pc_10 07 2004sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
OCTOBER 7, 2004
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Gary Langlais
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Members Absent: Chauncey Taylor
Pam Adcock
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the August 26, 2004 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
OCTOBER 7, 2004
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Homes at Granite Mountain Phase II, Long-form PD-R (Z-7604), located
on the Northwest corner of Gilliam Park Road and Granite Mountain
Circle.
B. The Ridges at Nowlin Creek (S-1422), located North of Highway 10
approximately five miles West of the Chenal Parkway intersection.
C. Keifer Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1430), located at 27024 Kanis
Road.
D. Donnie’s Foreign Car Short-form PD-C (Z-7634), located at 1311 South
Bowman Road.
E. LU04-01-04 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain
Planning District along Summit Road from Suburban Office to Commercial
and Public Institutional.
E.1 Pleasant Ridge Revised Long-form PCD (Z-4411-D), located South of
Cantrell Road, East of Pleasant Ridge Road.
F. Ranch Highlands West Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1441-A), located on
Valley Ranch Drive, North of Cantrell Road.
G. Thomas Park Estates Preliminary Plat (S-1445), located on the Northwest
corner of Thomas Park Road and Sorrell Road.
H. Ransom Short-form PD-R (Z-7697), located at 14105 Taylor Loop Road.
I. LU04-01-05 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain Planning
District from Transition to Commercial.
I.1 Basham Cantrell Long-form PCD (Z-7700), located South of Cantrell
Road, West of Taylor Loop Road.
J. LU04-11-03 Amendment in the I-430 District from MOC to CS
Between Shackleford Road and I-430 North of
Old Shackleford Road
J.1. Z-4923-B Rezoning from PCD to O-2 and C-2
Southwest corner of S. Shackleford Road and I-430
Agenda, Page Two
II. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Chenal Valley Phase 25 (Lots 1 – 79 Block 83) Revised Preliminary Plat
(S-867-NNNNN), located West of Chenal Parkway and North of Chenal
Club Boulevard.
2. Kenwood Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1261-D), located on the
North of David O Dodd Road, just West of I-430.
3. Doyne Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1451), located on the Northwest corner
of Zeuber Road and Fraizer Pike.
4. Mirage at Pinnacle Preliminary Plat (S-1452), located on the Southeast
corner of Pinnacle Road and Highway 300.
5. Bryant Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1453), located at 3601 Rocky Lane.
6. Whispering Hills Preliminary Plat (S-1454), located South of Alexander
Road and West of Pam Drive South.
III. SITE PLAN REVIEWS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
7. Autumn Office Park Site Plan Review (S-1096-E), located at 1012 Autumn
Road.
8. Bowman-Kanis Retail Center Site Plan Review (S-1415-B), located on the
Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Bowman Road.
9. Hefley Site Plan Review (S-1455), located at 5100 Studer Road.
10. Big Boy’s Toys Site Plan Review (S-1456), located South of Baseline
Road, just East of Gator Park.
11. Hampton Site Plan Review (S-1457), located on the Southeast corner of
Dixon Road and HWY 65/167.
12. Tract 5 Chenal Valley – The Promenade at Chenal – Site Plan Review
(Z-5936-C), located on the Southwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal
Parkway.
13. Selman Multisectional Manufactured Home Conditional Use Permit
(Z-7721), located at 19105 Colonel Glenn Road.
Agenda, Page Three
IV. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
14. St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Short-form PD-O (Z-5522-A), located at
1000 Mississippi Avenue.
15. Arkansas Teachers Retirement Revised Long-form PRD – Lot 6 -
(Z-6532-C), on the East side of Chenal Valley Drive, just North of
Rahling Road.
16. Denison – Bailey Creative Arts Short-form PCD (Z-7720), located at
1517 – 1611 Wright Avenue.
17. Ligniappe’ Addition Short-form PD-R (Z-7722), located on the Northwest
corner of Walnut Street and “I” Street.
18. Yelenich Revised Long-form PCD (Z-4644-C), located at 2000 and
2010 South University Avenue.
19. LU04-01-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU04-01-06) in the River
Mountain Planning District at the southwest Corner of Cantrell Road and
Bella Rosa Drive from Transition to Commercial.
19.1. Bella Rosa Revised Long-form POD (Z-6219-B), located on the Southwest
corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive.
20. Z-3326-E Pulaski Bank – Short-Form POD
12719 Cantrell Road
V. OTHER ITEMS:
21. Presbyterian Village Long-form PRD Time Extension (Z-7091), located on
the Northwest corner of Rodney Parham Road and Brookside Drive.
22. NOV #0227 – Appeal of a Notification of Violation from the Land Alteration
Ordinance, located at 11221 Dewitt Lane.
23. NOV #0212 – Appeal of a Notice of Violation from the Land Alteration
Ordinance, located at 12115 Colonel Glenn Road.
24. Proposed Amendment to Section 36-513 of Chapter 36 of the Code of
Ordinances providing for procedures and regulations regarding the
parking of motor vehicles on residential properties.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-7604
NAME: Homes at Granite Mountain Phase II, Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: On the Northwest corner of Gilliam Park Road an Granite Mountain Circle
DEVELOPER:
Little Rock Housing Authority
1000 Wolfe Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ARCHITECT:
Fennell Purifoy Hammock Architects
111 Center, Suite 1620
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 11.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family District
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: 60 Units Senior Multi-family housing
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request on April 6, 2004 for the item to be deferred to the
June 3, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the placement of sixty new senior housing units on a
portion of the former site of Booker Homes public housing project in the Granite
Mountain Community area. The apartments for seniors will be arranged in
fifteen, single-level, four-plexes clustered around a circular access drive.
The applicant is proposing to pattern the development after the first phase of the
Homes at Granite Mountain, which has been recently completed. The applicant
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
2
has indicated the Phase II apartments will be designed to blend into the
neighborhood’s residential character. There will be individual front doors with
porches similar to Phase I and the materials and details will also be in character
with the existing structures. There will be a community room and office in a
separate structure.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and grass covered. To the south of the site are single-family
homes and to the north of the site is vacant land. Further north of the site is also
a single-family subdivision. East of the site is the Homes at Granite Mountain
Phase I. Northeast of the site are single-family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed use of the property. All residents located
within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, the College Station Progress
League Neighborhood Association and all owners of property located within 200-
feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed site plan allows for only a sub-standard 40-foot right-of-way as
measured from the platted lots of the Parkway addition to the back of curb of
the PD-R. The plan should provide for a minimum 50-foot right-of-way
allowance.
2. Repair or replace any existing curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock code and the Master Street Plan. New
sidewalk is needed on Granite Mountain Circle.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main relocation required at the Developer’s
expense. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
details.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will
be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). The facilities on-site
will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall
be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. 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. Due to
the nature of this facility, installation of an approved a reduced pressure zone
backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on each domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central
Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful
tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed
by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually
thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at 992-2431 if you would like to discuss
backflow prevention requirements for this project. 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 information.
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 Sweet Home Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Multifamily for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Residential Development to develop senior housing.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
4
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: Three of the proposed patios extend over into the minimum 12 ½
foot wide street buffer required along Granite Mountain Circle. Additionally, two
of the proposed patios extend over into the 9-foot wide minimum land use buffer
area required along the northern perimeter. Additionally, two of the proposed
structures extend over into the minimum 25-foot wide street buffer area required
along Gilliam Park Road.
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
perimeter of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a construction permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 1, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the proposed
development was to construct senior housing on the site. Staff requested the
applicant provide additional information necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested the applicant provide the setbacks from property lines,
details of any proposed signage and any proposed fencing. Staff also requested
the applicant provide the maximum building height in the general notes section of
the site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan did not allow
for sufficient right-of-way on Granite Mountain Circle. Staff also stated the site
plan did not include the placement of on-site detention.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted two of the patio’s extended
beyond the minimum twelve and one-half foot wide street buffer. In addition staff
stated a opaque screen would be required along the northern perimeter of the
site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
5
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
at the April 1, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the setbacks from property lines, a detailed signage plan and the
proposed fencing. The applicant has also provided the maximum building height
in the general notes section of the site plan. The applicant has indicated a
dedication of right-of-way along Granite Mountain Circle, twenty-five feet from
centerline.
The applicant has indicated the development of the site with 60 senior citizen
housing units and 93 parking spaces. The development consist of 7.4 acres and
results in a density of eight units per acre. The typical parking required for a
multi-family development would be 90 spaces. The indicated parking is
adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a development of this
type.
The applicant has indicated the existing fencing along the northern and western
property lines will remain but the fencing along the street side will be removed.
The applicant has indicated screening will be put in place along the northern
perimeter to screen the adjacent residentially zoned properties.
The applicant has indicated building setbacks ranging from 19.11 feet to 26.4
feet along Granite Mountain Circle and 54-feet to 42.6 feet along the northern
perimeter of the site. The applicant has indicated the buildings will be set at a
minimum of 88.10 feet from Gillam Park Road and 29.4 feet from the western
property line.
