move to Nash Lane in 1972 to get away from the noise of Geyer Springs Road. She stated with the current sandblasting operation her grandchildren can no longer play outdoors. She stated the sandblasting had consumed the livelihood of the neighborhood. Ms. Reba J. Batchelor chose not to address the Commission. Ms. Ann Schweitzer addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed rezoning request. She stated the proposed use was not conducive to the neighborhood because of the noise and dust. She stated activity was currently taking place on the site seven days per week, which was also not conducive to the neighborhood. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7561 9 Mr. Coburn stated he did not operate twenty-four hours per day seven days per week. He stated he had operated a sandblasting business on the site since 1979. He stated the pictures shown to the Commission were from the 1970’s and 1980’s and not what he was currently painting. He stated he was not painting yellow paint. He stated his request was to continue operating as he had been in the past. He stated the use would have less of an impact on the neighborhood than the previous owner with welding and hammering of equipment. Commissioner Floyd questioned if Mr. Coburn could move his operation indoors. Mr. Coburn stated a building would be an expense. He stated he was requesting to continue to use his property as he had used the property in the past. Staff stated the sandblasting in the past was incidental to the principal use. Staff stated Mr. Coburn was now requesting to make the sandblasting operation the principal use. Staff stated they were not supportive of allowing outdoor sandblasting to take place on this site as the principal. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-7562 NAME: Buchanan Short-form PID LOCATION: 3700 Old Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: Rector Phillips and Morse P.O. Box 7300 Little Rock, AR 72217 ENGINEER: Summerlin Associates, Inc. 1609 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 AREA: 13.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family District ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PID PROPOSED USE: Selected I-2, Light Industrial District Uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site contains a 129,174 square foot warehouse manufacturing facility constructed in the 1970’s. After annexation to the City, the light manufacturing business was grandfathered and allowed as a “non-conforming use”. The January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7562 2 property has been vacant for over a year and has lost its non-conforming status. The property is currently on the market for sale or lease but with the existing R-2, Single-family zoning classification, the site is difficult to market. The applicant is requesting the following specified uses be allowed as uses for the site: Appliance repair, Auction – General merchandise, Auto glass muffler shop, Auto or truck rental and leasing, Auto parts and accessories, Auto paint or body rebuilding shop, Auto repair garage, Bus or truck storage or garage, Cabinet or woodworking shop, Clothing manufacturing, Contractor or maintenance yard, Feed store, Furniture repair store, Hauling and storage company, Home center, Job printing, lithographer, printer or blueprinting plant, Laboratory, Laboratory manufacturing, Landscape service, Laundry, industrial, Lawn and garden center, enclosed, Light fabrication and assembly process, Machine or welding shop, Machinery sales and service, Mini-warehouse, Motor freight terminal, Office equipment sales and service, Office (general and professional), Office warehouse, Plant nursery, Plumbing, electrical, heating or air conditioning shop, Recycling facility, automated, Recycling facility (MFR), School, business, School, commercial, trade or craft, Secondhand store, used furniture or rummage shop, Small engine repair, Tool and equipment rental (inside) Truck and Tractor sales or repair, Warehousing and wholesaling, Wood products manufacturing. The office portion of the building is constructed of brick veneer with a metal roof and the warehouse portion of the building is constructed of metal with a metal roof. The office area contains approximately 7,302 square feet with the remainder of the square footage in warehouse space. The site contains approximately 100 parking spaces and is fully fenced. A portion of the building and parking area is located within the floodway. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a vacant warehouse building with approximately 100 parking spaces. Brodie Creek runs along the properties northern boundary. The bridge across the creek on Old Shackleford Road has washed-out and has not been replaced. Other uses in the area include single-family homes located along Old Shackleford Road. Old Shackleford road is a very narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. There is an illegal dump located along the road near the plant entrance. There is a large manufactured home park located on Shackleford Road near the intersection of Old Shackleford Road and Shackleford Road. There are also large warehouse type buildings located in the area with the Church at Rock Creek currently using one of the structures as the church home. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7562 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The John Barrow Neighborhood Association, all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and all property owners located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. As noted on the survey, a substantial area of the site lies within the regulated floodway and floodplain of Brodie Creek. No future construction of any structure, parking areas, or placement of fill materials are allowed within the floodway. No outdoor storage is allowed within floodway. 2. For any future construction of any kind that is outside the floodway, but within the floodplain, a special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met before service is resumed. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer’s expense. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project for larger and/or additional meter(s) in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7562 4 CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development – Industrial for selected I-2 light industrial uses. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. 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: (January 8, 2004) Mr. Maury Mitchell was present representing the request. Staff stated the building was an existing industrial building constructed prior to the city extending its limits into the area. Staff stated the site was currently zoned R-2, Single- family and the applicant was requesting a planned development to allow alternative uses for the site. Staff noted the applicant had requested specific uses from the I-2, Light Industrial District zoning list as alternate uses. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the survey indicated correctly, a substantial area of the site lies within the regulated floodway and floodplain of Brodie Creek. Staff stated no future construction of any structure, parking areas, or the placement of fill materials would be allowed within the floodway. Staff also noted no out-door storage was allowed within floodway. Staff stated any future construction would require a special grading permit. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated any signage would comply with signage allowed in industrial zones or a maximum of thirty feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. The applicant has also indicted the existing fencing as chain link fencing six feet in height. The existing fencing complies with fencing allowed in industrial zones. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7562 5 The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be consistent with other industrial uses in the area or 7 am to 11 pm six days per week. Staff is supportive of the requested days and hours of operation. The applicant has indicated the following uses are potential uses for the site; Appliance repair, Auction – General merchandise, Auto glass muffler shop, Auto or truck rental and leasing, Auto parts and accessories, Auto paint or body rebuilding shop, Auto repair garage, Bus or truck storage or garage, Cabinet or woodworking shop, Clothing manufacturing, Contractor or maintenance yard, Feed store, Furniture repair store, Hauling and storage company, Home center, Job printing, lithographer, printer or blueprinting plant, Laboratory, Laboratory manufacturing, Landscape service, Laundry, industrial, Lawn and garden center, enclosed, Light fabrication and assembly process, Machine or welding shop, Machinery sales and service, Mini-warehouse, Motor freight terminal, Office equipment sales and service, Office (general and professional), Office warehouse, Plant nursery, Plumbing, electrical, heating or air conditioning shop, Recycling facility, automated, Recycling facility (MFR), School, business, School, commercial, trade or craft, Secondhand store, used furniture or rummage shop, Small engine repair, Tool and equipment rental (inside) Truck and Tractor sales or repair, Warehousing and wholesaling, Wood products manufacturing. Staff is supportive of the requested uses. All the listed uses are enclosed uses and there is to be no outdoor storage. Staff does not believe any of the potential uses would negatively impact the area. The applicant has indicated no new construction will take place on the site without a revision to the PID and proper clearances for the City. The applicant has also indicated proper fire protection will be provided if and when the building is occupied. The applicant has indicated any additional site lighting will be low level in intensity and directional, directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The site was constructed as an industrial use prior to the City annexing the area. Staff feels the proposed listing of uses is appropriate for the site and if developed in this manner should not have any adverse impact of the surrounding 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 report. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7562 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7563 NAME: Rock House Short-form POD LOCATION: 715 North University Avenue DEVELOPER: Rock House, LLC 11500 North Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: Rickett Engineering, Inc. 78 Aberdeen Drive Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District ALLOWED USES: High Density Residential Units of not more than 36-units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Office (General and Professional) with the 25 percent of the gross floor area being available for selected commercial uses VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the placement of a two-story office building consisting of 18,000 square feet of general and professional office uses with provisions for some light commercial uses should they fit with office occupancy. The proposed January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 2 site plan includes fifty-nine on-site parking spaces. The applicant is requesting to be allowed 25 percent of the gross floor area (4,500 square feet) be allowed to be utilized by the following listed uses: Barber/Beauty Shop, Book and Stationary Store, Drugstore, Florist, Optic Shop, Clothing, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, or Tailor Shop. Included in the filing is a petition for abandonment of Grant Street and “G” Street. Grant Street currently ends at the intersection of “F” Street. The applicant is proposing an extension of Grant Street approximately 120 feet from “F” Street to the property line and creating adequate turn around in the parking lot for emergency vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property now consists of twelve residentially zoned lots in Blocks 9 and 10 of the Lincoln Park Subdivision and a portion of Grant Street which has never been constructed. The property is bounded by University Avenue to the west, “G” Street (not constructed) to the north, a closed alley to the east, and a dwelling and small office building to the south. Steep grades to the east and north lead down to a drainage canal. Access to the site from University Avenue is right turn only. An abandoned house with a stone exterior currently sits on the site. Frontage along University Avenue is predominantly occupied by office and commercial uses, with a few remaining single-family dwellings. To the east of the site are residential uses adjacent to the drainage canal. Other uses in the area include the Catholic Boys school a strip retail center and a public library. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The site plan as proposed cannot be approved. An un-stable fill was placed on this site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there are un- resolved enforcement issues. A large portion of the site is within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Before site plan review, a restoration plan must be provided for the site, and a required for a Letter of Map Revision must be January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 3 prepared and submitted through this office to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2. All fill slopes must conform to the land alteration ordinance. Slopes must be at 3:1 or benched with erosion protection provided. 3. A special grading permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to any construction. Approval from the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers may also be required. 4. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from centerline will be required. 5. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one- half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The right turn lane for “H” Street would need to be extended across the frontage. 6. Contact Traffic engineering at (501) 379-1816 for guidance of the driveway location and configuration. The design must provide for a directional right-in, right-out island and minimize traffic conflicts near the right-of-way line. 7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Dedication of the Floodway and a 25-foot access easement adjacent to the floodway will be required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer main on property. No permanent construction within five foot either side of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: The proposed right-of-way will require approval from the SBC right-of-way engineer. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional details. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met before service is resumed. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the location of public and/or private fire hydrant(s), which will be required. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be installed at the Developer’s expense. 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 CAW at 992-2438 for additional details. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 4 Fire Department: Increase the south driveway to a minimum of 20-feet in width. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights – Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for O-1 Quiet Office Uses. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning & Land Use goal lists an objective of no net loss of residential units by demolition or conversion to other uses. Landscape: A portion of the proposed land use buffer along the southern perimeter is less than the 6-foot 9-inch minimum allowed. This takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area of the city. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required to help screen this property from the residential properties to the east and south. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site plan as proposed could not be approved. Staff stated an un-stable fill was placed on the site in the regulated floodway of Coleman Creek and there were un-resolved enforcement issues. Staff stated a large portion of the site was within the mapped floodway and floodplain. Staff stated a restoration plan had been filed and approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated before a site plan review could be approved located in the floodway, a restoration plan would have to be provided for the site, and a Letter of Map Revision prepared and submitted through the City to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff stated the process was quite lengthy and they felt the request should be withdrawn awaiting the FEMA decision. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 5 Additional Planning, Landscaping and Public Works comments were addressed to allow the applicant information that would be expected if and when the site were approved for development. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the previously approved restoration plan will be implemented for the site. Areas of fill will be removed from the floodway and the slopes will be flattened to a maximum of 3:1. The applicant has indicated an easement along the rear parking area will be dedicated for access to the floodway. The applicant has also indicated a dedication of right-of-way for University Avenue from the existing centerline of fifty-five feet as required by the Master Street Plan ordinance. The applicant has also indicated a right-turn lane will be installed adjacent to the site and the applicant will coordinate with Traffic Engineering to determine the exact requirements. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage on the site plan along with a note stating the signage will be a ground mounted sign and comply with the sign area allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage. The applicant has provided a proposed maximum building height of forty-five feet. The applicant is proposing a two story building. The proposed elevation indicates the building will contain a metal roof and the building will contain glass fronts. The applicant has indicated architectural plans have not been finalized indicating construction materials have not been fully determined. Staff would suggest the building follow design recommendations set forth by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment of the area. The site lies in the secondary area reviewed by the Urban Land Institute for redevelopment possibilities (University Avenue from Lee Street north to Evergreen Drive. The primary focus of the study was the area along West Markham Street from Pine Street to University Avenue and on University Avenue from West Markham Street to Lee Street.) “The panel did not suggest changes of the northern portion of the secondary area, other than to continue to recognize it as a Hillcrest neighborhood border that needs to be protected.” The panel suggested the adoption of specific guidelines and controls that would result in less visual clutter January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 6 and provide greater convenience for pedestrians. The panel also stated the design guidelines can help to safeguard the Hillcrest neighborhood and concentrate mixed use development. The panel suggested the adoption of design guidelines that would ensure compatibility with the bordering Hillcrest residential neighborhood. Staff feels the building could be designed and constructed to enhance the neighborhood with regard to architectural style and construction materials. The applicant has indicated a desire to close portions of two (2) streets located within the development. The applicant has indicated a portion of Grant Street will be closed from the applicant’s northern property line to the applicant’s southern property line or approximately 210 feet. The applicant is also requesting the closure of a portion of “G” Street from University Avenue to the applicant’s eastern property line. The applicant is the sole owner of the properties of Grant Street. There is an adjoining property owner to the north, which would gain the northern portion of the abandoned Grant Street right-of-way. Staff has been contacted by the property owner located to the south of the site stating his desire to close Grant Street from “F” Street to the intersection with “G” Street (the northern boundary of the applicant’s property). There are existing utilities located in these right-of-ways and all would be required to be maintained as utility easements. Staff feels this issue should be resolved prior to approval of the proposed rezoning request. Staff feels should the street be closed from “F” Street to the applicant’s southern property line the site plan will change significantly. The proposed site plan