The applicant has indicated a masonry ground mounted sign approximately five
feet in height and twelve feet in length or sixty square feet in area. The typical
signage allowed in a multi-family zone is a maximum of six feet in height and
twenty-four square feet in area. Staff would recommend the sign be limited to
signage allowed in multi-family zones. Staff would also recommend the sign be
placed on Granite Mountain Circle near the driveway entering the development.
The applicant has revised the site plan to include the minimum 25-foot wide
street buffer required along Gillam Park Road. The applicant has also relocated
the patios extended over the nine foot wide minimum land use buffer area along
the northern perimeter of the site. Staff is supportive of the indicated landscaped
areas.
The applicant has indicated a single entrance into the development. The drive is
proposed as a 22-foot drive lane to allow for two way traffic and 18-foot parking
stalls. The indicated drive and parking should be adequate to allow for
maneuverability through the site.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
6
Staff is supportive of the overall concept of the proposed development and feels
the use appropriate for the site. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request and staff feels the development of
the site as a senior citizen housing development should have minimal impact on
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 signage be limited to total height and area allowed in multi-
family zones. Staff also recommend the sign be placed on Granite Mountain
Circle near the driveway entering the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 22, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request on April 6, 2004, requesting the item be
deferred to the June 3, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent
agenda for deferral to the June 3, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion was approved by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a letter dated May 21, 2004 requesting this item be deferred to
the July 15, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 3, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a letter dated May 21, 2004, requesting this item be
deferred to the July 15, 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 and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7604
7
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated June 29, 2004 requesting this item be deferred
to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request dated June 29, 2004, requesting the item
be deferred to the August 26, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive
of this request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
October 7, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they felt the development of the site
with 60 senior citizen housing units should have limited impact on the area. 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 that signage be limited to total height and area allowed in multi-family
zones. Staff recommended the sign be placed on Granite Mountain Circle near the
driveway entering the development.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1422
NAME: The Ridges at Nowlin Creek Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: North of Highway 10, approximately 5 miles West of the Chenal Parkway
Cantrell Road intersection
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Timber
7 Chenal Club Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1170 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 302 FT. NEW STREET: 56,800 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and An area not zoned
PLANNING DISTRICT: 29
CENSUS TRACT: 29
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the creation of private streets to serve the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The preliminary plat consists of 302 lots averaging approximately three acres in
size. The developer is requesting a variance to allow the development of the
subdivision with private streets. The development proposes 57,000 linear feet of
private streets with a gated entrance. The street widths proposed within the
development will be twenty-four feet with curb and gutter to create a quiet, rural
type subdivision.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
2
Sanitary sewer will be provided with a low-pressure system and a privately
maintained sewage treatment plant located on the south side of the property,
outside the Lake Maumelle watershed. The applicant has indicated potable
water will be provided to the subdivision by Central Arkansas Water.
The applicant has indicated the lots abutting Highway 10 will be left undeveloped
for some future use. Large areas within the development have been set-aside
for open space.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is heavily wooded with varying degrees of slopes. Cantrell Road abuts
the site to the west and currently has a scattering of single-family homes in a
rural setting. Lake Maumelle is located to the north of the proposed preliminary
plat area. The northern portion of the proposed plat boundary is located within
the Lake Maumelle Watershed.
Only a portion of this area is located within the City’s Planning Jurisdiction. This
area is currently zoned R-2 Single-family.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not a
neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The plat is outside the corporate limits, but a portion is within the Planning
Boundary, Grading permits and storm water detention are not required.
2. Nowlin Creek Boulevard and a portion of Street E should be constructed as a
collector street with 60-feet of right-of-way and a 31-foot to 36-foot street
width.
3. All street names and naming conventions must be approved by the Public
Works Department. Contact David Hathcock (501-371-4808) for additional
information.
4. Traffic calming devices are required for long collectors to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
3
5. Plans generically indicate a reduced standard for stopping sight distance is
required on all streets. Identify specific locations where variances are
requested. Standard stopping sight distances and grades should be provided
along all designated collector portions.
6. Final construction plans should be submitted for approval prior to
construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water requests that Little Rock
Planning Commission postpone consideration of this development. Central
Arkansas Water places a high priority on prevention of development of property
within the Lake Maumelle water shed. The close proximity of this property to the
water intake structure increases our concern. Negotiations are in progress and
Central Arkansas Water intends to purchase this property or take it by
condemnation, if necessary, in order to protect the quality of drinking water from
Lake Maumelle. In regard to the remainder of the property, water service may not
be available to portions of this property. Water main extensions would be
required and all Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met. This development may have significant
impact on the existing water distribution system. If this area is served, proposed
water facilities would be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection
and all Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: The area is outside the Fire Department’s service area. 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: No comment.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
4
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 1, 2004)
Mr. Tim Daters and Mr. Joe White were present representing the request. Staff
presented an overview of the proposed request indicating only a portion of the
proposed plat area was located within the City’s Planning Jurisdiction. Staff
noted since a portion was located within the Planning Boundary the entire plat
would be reviewed. Staff noted there were three variances related to the
proposed request. Staff stated the applicant was requesting private streets to
serve the development, a variance the Commission could approve, a variance to
allow increased street grades and a 150-foot stop sight distance and the creation
of four pipe stem lots.
Staff stated the applicant was requesting a privately maintained sewage
treatment plant located on the south side of the property outside the Lake
Maumelle watershed. Staff stated per Section 31-400(b) all residential lots or
development tracts not served by a public or community sanitary sewerage
system whose disposal is approved by the state department of pollution control
and ecology, the subdivider shall submit documentation with submission of the
preliminary plat that the state department of health, or its delegated authority,
would approve septic tank installations, or other individual wastewater disposal
methods for service to the subdivision proposed to be platted. Staff requested
the applicant contact the health department and secure an approval letter with
regard to the wastewater collection and treatment system.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated grading permits and storm
water detention ordinances for the city did not apply since the development was
located outside the corporate limits. Staff also stated for long collector streets
traffic calming devices were required to slow traffic. Staff requested the applicant
indicate the streets where the standard stop sight distance could not be
achieved.
Central Arkansas Water addressed the concerns with water. CAW staff stated a
portion of the development was located within the protected area of the Lake
Maumelle Watershed. CAW staff stated the Central Arkansas Water Board
voted to uphold the protection area and wanted to acquire approximately 700
acres of the proposed development area for watershed protection. CAW staff
stated Central Arkansas’s desire was to purchase this area through what ever
means necessary; negotiated acquisition or imminent domain by condemnation.
CAW Staff stated Central Arkansas Water would not furnish water to the areas
located within this protected area.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
5
There was a general discussion concerning the watershed and the protection
areas. Staff stated the watershed contained 138 square miles and about one-
third was located in the National Forest. Staff stated with limited finances a
determination of critical areas had to be made for the areas to purchase first.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on April 7, 2004
addressing most of the issues raised at the April 1, 2004 Subdivision Committee
meeting. The applicant has eliminated the requested variances with the
exception of the development of the subdivision with private streets. The
applicant has indicted the development will be constructed in four phases with
the phase line indicated on the proposed preliminary plat. The proposed phasing
is consistent with phasing allowed per the Subdivision Ordinance.
The proposed request indicates minimal lot size as per the Subdivision
Ordinance. The development indicated an average lot size of three acres, more
than adequate to meet the 7,000 square foot minimal lot size. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five foot front building line for all lots. The required front
building lines adjacent to a collector street is thirty-feet. Staff recommends front
building line platted as required by the Subdivision Ordinance or thirty-feet
adjacent to indicated collector streets.
The development of the subdivision as a gated community with private streets is
a variance the Planning Commission may approve if deemed appropriate. The
private streets must be constructed to Master Street Plan standard with regard to
sidewalk placement, street widths and street design.
The applicant has indicated the street width of Nowlin Creek Boulevard as
31-feet in a 60-foot right-of-way as requested by staff. The applicant has not
however included round-abouts as requested by staff to serve as traffic calming
devises on this proposed long collector street. The applicant has not indicated
the construction of E Street with a 31-foot pavement width in a 60-foot right-of-
way as requested by staff. Staff recommends the design of the streets be
constructed to Master Street Plan standard including the required paving width
and round-abouts at regular intervals and major intersections to serve as traffic
calming devices within the subdivision.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
6
The plat continues to indicate the source of water as Central Arkansas Water.
Central Arkansas Water has stated they will not serve a large potion of the
development located within the Lake Maumelle Watershed. Staff recommends
the applicant provide an agreement from Central Arkansas Water indicating their
intention to serve the proposed lots or indicate an agreement from another water
source as to their ability to serve the proposed development.
The applicant has not provided staff with the approval letter from the Arkansas
Department of Health concerning the proposed wastewater collection and
treatment system. Per Section 31-400(b) all residential lots or development
tracts not served by a public or community sanitary sewerage system whose
disposal is approved by the state department of pollution control and ecology, the
subdivider shall submit documentation with submission of the preliminary plat
that the state department of health, or its delegated authority, would approve
septic tank installations, or other individual wastewater disposal methods for
service to the subdivision proposed to be platted. Consistently in the past the
Commission has not reviewed proposed subdivision development unless
documentation of an approved wastewater collection and treatment system has
been furnished. Staff recommends the applicant provide the required approval
letter from the Arkansas Department of Health prior to the Commission reviewing
the proposed development.
Staff feels there are too many outstanding issues associated with the proposed
request for the Commission to review the development and make a
recommendation.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the proposed request be deferred sixty to ninety days to allow
the developer sufficient time to resolve outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 22, 2004)
Mr. Jack McCray was present representing the request. There was one registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating there were deficiencies related to
the proposed application request. Staff stated the applicant had not provided
documentation from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the wastewater
treatment facility nor had the applicant provided documentation concerning the
proposed source of water.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
7
Mr. McCray stated he would accept the deferral request but he was requesting the
Commission allow him 20 minutes for a presentation from an expert concerning how
development could take place within the watershed and still be environmentally friendly.
Staff stated if the applicant were allowed the presentation time then he would only be
allowed ten minutes at the June 3, 2004 Public Hearing to provide new information.
Mr. McCray stated this was acceptable.
Mr. Robert Prager presented the Commission with an overview of how development
could take place and not affect water quality. He stated his firm had 25 years
experience in environmental design and watershed protection. He stated treatable
run-off, preserve and restore design for construction, limiting surface treatments and
placing monitoring wells to determine areas not complying. He stated it was important
to pick plants to accumulate contaminates the development was trying to collect.
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 3, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not furnished staff with the additional information concerning the
proposed water source or the approval letter from the Arkansas Department of Health
concerning the wastewater collection and treatment facility. Staff recommends this item
be deferred until these issues are resolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 3, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not furnished staff with the additional
information concerning the proposed water source and or the approval letter from the
Arkansas Department of Health concerning the wastewater collection and treatment
facility. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred until these issues were
resolved.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not resolved issues related to the source of water and the means of
wastewater disposal. Staff recommends this item be deferred to these issues can be
resolved.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1422
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved
the issues related to the source of water and the means of wastewater disposal. Staff
recommended the item be deferred until the issues could be resolved.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved the issues related to the
source of water and the means of wastewater disposal. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred until the issues could be resolved.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved all the issues related to
the source of water and the means of wastewater disposal. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice until all the
issues were resolved.
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1430
NAME: Keifer Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 27024 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Steve Kiefer
8410 Ferndale Cut-off
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Dee Wilson Surveying
P.O. Box 604
North Little Rock, AR 72115
AREA: 0.839 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 – Burlingame Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A reduced right-of-way dedication for Kanis Road and Ferndale Cut-off.
2. A five-year deferral of street improvements to Kanis Road and Ferndale Cut-off.
The applicant has not secured health department approval of the proposed septic
system wastewater treatment. Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the July 15,
2004 Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 3, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had not secured Health Department approval of the proposed
septic system wastewater treatment. Staff stated they were requesting the item be
deferred to the July 15, 2004, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1430
2
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not resolved issues related to the means of wastewater disposal.
Staff recommends this item be deferred to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing to allow
additional time to resolve issues related to the proposed septic system and placement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had not resolved issues related to the means of wastewater
disposal. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the August 26,
2004, Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve issues related to the proposed
septic system and placement.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved the issues related to the
means of wastewater disposal. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred
to the October 7, 2004, Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve issues related
to the proposed septic system and placement.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. The
applicant has not been in contact with staff since the previous public hearing to indicate
they wished to pressure the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented a recommendation the item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice. Staff stated the applicant had not been in contact with them since the
previous public hearing to indicate they wish to pursue the request.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1430
3
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-7634
NAME: Donnie’s Foreign Car Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 1311 South Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Donnie’s Foreign Car
7501 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
W. William Graham, Jr. Inc.
100 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 0.43 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Non-conforming skating facility and single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Skating facility and Automobile repair garage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request on May 19, 2004 requesting the item be deferred to
the July 15, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 3, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request dated May 19, 2004, requesting this item
be deferred to the July 15, 2004, Public Hearing. 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 and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7634
2
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff to move forward with the proposed request. Staff
recommends this item be deferred to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing to allow the
applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had not contacted them to move forward with the proposed request.
Staff recommended the item be deferred to the August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to
allow the applicant additional time to resolve indicated outstanding issues.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working with them to resolve
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the October 7, 2004, Public Hearing to allow
the applicant additional time to resolve the outstanding issues.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. The
applicant has not been in contact with staff since the previous public hearing to indicate
they wished to pressure the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented a recommendation the item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice. Staff stated the applicant had not been in contact with them since the
previous public hearing to indicate they wish to pursue the request.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7634
3
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: Cantrell Road and Pleasant Ridge
Request: Suburban Office to Commercial and Public Institutional
Source: Joe White, White Daters
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District from
Suburban Office to Commercial and Public Institutional. 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.
Public Institutional includes public and quasi-public facilities which provide a
variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations,
churches, utility substations, and hospitals.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include all of the area to the south and east to Woodland
Heights Road and Fairview Road. One residential structure on the southwest
corner of Summit and Woodland Heights Road is proposed to be changed to
Commercial while the rest of the expanded area is proposed to be changed to
Public Institutional. The Public Institutional area would recognize an existing
ownership. With these changes, the majority of the Suburban Office would be
eliminated.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Land in the amendment area is zoned as such: land fronting Summit Road is
zoned R-2 while property fronting Woodland Heights Road is zoned O-3, General
Office District. North of the site is zoned PCD, Planned Commercial District, for a
shopping center that is undeveloped; to the east is zoned O-3 and is the site of
medical offices; to the south is zoned R-2 CUP, Single Family Conditional Use
Permit, for a Christ the King Church and school; O-3 for general offices and MF6,
Multi-Family district, for apartments; and to the west is zoned R3, Single Family
District, for a single family development, R-2 CUP for a religious institution and
R-2 for a large lot single family house.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
October 7, 2003, a change from Transition to Mixed Office Commercial at the
southwest corner of Sam Peck Road and Cantrell Road three-quarters of a mile
to the west of the site to accommodate future development.
On February 18, 2003, multiple changes occurred: Single Family to Public
Institutional and Office at Sam Peck on the north side of Cantrell three-quarters
of a mile to the west, Transition to Public Institutional, Office and Single Family
east of Sam Peck on the south side of Cantrell a half of a mile to the west,
Transition to Office on the north side of Cantrell across the street on both sides of
the Southridge intersection (not including the fire station) to acknowledge existing
uses
July 17, 2001, a change from Single Family to Park //Open Space to recognize
Panky Park located one and one-quarter miles t the west.
The Future Land Use Plans shows Suburban office for the site. To the south,
southeast and easterly to I-430, the plan shows office. To the southeast is Christ
the King Church and school shown as Public Institutional. To the west of the
site, is area shown as Multi Family along Pleasant Ridge Road. On the northern
most portion of Pleasant Ridge Road, there is an area of Office on the south side
of the road and on the north is a shopping center shown as Commercial. To the
north of the site is shown as Commercial. Further north across Cantrell Road at
the intersection of Southridge Road, are areas of Office and Public Institutional
for offices.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and
Pleasant Ridge and portions of Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road are
shown as Collectors. Fairview Road, Woodland Heights and Summit Road will
require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements to bring them to
Collector or Commercial Street standards.
PARKS:
There are not any proposed parks in this area. The closest park, River Mountain,
is located in Walton Heights to the north. It is an undeveloped park of 378 acres.
This application is not in a service deficit area as described in the Master Parks
Plan.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
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 River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan. The Traffic and Transportation goal listed an action
statement of “Amend the Master Street Plan to realign Pleasant Ridge Road with
Southridge Drive - High Priority”. In the Sustainable Natural Environment Goal
listed action statements of 1) Preserve the Highway 10 Overlay District, 2)
vigorously enforce the ordinance for hillside protection, and 3) Vigorously enforce
the ordinance for the preservation of trees. These goals and objectives would not
have a significant impact on the proposed land use plan amendment.
ANALYSIS:
West of I-430, Cantrell Road has developed more as an Office corridor with
residential developments of single family subdivisions and scattered multi-family
developments. Cantrell Road has established nodes of Commercial areas. This
subject area is the expansion to the south of the easternmost nodes.
The proposal to change to PI, Public Institutional, is to recognize existing
ownership of property by Christ The King Church and school. The proposal to
change to Commercial could be appropriate since it is a single large-scale
development for the entire area. This commercial center proposed within the
planned unit development process utilizes some of the “village concepts” with
more traditional design concepts, as opposed to strip commercial development.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Walton
Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood Association, Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Association, Pankey Community Improvement Association,
Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Westbury Neighborhood
Association, Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association,
Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, Piedmont Neighborhood
Association, River Valley Property Owners Association, Walnut Valley
Neighborhood Association, Echo Valley Property Owners Association.