indicates a total of fifty-nine parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for an 18,000 square foot office building would be forty-five parking spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand. Staff is supportive of the proposed use of the property as general and professional office uses and the allowance of up to twenty-five percent of the gross floor area to be utilized by the specified uses listed in paragraph A of this report. Since the applicant is requesting only general and professional office ues for seventy-five percent of the gross floor area, not a broader list of uses, such as O-1, O-2 or O-3 with the associated accessory uses; staff supports the specific proposed uses for the remaining twenty-five percent. The proposed use is consistent with the future land use plan. Staff would however suggest the overall design be given consideration and the recommendations of the Urban Land Institute be followed to protect the integrity of the neighborhood. Staff also recommends the applicant resolve outstanding issues related to the closure of “F” Street prior to January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563 7 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the right-of-way issue related to the closure of “F” Street be resolved prior to consideration of the rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated a portion of the request was to close Grant Street within the development. Staff stated the property owner to the south was also requesting the closure of Grant Street adjacent to his property. Staff stated if the street south of the development were closed then this would affect the proposed site plan currently submitted for review. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral to the March 11, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the owner of the property to the south sufficient time to make application for the street closure adjacent to his property and to allow the Commission to review the Grant Street street closure request at the same hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 I T E M N O . : 1 2 Name: Chenal-Hwy 10 Ministorage, unpermitted land alteration Location: Undeveloped Lot 2, Northwest Territory Addition at 24400 Chenal Parkway north of Hwy 10 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Owner/Applicant: Chris Thornton, property owner. Request: Appeal the corrective action of NOV #208 which required all disturbed areas to be restored to their original condition. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Master Street Plan This portion of Chenal Parkway is a minor arterial. 2. Development Potential and Land Use This approximate 5 acre site is adjacent to Chenal Parkway north of Hwy 10. A phased C.U.P was approved for this lot 2, and lot 1 in December, 2000. The Chenal-Hwy 10 Mini-Storage was constructed on lot 1 as part of the C.U.P. The undeveloped properties to the east were recently rezoned to O3, C3 and MF-12. The zoning of the undeveloped property to the north is O3. The zoning of the undeveloped property to the south is C3 and a utility substation. The property to the west across Chenal Parkway is zoned C2 with a P.C.D. on the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Hwy 10. 3. Neighborhood Position Public Works has received complaints from the adjacent property owner to the east. The applicant apparently cleared approximately 1.72 acres of his property. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) NOV #208 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is the owner of the Chenal-Hwy 10 Mini Storage (“mini storage”). The mini storage and lot 2 were approved as a phased C.U.P. in December, 2000. Notice of Violation #208 (“NOV”) was issued to the applicant for un- permitted clearing and excavating of lot 2 and 1.72 acres of the adjacent property to the east that the applicant does not own. The cleared area is not visible from Chenal Parkway. The applicant proposes to develop a portion of lot 2 per the approved C.U.P. and plans to restore the remaining disturbed area per Section 29-170(c) of the land alteration regulations. The restoration consists of restoring all off-site slopes to their approximate original contours, constructing on-site slopes to a configuration that complies with the land alteration ordinance, grading all excavated areas to obtain proper drainage; replanting trees on adjacent property; and establishing vegetation on all disturbed areas. Public Works is in support of the proposed corrective action of NOV #208 consisting of partial site development and restoration of remaining disturbed areas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 8, 2004) Staff presented a short synopsis of the case. The applicant was not present. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify adjacent property owners as required by the Land Alteration Ordinance. Staff presented a recommendation for the item be deferred to the March 11, 2004 to allow for proper notification. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-4336-R NAME: Arkansas Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: On Wolfe Street between West 11th and West 13th Streets DEVELOPER: Arkansas Children’s Hospital 1120 South Marshall Street Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: Cromwell Architects Engineers 101 South Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 1.504 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: O-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 – Central City CENSUS TRACT: 10 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance to allow an increased building height. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building setback. BACKGROUND: The site is zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District as are most other properties owned by Arkansas Children’s Hospital. The zoning district requires a site plan review January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-R 2 by the Planning Commission but no action by the Board of Directors. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a site plan review for the proposed expansion of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute (ACHRI) and Arkansas Children’s Nutrition Center (ACNC), located at 1120 Marshal Street. The proposed development consists of two components: A three story addition to the ACHRI and a one story addition to the existing one story ACNC. The addition to ACHRI is sized for future expansion to five stories. The proposed building will be an infill between the ACHRI and ACNC, and will include the demolition of a substantial two story wing of the ACHRI. The proposed first phase of the addition will be approximately fifty (50) feet in height, with a future height of approximately ninety-five (95) feet (comparable to the existing building.) The west face of the building is proposed to match the existing west face of ACHRI; the existing and proposed setback for this portion is approximately five- feet. The ACNC existing building and addition are sized for future expansion to four stories. The proposed first phase of this addition will be approximately thirty-five (35) feet in height with a future building height of approximately sixty-five (65) feet. The applicant is proposing to abandon the existing curb cut to Wolfe Street, and add a curb cut on 13th Street; both are for delivery use only. The applicant is requesting a variance for the required building setback in this area. Parking requirements for both proposed buildings are being met by the existing parking lot on the two blocks across Marshall Street, as well as a smaller amount of existing on-site parking. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single story structure currently being used as a research facility for Arkansas Children’s Hospital. The primary uses in the area are related to the hospital with a mix of medical buildings, clinics and parking areas. Located south of the site is the old “West Side School” currently being renovated as residential and office uses. The ARC of Arkansas owns the site and is currently renovating the “old classrooms” into residential units and the “old auditorium” into office uses to be used of Arkansas Children’s Hospital and UAMS. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site, the Central High, the Capital Hill and the Downtown Neighborhood Associations were notified of the January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-R 3 public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 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. Please submit two copies of the plans for the private fire line to Central Arkansas Water for review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of private fire line. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet with ordinance requirements. Additional landscape plantings will be required. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-R 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 8, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff noted the request was a zoning site plan review for the Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Staff noted there were additional items needed to complete the review of the proposed development. Staff requested the applicant provide maximum building height, maximum square footage and details concerning any proposed signage on the site plan. Staff also requested the dumpster be relocated away from the street. Public Works noted all sidewalks would be required to be brought up to current ADA code prior to occupancy. Staff noted the areas set aside for landscaping appeared to meet ordinance requirements. Staff stated a landscape upgrade would be required at the time of building permit. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the January 8, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated all proposed building setbacks on the site plan along with placing in the general notes section the maximum building height, the proposed building square footage and details concerning the gates. The applicant has indicated the proposed buildings will be four and five stories in height with a maximum height of 65 feet and 95 feet respectively. The applicant has also indicated the each building will contain 110,000 gross square feet of floor area. The gates will be constructed of metal and only opened at the time of deliveries. The applicant has indicated the proposed dumpster location is critical to the site development. The applicant has indicated if the dumpster is relocated away from the street this will adversely affect the overall development and will not be easily accessed for servicing. The applicant has indicated screening to shield the view from the roadway. The applicant has indicated a wall will be constructed of block on three sides at least two feet above the top level of the container. Staff is supportive of the dumpster screening and placement. The applicant has indicated twenty-eight on-site parking spaces. The applicant has also indicated there is sufficient parking in the area to handle the parking needs. There are two and one-half blocks of parking located to the east of the January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-R 5 site and a block of parking located to the west of the site currently owned by the applicant. The applicant has also purchased additional land to the north of the site (Immanuel Baptist Church), which contains additional parking. The applicant is requesting variances from the zoning ordinance to allow an increased building height and reduced setbacks. The site is zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District, which typically requires a 25-foot setback on all sides. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot setback on the west, 43.4 foot setback on the south and 97.1 foot setback on the east. The applicant is proposing the buildings to exceed the forty-five (45) foot height limit for O-2 zoned property. The applicant has indicated the northern most building will be a maximum of 95 feet in height including mechanical. The southern most building will be a maximum of 65 feet, including mechanical. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The proposed development is consistent with development in the area and should have minimal to no 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 and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an increased building height for both buildings located on the site. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow reduced building setback on the site. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow off-site parking. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) 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 above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow an increased building height for both buildings located on the site and the requested variance to allow reduced building setback on the site. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-R 6 Staff presented a recommendation of approval of a variance to allow off-site parking. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-7522 NAME: Dovers Manufactured Home – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1021 Kirby Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Merthyne Dovers PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 28’ X 48’ multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned, 1.73 acre site. 