Staff has not received any comments from area residents.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the August 26, 2004
Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent
agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Several issues have been raised about the intensity and design of the proposed
commercial center, which initiated this Plan change. These concerns and issues
are important and critical to the successful functioning of the transportation
system in the area and the establishment of this new development in a basically
developed section of Little Rock. The surrounding arterial system is already at,
near or above the desired design traffic volumes; thus any change in use that
increases the traffic even a little is an issue.
The Land Use Plan amendment is for the Summit Road area, expanding
commercial into an area currently developed as residential-single family. This is
a change from Suburban Office, which had been implemented to allow for
possible conversion of this small single-family area to a more intense use due to
the impact of surrounding development. Suburban Office would require careful
design to minimize any impacts of the remaining homes.
A large change, from single-family to commercial, such as is now being
considered must be done at one time in one development. This is to minimize
any negative impacts the change might have to the existing neighborhoods if
done in a piece-meal method. The City is not opposed to the concept of a small
single-family neighborhood changing, but it must be done as a unit if at all.
The new development must be done to be sensitive to the existing
developments, whether homes or businesses. It must fit into the fabric of the
area. This does not mean that the new development cannot become the new
center of activity for the general area, however.
The original concepts brought to the City proposed to use “Village” and “Neo-
traditional” design. This is and was seen as a positive change from the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
5
previously approved strip-commercial center along Cantrell Road from Pleasant
Ridge to Woodland Heights. The City wishes to encourage creative and
innovative design concepts. The inclusion of “Neo-traditional” elements is
believed to be positive to the surrounding area and for the future customers of
the uses.
A “Town Center” or “Village” neo-traditional type of development, which does not
turn its back on the immediate neighbors and attempts to address the scale and
massing of the surrounding developments could be a positive impact on the
general area. Staff would encourage inclusion of well-landscaped areas with
native lower maintenance vegetation as suggested by the Neighborhood Plan for
the area. And consideration of realigning Pleasant Ridge Road to Southridge as
suggested by the area Neighborhood Plan might help with traffic impacts on
Cantrell Road.
For all the described reasons, Staff believes a change to Commercial on the
Land Use Plan (while if done carefully and well, could be a positive to the area) is
not desirable with the various possibilities that brings. However a change to
Mixed Use, which might result in a commercial development or office or even a
truly mixed development, would be preferable. In any case a change in the use
from single-family to non-single-family should only be done using the Planned
Zoning District process to assure compatibility with the surrounding area and that
the various issues related to redevelopment of the site are addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: August 26, 2004
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. In that
presentation, he stated that Staff would be supportive of a change to Mixed Use
and Public Institutional.
Commissioner Pam Adcock asked if a change to Mixed Use was to guarantee a
planned zoning development of some sort. The answer was yes.
Commissioner Bill Rector questioned if Staff still supported the Public Institutional
on the amendment. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff supported it, and that if the
amendment passed; it would be changed on the plan. If the amendment did not
pass, Staff would not take just it to the Board of Directors.
Donna James made a presentation of item I.1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item I. See item I.1 for a complete discussion concerning
the Pleasant Ridge Long Form Planned Commercial Development.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
6
Dick Downing, representing Walter Smiley, stated that they withdrew their
objection to the Future Land Use Plan amendment if it was changed to Mixed
Use on the plan, and would work with the staff on buffering issues.
Ruth Bell, Pulaski County League of Women Voters, stated that the Commercial
on the Plan was an open-ended category. She continued that with infill
development, a category with a PZD required works best. She stated that she
thought Mixed Use on the Plan was a better option.
Craig Williams, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, stated that he was
not in support of the Land Use Plan change and that it was not a good fit. He
referenced the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan of 2002 and stated that
the neighborhood plan did not support this development. Suburban Office, which
is now shown on the plan, requires a PZD, as well as Mixed Use. He stated that
a requirement of a PZD was a necessity.
Julie Hancock, a resident of Cedar Branch Subdivision, has views of homes now,
but will only see the shopping center later on if built. She stated that she and
others bought their homes and made investments based on the zoning and
Future Land Use Plan and the change should not be made.
Sandy Bowman, a Cedar Branch resident, looked at the zoning and Future Land
Use Plan prior to buying her house. She stated that the buffer would not be
sufficient. She asked the commissioners to uphold the Future Land Use Plan.
She stated that the center would have activity for 20 hours a day, seven days a
week.
Commissioner Adcock asked how many neighborhood associations were
present. Five associations were represented at the meeting.
A motion to defer item I to the October 7, 2004 meeting and was approved with a
vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has submitted a new site plan. This new site plan does not have
an affect upon the land use application as filed.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-04
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission reiterating
the position of Staff. Mr. Minyard then asked the applicant to confirm for the
record of the amendment to the application to change the request to Mixed Use
instead of Commercial. Mr. Phil Kaplan, requested the change in the application.
Donna James made a presentation of item E.1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item E. See item E.1 for a complete discussion
concerning the Pleasant Ridge Long Form Planned Commercial Development.
Mr. Kaplan spoke in favor of the application and stated that this application
proves the value of the Planning process.
Craig Williams, representing several neighborhood associations, spoke in
opposition to the plan. He commented on the grading and access to the site and
increased traffic as a result of the site. He showed photos of traffic conditions
around the area, and gave traffic numbers for Cantrell Road.
Concerning the Future Land Use Plan, he stated that it had been reviewed in
2003 for this area. He stated that Mixed Use supported a PCD for commercial
and that the Suburban Office was compatible with the adjacent residential. He
asked what was different today that warranted the change to the plan. He
continued that growth was good, but this was too high of a cost.
Stacy Fletcher represented the Jewish Center and spoke in opposition to the
change.
The commissioners discussed extending the time allowed for the opposition to
speak and extended the time frame to allow those that had cards to speak.
A motion was made to approve the item as amended. The item was approved
with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
NAME: Pleasant Ridge Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: South of Cantrell Road, East of Pleasant Ridge Road
DEVELOPER:
Pleasant Ridge Development Company, Inc
11601 Pleasant Ridge Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 25.71 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD and R-2, Single-family District
ALLOWED USES: Shopping Center and Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow an increased cut along the
western property line (Fair View Road).
2. A deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for Fairview Road.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 1994, through Ordinance No. 16,808, the City Board of Directors
approved a PCD that would allow the development of a mixed use “Neighborhood
Commercial” shopping center and an accompanying office development. The site was
a 12.83 acre-tract and of the area, 11.48 acres was proposed to be developed as the
shopping center. The proposed structure was 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking
spaces were provided. The remaining 1.35-acre tract was to have 10,000 square feet
of office building space with an additional 50 parking spaces. The uses proposed for
the shopping center were all by-right C-2 and C-3 zoning district uses, except that there
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
2
was to be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car
washes within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office building were all
uses by-right in the O-2 and O-3 zoning district.
On January 9, 1997, the Commission reviewed a request for a change in the right-of-
way dedication and street improvement requirement to Fairview Road. The developer
requested all right-of-way dedication and street improvements be taken from the
property located to the east of Fairview Road. The Board of Directors adopted
Ordinance No. 17,331 on December 3, 1996, which allowed the five year deferral of
street improvements (or until development on the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD) to
Fairview Road.
The Little Rock Planning Commission granted a three year time extension for the
proposed submission of the final development plan at their December 22, 1997, Public
Hearing. The applicant began the development of a Final Development Plan for the
site. The applicant submitted the Final Development Plan for the Pleasant Ridge
Square Long-form PCD, which was approved on February 1, 2002.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site now contains 25.7 acres and is located south of Cantrell Road and east
of Pleasant Ridge Road. The proposed site plan includes the development of
270,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The request includes C-3,
General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the proposed
development.
The applicant has indicated parking of 1,258 parking spaces. Access to the site
will be accomplished from six driveway locations. The center will have main
driveways from Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road. Secondary access
points will be from Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road.
A portion of the site is currently zoned PCD. The portion along Summit Road is
zoned R-2, Single-family. The developer is requesting two out-lots fronting on
Cantrell Road for possible restaurant locations.
A deferral is being requested for a portion of the Master Street Plan
improvements to Fairview Road. The request is due to the uncertainty of the
property west of Fairview Road and the potential for redevelopment of a non-
residential use.
Land alteration variances for height of the cut along Fairview Road (60 foot) and
to grade the entire site with Phase I are also being requested.
The applicant is also requesting the closure of Summit Street as a part of the
application and a request to change the City’s Future Land Use Plan (Item No.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
3
12 – File No. LU04-01-04 a change from Suburban Office to Commercial and
Public Institutional).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant adjacent to Cantrell Road and was previously cleared and
graded. Along Summit Street there are single-family homes with tree covered
lots. There is also a single-family home located along Fairview Road to the south
of the site. There is a mixture of uses in the immediate area including single-
family residential, multi-family residential, a private school, a church, office and
retail. The area to the south and east are predominately office uses with a
church and school located to the southwest and west. There is a single-family
home located on a large tract to the west of the site abutting Fairview Road at
Summit Street. There are single-family homes located to the southwest of the
site on R-3, zoned property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents and business owners. The Walton Heights/Candlewood Property
Owners Association, the Peidmont Neighborhood Association, the Pleasant
Forest Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet of the site
and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified
of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
A minimum dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be
required, with additional right –of-way at intersections.
2. Right-of-way dedications and improvements on Commercial Streets
indicated are acceptable.
3. This portion of Cantrell Road is heavily congested and functions at an
extremely low level of service during peak hours. A traffic study of impacts
from this large scale development is required.
4. With future development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-
foot sidewalk with the planned development. Additional lanes and turn
lanes would be required by the Master Street Plan for Cantrell Road.
Additional lanes would also be required at the main entrance at South
Ridge.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29 (c) and (d) will be required
prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
4
drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction. It should be noted that this project proposes a large scale
haul-off of excavated materials.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location of the storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. Signal
improvements may also be required.
8. Hauling of fill materials 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 South Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Summit Road right-of-way must also be dedicated and street improvements
made to the standard for a commercial street.
10. Truck access should not be taken from Fairview Road, since deferral of
improvements to this sub standard street is requested. While it is certainly
acknowledge that the road has major grade problems, deferring
improvements adjacent to such a major development may not be
appropriate.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Cutting
and plugging of existing water mains (8-inch and 3-inch water mains) and any
other facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, would be done at the
expense of the developer. This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water
at 992-2438 for additional information.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
5
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Provide bus stop and layover locations on the proposed site plan, which
will safely and efficiently allow buses to drop-off and layover for a few minutes
until the time of scheduled return trips. In addition CATA would like to enter and
exit the site from Cantrell Road at signalized intersections. Contact CATA at
375-6717 for additional information.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial and Suburban Office for this
property. The applicant has applied for a revision to the PCD for an expansion of
the project.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda (Item No. 12 – File No. LU04-01-04).
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Pleasant Ridge and portions of Fairview Road and Woodland
Heights Road are shown as Collectors. These streets may require dedication of
right-of-way and street improvements.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The traffic and
Transportation goal listed an action statement of “Amend the Master Street Plan
to realign Pleasant Ridge Road with Southridge Drive - High Priority”. This would
affect the zoning application by the dedication of a Collector street in the
northwest corner of the site. In the Sustainable Natural Environment Goal listed
action statements of 1) Preserve the Highway 10 Overlay District, 2) vigorously
enforce the ordinance for hillside protection, and 3) Vigorously enforce the
ordinance for the preservation of trees. These action statements will affect
landscaping and signage along Cantrell Road, any proposed cuts to the hillsides
and preservation of trees.
Landscape: A portion of the proposed on-site landscaping strip width along
Pleasant Ridge Road appears to be less than the 7-feet required by the Highway
10 Overlay Ordinance and the 9-feet required by the Landscape Ordinance.
Interior landscape islands need to be more evenly distributed to help break up
the proposed large areas of asphalt. The Landscape Ordinance requires at least
eight percent of the interior of vehicular use areas be landscaped with interior
islands of at least 300 square feet in area and 7 ½ feet in width.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
6
The proposed landscape strip width west of the valet parking lot appears to be
less than the minimum 6 feet and 9 inches required by the Landscape Ordinance
and the 25-foot average of the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance.
The proposed service area should be screened from the residential properties
across Fairview Road. Because of the elevation difference this screen should
consist of evergreen trees (such as Leyland cypress) spaced 15-feet on center,
planted on the higher elevated side of the street landscape buffer.
A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required where adjacent to
residential properties to the south and west.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (June 24, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates and Mr. Ernie Peters of Peters
and Associates were present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was to place a shopping center on the site currently zoned PCD, R-2 and O-3.
Staff also stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested Mr. White provide information concerning the treatment
of the rear of the proposed building, a cross section of the site showing sight
lines and details concerning proposed signage. Staff also requested information
concerning the proposed screening mechanism for the service bay of Building A.
Staff stated there were concerns since the service bay would be oriented to
Cantrell Road.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit as well
as a hauling permit would be required. Staff stated there were concerns with the
drive at Fairview Road being located at the crest of the hill and the applicant’s
request for a deferral of street improvements to the roadway. Mr. White
suggested the applicant construct street improvements to each end of the road
saving the area with the largest elevation change until the redevelopment of the
property located to the west. Staff stated they would like to discuss this in detail
and suggested Mr. White meet with staff individually concerning the required
street improvements.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
7
Staff stated a large part of the decision of addition lanes and street improvements
would be related to the findings of the traffic study. Mr. Peters stated the traffic
study would be submitted in a few days at which time staff and the owner would
sit down to discuss necessary improvements.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan appeared to
falls short of the required landscaping in a few locations. Staff stated an area
along Pleasant Ridge Road appeared to be less than the seven feet required by
the Highway 10 Overlay and the nine feet required by the Landscape Ordinance.
Staff also stated additional interior islands were necessary to break up the
expansion of asphalt. Staff stated screening would be required along Fairview
Road to block view of the service drive.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant provided staff with only a portion of the requested information from
the June 24, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has acquired
additional land area indicated on the proposed site plan as future acquisition area
but has not included development plans for these areas. In addition staff has
some questions and concerns with the traffic study submitted by the applicant.
Due to the size of the proposed development and the potential impacts of the
proposed development, staff is requesting this item be deferred to the August 26,
2004 Public Hearing to allow additional time for review and analysis.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of the request to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated due to the large number of issues remaining unresolved
with the proposed development they were recommending the item be deferral to the
August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to
resolve these issues.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
8
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff is not prepared to provide a recommendation at this time. Staff has review the site
plan and is providing below the facts related to the proposed site development. Staff is
continuing to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues related to traffic and
sight design and proposed building elevations. A recommendation will be provided to
the Commission at their public hearing.
The development sign located on Highway 10 has been indicated as a maximum of
fifteen feet wide 10 feet in height and one hundred fifty square feet in area. The
applicant has also indicated signage for each of the out-parcels proposed along
Highway 10. Each of these signs are proposed as a maximum of ten feet in width and
eight feet in height with a maximum sign area of eighty square feet. There are shopping
center development signage located on retaining walls on the western and eastern
driveway entrances from Highway 10. The applicant has indicated the proposed
signage will be a part of the hardscape of the development. A monument style sign is
also proposed at the rear entrance to the shopping center along Woodland
Heights/Fairview Road. The site is proposed as a twelve foot wide, eight foot tall sign
with a sign area of one hundred square feet.
The proposed site plan indicates the 40-foot landscape strip along Highway 10
measured from the “original property line”. The site plan indicates a dedication of right-
of-way 55-feet from centerline. The current right-of-way adjacent to the site is 40-feet.
Per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District Ordinance the 40-foot landscape strip is to
be measured from the new property line, after right-of-way dedication.
The proposed site plan does include the placement of several dumpster locations and
two locations for trash compactors. The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be
screened according to ordinance standards or at least two feet above the finished
container height. There are dumpster locations adjacent to Fairview Road. Per the
zoning ordinance dumpsters are to be oriented away from the street side of the property
and adequately screened from residential property.
The indicated site plan appears to delineate areas for interior landscaping but based on
the scale of the drawing it is difficult to determine if the areas are sufficient to meet
ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated all landscaping requirements will
be met. At the time of building permit a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a
registered landscape architect will be required to be submitted and approved.
The proposed site plan includes the proposed screening material for the area to the
south adjacent to residentially zoned property. The applicant has indicated evergreen
plantings at the higher elevations will be added such as Leyland Cypress at 15-foot on
center will be added to aid in the screening of adjoining properties. The site plan
includes the placement of the plantings along Fairview Road and to the south adjacent
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
9
to the Church site and the office complex. The indicated land use buffers appear to
meet the minimum ordinance requirements.
The applicant has indicated pedestrian tables on the proposed site plan to provide
access to the various activities on the site. The site plan includes the placement of
parking along the western portion of the site in a horseshoe pattern but on the eastern
portion of the property the applicant has indicated the more traditional big box asphalt
parking lot. The applicant has indicated based on different style users the proposed
parking layout may vary. The applicant has indicated for example a grocery store
prefers a more traditional type parking with the straight rows of parking in front of the
business.
Cross sections and view corridor sections have been provided to staff to allow the view
corridors from Highway 10, from Fair View Road, from Woodland Heights Road and the
area near Cedar Branch Drive. The cross sections indicate the existing elevation of
Highway 10 is at 480 feet and the out parcel building adjacent to Highway 10 will be set
at 500-feet. The cross section indicates the sight line will extend over the buildings of
the site and the development to the south of the site will not be visible from Highway 10.
The applicant has indicated at Fairview Road the building will be set at 520-feet. The
height of the crest of Fairview Road is 570-feet after the roadway has been
reconstructed to improve the sight distance. The sight line will be over the proposed
buildings. At Fairview Road and Cedar Branch Drive and Woodland Heights Drive the
elevation of the street is set at 540-feet and the proposed building pad will be set at
520-feet.