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Kirby Road, four lots north of Kanis Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The site is located at the fringe of the City where uses transition from developed residential neighborhoods to rural uses and undeveloped tracts. The properties across Kirby Road, to the west, are outside of the city limits. Uses immediately around this site include two single-wide mobile homes, to the south; undeveloped and wooded properties, to the west; and site built single family homes on larger tracts to the north and east. Three churches are located farther north, towards Markham Street. Two single family subdivisions are located to the north and east. Staff believes this proposed multisectional manufactured home on a 1.73 acre site is 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 Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: An existing driveway provides access to parking on the site. The proposed home requires one on-site parking space. There is more than sufficient parking available on-site. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No Comments. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7522 2 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: No Comments received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 8, 2004) The applicant, Merthyne Dovers, was present. Staff presented the item and noted there were no issues. It was noted that the only comment of consequence received from outside agencies was that from Wastewater in which it was noted that a sewer main extension with easements would be required of service was required. Staff noted the siting criteria for manufactured homes outlined in Section 36-254(d)(5) of the Code. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for placement of a new, 28’ X 48’, multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned, 1.73 acre tract. The home which had previously been located on the site January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7522 3 was destroyed by fire in October 2003. Several outbuildings are located on the site. The rear portion of the property is fenced where the applicant keeps chickens. The applicant has lived at this location for 58 years. While the larger area around the applicant’s property has started to urbanize, with the development of residential subdivisions and new commercial development; the nature of this immediate area is still rural. The property is located on the edge of the city limits. There are two, single-wide mobile homes located to the south and a multisectional manufactured home is located around the corner, on Kanis Road. The site-built residences near the site are also located on larger tracts. There is no established housing style, material or design on the residential properties around the site. The proposed home will have vinyl siding and a shingled roof. Porches will be added. Staff believes that allowing placement of a new, multisectional manufactured home on this 1.73 acre tract, in compliance with the ordinance siting criteria, is an appropriate use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following minimum siting criteria from Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. c. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A letter had been received from the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association in which the Association stated its support for the application subject to occupancy of the home being limited to Ms. Dovers and the home being removed from the property once Ms. Dovers no longer occupies it. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7522 4 Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the siting criteria of Section 36-254(d)(5). 2. Occupancy of the manufactured home is to be limited to Ms. Dovers. Once she no longer occupies the home, it is to be removed from the property. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 15 Name: Mabelvale Church of Christ, Tree Removal Request Location: 10820 Mabelvale West Road Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Owner/Applicant: Ray Bryan, church representative Request: Appeal Public Works decision not to issue a grading permit to remove 12 trees from the applicant’s property STAFF REVIEW: 1. Master Street Plan This portion of Mabelvale West Road is a minor arterial. 2. Development Potential and Land Use The applicants property is zoned R2 and is north of Mabelvale West Road. The property to the east of the applicant is zoned O3 with the property to the west zoned O2. Mabelvale Middle School is directly across Mabelvale West Road from the applicant. The property on the southwest corner of Mabelvale West and Red Raider Drive is zoned C3. 3. Neighborhood Position Public Works has not received any inquires or public comment. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant requested to remove twelve (12) 15” diameter gum trees from the property due to them being a nuisance. Public Works denied the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant is appealing Public Works‘ decision not to issue a grading permit for the removal of the trees. In compliance with the land alteration regulations, Section 29-186(a) & (d)(3), a grading permit is required to clear more than 7 trees on a R2 zoned property located on a minor arterial such as Mabelvale West Road. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) 2 Furthermore, in accordance with Section 29-186(b), no land alteration such as clearing trees shall be permitted until all necessary city approvals of all plans and permits have been issued and construction is imminent. Since the applicant has no plans for imminent construction, a grading permit cannot be issued for clearing more than 7 trees with a 6” or greater diameter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter on January 27, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated the request would take a waiver of the By-Laws to allow the withdrawal of the item since the applicant did not meet the required five working day criteria for withdrawal request. Staff stated they were supportive of the request for the waiver of the By-Laws and the request for withdrawal. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to timeliness for the withdrawal request. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 29, 2004 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: S-1400-A NAME: Watershed Project Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Springer Boulevard, south of I-440 DEVELOPER: Watershed 3701 Springer Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 9.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 – Sweet Home CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Fence height variance adjacent to Springer Boulevard. A variance from the minimum driveway spacing criteria for the southern driveway location. The applicant submitted a letter on January 15, 2004 requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the request. January 29, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400-A 2 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the February 12, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had received an approval letter from FEMA as required for Planning Commission review. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.