The proposed site plan indicates a bus stop near the entrance at Woodland Heights
Road. CATA has indicated their desire is to enter the site at a traffic signal and to exit
the site at a traffic signal with an area set aside for layover. The applicant has meet
with CATA and CATA has indicated the provided location is acceptable.
The applicant has provided a detailed description of the materials and elements
intended to incorporate into the design of the Pleasant Ridge Center. The applicant has
indicated the primary material for the front elevation will be various shades of brick with
cast stone bases and horizontal accents. The only other material proposed would be
stucco in some areas. The applicant has stated individual tenants in the shop area will
be responsible for their own designs within the front openings. There will be a tenant
manual, which limits their use of materials and design. The past experience with this is
that it provides a varied and interesting front façade. Additionally, the applicant will be
incorporating design feature such as a tower and simulated two story elements as
appropriate.
The applicant has stated the sidewalks in front of the center will use a variety of
pavements and incorporate both grade and raised landscape areas will be brick and
pre-cast stone caps. The owner also indicated plans for incorporating items of interest
such as sculptures. The rear and side elevations will have a combination of brick
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
10
painted concrete block or half high colored block. The buildings will be broken up so
that no elevation will be long and monotonous.
The applicant has indicated a total of 1200 on-site parking spaces. The total square
footage of the proposed shopping center 300,000 square feet. The typical minimum
parking required for a shopping center of this size would be 1333 parking spaces.
The applicant has requested a deferral of street improvements to Fairview Road. The
applicant has indicated a dedication of 30-feet from centerline will be given to the City
but the developer request a deferral of the ½ street improvement of the commercial
street until development adjacent to the site is completed. The applicant has indicated
a hill must be removed to allow for proper sight distance and is requesting a deferral to
allow all the street construction to take place at one time.
The applicant is requesting a 60-foot cut along Fairview Road. The applicant has
indicated once the street is reconstructed the cut would then be a 50-foot cut. The
ordinance typically allows for a maximum of a 30-foot cut with 15-foot terraces. Any cut
above the 30-foot cut requires prior approval from the Planning Commission.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING:
Traffic Engineering has completed its review of the traffic study prepared by Peters and
Associates. Although the consultants indicated that the Center would have no
significant impacts on traffic flow or negative impacts on the adjacent neighborhood,
staff feels that there will be significant impacts and that sufficient mitigations to address
traffic issues have not been identified or planned by the developer.
Staff has modeled Cantrell Road during the PM rush hour traffic utilizing the Synchro
Model developed by the consultant. When completing the analysis utilizing SimTraffic,
simulation software, staff found that the traffic stacks up in the westbound direction on
Cantrell clear through the Rodney Parham signal and that Drive B and Woodland
Heights Road at Cantrell are in complete gridlock due to unavailable gaps in westbound
traffic for left turning vehicles. Further study of the Cantrell corridor adjacent to the
development indicates that there are solutions that can be implemented to address the
increased congestion caused by the proposed development. The solutions will require
driveway and signal modifications to address these issues.
The increased traffic load in conjunction with reduced green time for the westbound
movement on Cantrell at Southridge causes traffic to stack to the east clear through the
Rodney Parham intersection. When analyzing the existing traffic system with the traffic
from the proposed development not included in the flows, traffic moves unimpeded.
Presently, the PM peak hour traffic on Pleasant Forest is about 300. Additional analysis
done by the consultants indicates an increase of about 70 vehicles or 23% in this traffic
as a result of the proposed development. This is based on the assumption that there
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
11
will be no congestion on Cantrell Rd. and vehicles leaving the shopping center will have
no problems accessing Cantrell. However, as the simulation model shows, there will be
a lot of congestion on Cantrell and as a result of this, there could be an increase in the
amount of traffic using the southern access to the shopping center.
It should also be noted that there is a speeding problem on Pleasant Forest Rd.
Residents have long been complaining about this. Since Pleasant Forest has no traffic
signals and links Hinson and Rodney Parham, any congestion on Cantrell Rd. is likely
to force more traffic onto Pleasant Forest thus worsening the speeding problem. In
order to address this and preserve the character of the neighborhood, traffic calming
devices such as traffic circles, chicanes, partial diverters, etc. are recommended to be
constructed on Pleasant Forest.
As far as the rear entrance, staff believes if the entrance is not built, the traffic will find
their way through the residential area regardless. There are rear entrances on Fairview
and Woodland Heights Road, where vehicles can enter and exit the proposed
development. Traffic will find the route with the shortest drive time, and if that is through
Pleasant Forest, then they will go that way. If the roundabout is constructed, then the
median shown just north of the roundabout must be constructed without median cuts
throughout the section to the end of the median as shown. The cut that is shown is too
close to the roundabout, thus causing an unsafe condition.
Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues associated
with the proposed request. Staff will provide a recommendation at the Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There was a number registered
objectors present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating
there had been a number of changes made to the proposed development in the past
few days. Staff stated Driveway B was now the main entrance to the shopping center.
Staff stated the applicant had indicated they were willing to install a traffic signal at
Driveway B to help resolve traffic conflicts on Cantrell Road. Staff stated the proposed
traffic signal would allow for exits onto Cantrell Road while turning was taking place on
Southridge Road. Staff stated this would facilitate traffic flow in the area. Staff stated
the applicant had also indicating the driveway at Southridge would be a right-in-right-out
only driveway.
The applicant addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. The
applicant stated the Commission had received a copy of a petition that contained 500+
signatures in support of the proposed development. The applicant also stated there had
been neighborhood meetings to inform the residents of the proposed request. The
developer’s architect addressed the Commission stating the proposed development
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
12
would incorporate several features including landscaping and hardscaping materials.
He stated the site would be pedestrian friendly with cross walks at the level of
sidewalks. He stated pedestrian tables would be added to parking fields to allow
pedestrian’s ease of access to the center. He stated visual barriers would be added to
the site to protect nearby residents.
The applicant stated there were a number of concessions made prior to the public
hearing. He stated the applicant was no longer requesting the southern entrance into
the proposed development. He stated the developer was no longer requesting a
deferral of street improvements to Fair View Road. He stated a stop light would be
added to Driveway B to help resolve traffic concerns.
Mr. Mike Colson addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He
stated the development would have a beneficial impact on properties in the area.
Mr. Mike Montgomery addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request.
He stated there were two point of consideration the Commission should take into
account. He stated he was a resident of Pleasant Valley and he was not notified by the
Property Owners Association of a vote on the proposed request even though they had
submitted a letter of opposition of the proposed request. He stated the membership
was not poled to find a general consensus of the proposed development. He stated the
second point was the developer was responsive to residents and business owners
within his existing developments.
Mr. Bill Austin addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He
stated he was a resident of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association. He
stated he was not opposed to the proposed request and felt the proposed development
would only enhance property values in the area.
Mr. John Burnett addressed the Commission indicating he was representing Easter
Seals of Arkansas. He stated Easter Seals of Arkansas was no longer opposed to the
proposed development since the rear entrance had been removed.
Mr. Dick Downing addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Walter Smiley. He
stated his client was not going to speak in opposition at this public hearing but did want
to reserve the right to speak at a future date. He stated his client wanted to review the
site plan once the changes were made (removing the rear entrance) and only at that
time would his client make a determination as to support or opposition.
Ms. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County addressed the
Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she would like to see in
writing all the issues that had been agreed upon. She stated in light of the changes the
Commission might wish to defer the item to allow all the agreements to be put in writing.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
13
Mr. Lloyd Freedman addressed the Commission on behalf of the Jewish Center. He
stated the Jewish Center was concerned with their congregation accessing the site on
the Sabbath. He stated his congregation did not drive on the Sabbath and walking to
the site was the only option. He stated with the proposed development and the
increased traffic on Fairview the congregation could be danger. He requested the item
be deferred to allow the two parties additional time to resolve any outstanding issues.
Mr. Craig Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated the development had changed several times since the original submission.
He stated the development had grown from 270,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet
and the total site area had increased from 25 acres to 27 acres. He stated the
neighborhood was primarily concerned with the increased traffic the shopping center
would generate. He stated Pleasant Forest was designed as a collector street and
currently exceeded the design capacity of 5,000 cars per day. He stated most of the
cars traveled in excess of the posted speed limit. Mr. Williams stated the City had
committed to helping to resolve the problem but presently the problem existed. He
stated eliminating the rear entrance would not reduce the number of cars on Pleasant
Forest. He stated the proposed development was four acres larger than Park Plaza
Mall. He questioned why if there was a market for retail the development the approved
site from 1994 had not been developed. He stated there were a number of residents in
the area that had bought homes and refinanced homes based on City’s ordinances and
plans. He stated there were also concerns related to the proposed elevations and cross
sections provided by the applicant. He stated the neighborhood did not agree with the
proposed change to the land use plan.
Ms. Julie Hancock addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the applicant was requesting to expand the approved planned development
to the south which would directly affect the area. She stated with the removal of the
existing vegetation, trees and the hill at Summit Street the neighborhood would be
exposed to traffic and noise that was now shielded. She stated at the time she
purchased her home she called the City to verify the zoning and land use of the
properties around her home. She was told the Future Land Use Plan indicated
Suburban Office for the area, which she felt was a comfortable transition between the
intense commercial development along Highway 10. She stated office development
would allow for compatibility between the homes and the office users. She stated office
uses would not operate until late hours. She stated the commercial development was
intended to operate from 5:00 am to 2:00 am leaving only a short period of time there
would not be activity on the site.
Ms. Hancock questioned the traffic study and the validity of the traffic study. She stated
it was her understanding the traffic numbers were generated from summer traffic
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
14
counts. She also stated when the traffic counts were conducted the new Wal-Mart store
was not open. Ms. Hancock stated if she would have known that a commercial
development could have been constructed on the proposed site she would have not
purchased her home.
Ms. Sandi Boen addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated she also verified the zoning of the property prior to the purchase of her home.
She stated when she purchased her home there were five to six houses on the street
and now the subdivision contained 25 homes. She stated she felt with the zoning of the
site and the designation of the land use plan as Suburban Office a commercial
development would not be allowed on the site. She stated she felt the most likely
redevelopment would be office or condo development. Ms. Boen stated Fairview Road
was a narrow roadway and did not lend itself to commercial development. She stated
she felt as staff the placement of a big box shopping center on the site was not
neighborhood friendly. She requested the Commission not rezone the site to allow the
shopping center.
Mr. Jim Lake addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he was a member of the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association Board
which did vote to oppose the proposed development. He stated traffic was a concern
with the area residents. He stated with the increased traffic of a shopping center
Rodney Parham Road would need to be widened. He stated the City had upheld the
resident’s wishes to not four lane Rodney Parham Road in the past. He stated with the
development would come increased crime. He stated the increased traffic would also
increase the time for emergency response to area residents. He stated the developer
should not be allowed to remove Summit Street as proposed.
Mr. Lake stated a big center should be not placed on the site. He stated the residential
should be protected by the long established plans of the City.
Mr. Jim Veach addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the density of the proposed development was a concern of the area residents.
He stated the proposed development was located in the wrong place and at the wrong
time. He stated the proposed development would compromise the existing homes and
property values.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request. The Commission
stated there were significant changes being proposed and they felt the item should be
deferred to allow additional time to revise the plans and combine all the information into
one narrative and site plan. A motion was made to defer the item to the October 7,
2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
15
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has submitted a revised plan to including changes presented at the
August 26, 2004, Planning Commission Public Hearing. The site plan includes the
required street improvements, landscaping, signage and proposed grading.
The applicant has indicated development signage located along Cantrell Road, at the
Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road entrances. The applicant has indicated
signage along Cantrell Road will consist of five (5) sign locations. The applicant has
indicated ground mounted monument style signs in three (3) locations; two six feet in
height and seventy-two square feet in area and one ten feet in height and one hundred
square feet in area. The smaller signs will be located on each of the proposed lots
abutting Cantrell Road advertising the businesses located on these lots. The larger sign
will be a development sign advertising shops within the center. There are also two
signs located on each of the primary entrances to the shopping center both twenty feet
in length and six feet in height with lettering not to exceed twenty-four inches. The
applicant has indicated these signs will be placed on walls and be an element of the
landscaping and contained within the hardscaping of the development. The sign
locations on Fairview and Woodland Heights Roads will be a maximum of six feet in
height and sixty-four square feet in area.
The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication of fifty-five feet from centerline along
Cantrell Road. The applicant has also indicated the sidewalk will be placed on the
property line to provide additional distance between the pedestrians and traffic on
Cantrell Road. The developer will not be required to add a third lane as a part of this
development.
The applicant has indicated landscaped areas on the proposed site plan. The
landscaping includes perimeter landscaping and parking lot landscaping. The applicant
has added landscape aisles within the parking lot, seven and one half feet in width,
which will be planted with trees and shrubs. The applicant has also indicated parking lot
islands to break the expanse of asphalt. The site plan will require additional islands to
be added in several locations. The applicant has indicated the Landscape Ordinance
will be adhered to upon development.
Pedestrian tables have been added to the parking field to allow for connectivity through
the site. The tables will allow pedestrians to access various locations through the site
and reduce the conflict between pedestrians and motorists. In addition, large areas of
hardscaping will be added to the fronts of the buildings to develop an avenue/main
street feel within the development.
The applicant has increased the landscape buffer adjacent to Cantrell Road to 32-feet.
The previous plan indicated a landscape buffer 40-feet from the property line prior to
dedication of right-of-way or 25-feet from the new property line.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
16
The site plan includes the placement of a CATA bus stop. The applicant has worked
with CATA to develop a suitable location within the development for the bus stop to
allow drop offs and layovers.
Adding a service drive around the development has redesigned the rear of the site. The
applicant has indicated screening will be added along the southern perimeter of the site
to screen the adjacent properties. The applicant has indicated evergreen plantings will
be added along the southern perimeter and along the southwestern perimeter adjacent
to the office development. The site plan includes the placement of evergreen plantings
along Fairview Road on the property line to screen the development from the roadway.
The proposed landscape area on the southeast perimeter does not meet the minimum
landscaping required for the development size. The site plan includes a minimum width
of ten feet, adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement but when averaged,
the site is approximately five hundred square feet short of ordinance requirements.
On the southwest corner of the development, the applicant has indicated an eighty-foot
by one hundred fifty foot undisturbed buffer and an additional twenty foot by one
hundred foot area which will be replanted with evergreen plantings. The applicant has
indicated this will assist in screening the loading dock area from Fairview Road. In
addition to the vegetation screening, an eight-foot tall brick wall will be added along
Fairview Road. The applicant has indicated the wall will follow the grade along Fairview
Road ending in the hillside and the wall running to the east will be tapered to soften the
ending.
The site plan includes the placement of interior landscaping to screen the service bay of
Building 1. The landscape strip south of Lots 2 and 3 and the service drive will be
enhanced to screen the service bay located on the north side of Building 1. In addition,
the applicant has indicated decorative gates will be added to enhance the appearance
of the service bay.
Building 1 is proposed with storefronts or false store fronts to enhance the character of
the building and to break the massing of the structure as viewed from Cantrell Road.
The applicant has indicated all buildings within the development will be constructed with
a mixture of brick and stone on the fronts and the rear will be constructed of painted
block, one half high concrete block or colored block.
The site plan includes the placement of several dumpster locations and a trash
compactor location. The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be screened with
evergreen plantings, a wall or wood fence per the zoning ordinance requirements. The
trash compactor will be located near the loading dock of the indicated buildings. The
compactor located behind Building 7 (the anchor store) will be located within the truck
dock and loaded from the interior of the building. The dumpsters will be serviced
between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
17
The applicant has indicated the maximum building height of 45-feet and architectural
features such as clock towers. The tower elements are proposed to not exceed twice
the total building height.
The applicant has indicated one-half street improvements will be added to Fairview
Road per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has also indicated the hill on Fairview
cannot be lowered due to the location of an existing fiber optic line owned by
Southwestern Bell. SBC has stated they are not supportive of the lowering of the hill in
this location.
The applicant has revised the site plan to remove the “rear entrance” from Fairview
Road and to add a traffic signal on Cantrell Road. The applicant has indicated a traffic
signal at the “east” entrance to the development as requested by staff. The applicant
has indicated four lanes 270-feet in length to allow for stacking within the development.
The applicant has redesigned the drive at Southridge to be a right-in/right-out only
intersection and the intersection at Pleasant Ridge will continue to be a full intersection
allowing left turns.
The applicant is requesting variances from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading of the site and to allow an increased cut along Fairview Road. The
applicant is requesting to grade the entire site with the first phase of construction. The
applicant is also requesting to grade off-site for the property located on the southeast
corner owned by the Catholic Church. The applicant is requesting a sixty foot cut along
Fairview Road but according to the engineer, the cut will be more in the range of 53 to
55 feet. The applicant has indicated terraces will be added to the cut slope. The
terraces will be placed on fifteen-foot benches with plantings on each of the benches.
The phasing plan includes the development of the site with five phases. Lots 2 and 3
are proposed during the first and second phases with the buildings contained on Lot 1 in
the second through fifth phases. The building construction for Lot 1 is anticipated as
Building 1 during Phase 3, Buildings 4, 5 and 6 during Phase 4 and Buildings 7 – 11
during the fifth phase. The applicant has indicated the final phasing plan will be market
driven. The applicant is anticipating to begin construction in the spring of 2005. The
applicant has indicated the grading of the site will not be completed until a building
permit is secured or a final development plan is submitted.
The site plan includes the development of the site with a “horseshoe”-parking parking
field, making the development appear to be a more unified development. The applicant
has also indicated the development will be constructed in the avenue style design which
is an open air life style center design to allow for pedestrian connectivity through the
center. The applicant has added enhanced interior landscaping to allow the theme to
be carried out. The design allows for vehicles and pedestrians to flow through the site
with limited conflicts. The site plan includes the breaking of a previously proposed
50,000 square foot building into two 20,000 square foot buildings (Buildings 4 and 5) to
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
18
help soften the scale of the development. Building 1 has increased in size and been
slightly rotated.
The applicant has indicated the mechanical equipment will be placed on the ground or
on the roof and screened from view with the planting of evergreen shrubs or, if roof
mounted, with a parapet wall.
Staff’s recommendation is forthcoming.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (October 7, 2004)
During the Planning Commission Public Hearing held August 26, 2004, there were a
number of issues raised by Staff and the Commission concerning the proposed
Pleasant Ridge Development. In the current agenda, staff provided an update of the
issues which had been addressed but did not provide a recommendation for the
proposed development. The applicant has tried to meet the technical issues related to
the proposed site development as requested by staff. The applicant has increased
interior landscaping to give the development a more unified development pattern with a
“village” feel. The applicant has indicated the parking field in the “horseshoe pattern” to
allow continuity and flow within the center. The applicant has also indicated pedestrian
tables to allow for connectivity through the site in the open-air life style center design;
limiting the conflicting movements between pedestrians and motorists. The applicant
has indicated one-half street improvements will be constructed to Fairview Road, per
the Master Street Plan.
Additional comments include:
• Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for a 60-foot cut along Fairview
Road. The applicant has been working with staff and the indicated cut appears
to be more in line with 55-feet. Staff would recommend the cut be limited to the
minimal amount required to construct the development.
• The applicant has also indicated a desire to grade the entire site of the shopping
center during the first phase. Staff would recommend the grading of the site be
directly tied to a building permit and that the grading not be allowed until one of
the buildings located on proposed Lot 1 is to be constructed.
• The applicant is requesting to grade property to the south of the site currently
owned by the Catholic Church. The applicant has reached an agreement with
the church to grade the site as a part of their development but the church does
not have any immediate development plans for the site. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s request to grade this area with the development of the shopping
center. Staff feels the advanced grading of this site will not have any impact on
any other adjoining properties.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
19
• Staff feels access should be provided from Woodland Heights Drive to the south
of the site. Staff feels the development should provide two direct access points.
The primary access point is located along Cantrell Road and, with the placement
of the secondary entrance on Woodland Heights Drive, this will aid in directing
the traffic movement into the center. Staff feels the entrance should be designed
as was previously proposed with a “round-about” at the intersection of the
shopping center driveway and Woodland Heights Road. If the rear entrance is
approved, staff would recommend signage as was previously proposed; a wall
sign with a maximum height of six feet and twenty feet in length.
• The applicant has indicated the landscaping adjacent to Cantrell Road as 32.0
feet in width. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires a
minimum of 40-feet of landscaping to include a berm or plantings to screen the
parking area. The applicant has not indicated their intention for the landscape
treatment. The applicant has indicated additional interior landscaping, with the
addition of landscape islands within the proposed parking lot. Since the applicant
has increased interior landscaping, staff is supportive of the reduced landscape
strip of 32.0 feet adjacent to Cantrell Road. Staff recommends the applicant
provide a berm in this area and include additional plantings at one and one half
times the normal ordinance requirement to off-set the reduced landscape area.
• The applicant has indicated interior landscaping sufficient to meet the percentage
requirement but additional landscape islands are required to break-up the
parking field. Staff recommends the applicant provide interior landscaped islands
sufficient to meet the minimum Landscape Ordinance requirement.
• The applicant has indicated the southern buffer at approximately 500 square feet
less than the typical minimum ordinance requirement. The southwestern buffer
is indicated at ten feet, just over the minimum required width of nine feet. The
southeastern buffer is indicated at twenty feet. The applicant has indicated
screening will be placed along the southern perimeter with the placement of
Leyland Cypress on 15-foot centers. The applicant has also indicated a six foot
tall wood fence will be placed along the southern perimeter of the site adjacent to
the office development. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s indicated buffering.
• The applicant has indicated two shopping center identification signs located on
retaining walls within the development adjacent to Cantrell Road. The applicant
has indicated these signs will be a maximum of twenty feet in length and six feet
in height with lettering not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area. Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s indicated wall signs. The applicant has indicated the
signs will be incorporated into the hardscape of the development. Staff does not
feel the additional signage will have any adverse impact on the area. All other
indicated signage complies with signage typically allowed per the Zoning
Ordinance.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
20
Staff is supportive of the proposed concept of the proposed development. Staff would
recommend however certain conditions be placed on the development. Staff
recommends if the development is approved:
• There is to be no signage on the rear of the proposed buildings.
• The rear of the buildings include architectural features to break the massing of
the buildings from the adjacent roadways.
• The service hours be limited to the hours of dumpster service or from 7:00 am to
6:00 pm.
• The applicant provides gates to eliminate unnecessary traffic/activities near the
southwest portion of the site. The gates should be placed near the southeast
corner of proposed Building 7 and the western edge of proposed Building 11.
• The applicant designs the wall at the southwest corner of the site as an
architectural feature, not ending abruptly, and install columns within the wall to
add visual interest.
• The dumpster enclosures be designed to be an architectural component of the
development and constructed of a building material similar to the building
materials of the shopping center.
• The applicant provide screening of the service bay located on the northern face
of proposed Building 1 adequate to screen the area from Cantrell Road. Staff
recommends the applicant provide additional plantings along the landscape
island on the southern perimeter of proposed Lots 1 and 2 at two times the
normal plantings, with both trees and shrubs.
Staff feels with the indicated conditions of approval, the potential impacts of the
redevelopment of the site as a retail center should be minimized. The applicant has
indicated a design of the commercial center with a “Village” and “Neo-traditional”
concept. Staff feels if the applicant attempts to address the scale and massing of the
development by breaking the rear facades of the buildings with architectural features
and incorporates the indicated well-landscaped areas as shown on the proposed site
plan, these elements should be positive to the surrounding area and for future
customers of the center. Staff feels through the planned development the applicant
has tried to assure compatibility with the surrounding area and to address various
issues related to the redevelopment of the site.
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined above and the conditions stated in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
21
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request along with the
modifications to the site plan since the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated
there were additional conditions being recommended for approval.
Mr. Phillip Kaplin addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
applicant was agreeable to all the staff recommendations and conditions. He stated the
developer had agreed to remove the rear entrance from the proposed development but
if staff felt the rear entrance necessary the applicant was willing to install the rear
entrance. He stated the developer was also agreeable to the requirement of a building
permit prior to any grading activities on the site.
He stated the developer felt the development a quality in-fill development. He stated
the desire was to create a quality destination center similar to Highland Park in Dallas or
Utica Square in Tulsa. He stated the development was in scale and comparable to the
neighborhood. He stated the developer had signed a letter of intent with Sachs to
locate a Preserian’s retail store on the site. He stated the business would employ 120
persons. He stated the developer was speaking with a number of other tenants but they
were not willing to commit until all approvals were obtained.
Mr. Craig Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he was representing several neighborhood associations in the area including
Pleasant Forest, Walton Heights, Westchester, Westbury and Piedmont. Mr. Williams
stated the site originally contained 10 acres but the proposal now included an additional
14 acres. Mr. Williams stated the developer “cut the hill” for the original development
but never constructed the project. He provided the Commission a photographic view of
the cut located on the original approval. Mr. Williams also stated the streets in the area
were narrow roadways which did not lend themselves to a great deal of traffic.
Mr. Williams stated Cantrell Road was a very congested roadway and Woodland
Heights was also well traveled. Mr. Williams provided a photographic view of motorist
trying to exit Woodland Heights onto Cantrell Road showing the intersection blocked by
motorist on Cantrell Road.
Mr. Williams stated Serria Forest was a residential street with no sidewalk in place. Mr.
Williams stated there were several school bus stops on the street serving area children.
He stated Serria Forest was also the entrance to the neighborhood park and swimming
pool.
Mr. Williams stated according to the City Traffic Engineer the development would
generate 13,000 to 14, 000 cars per day. He stated the traffic count on Cantrell Road
were 34,000 cars per day in 2002. He stated traffic studies indicated the current traffic
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
22
counts were 4,100 cars per day on the neighborhood streets. He stated the indicated
traffic counts did not take into consideration future growth on properties currently zoned
for office and commercial development.
Mr. Williams stated Easter Seals employees were currently parking on both sides of
Woodland Heights. He also stated parking for special events and school activities were
taking place on Woodland Heights behind the school.
Mr. Williams stated Fairview Road was a narrow roadway with limited sight distance.
He stated the developer would not improve the sight line as a part of the development
due to objections by SBC. He stated he understood one-half street improvements
would be installed but the either roadway would not be constructed until development to
the west occurred. He questioned the safety of motorist if the view was not improved on
the narrow roadway.
Mr. Williams stated the proposed development containing 27 acres was four acres
larger than Park Plaza Mall. He stated the site contained 300,000 square feet of retail
and restaurant space. He stated the development was in direct conflict with several city
plans. He stated the development did not adhere to the River Mountain Neighborhood
Action Plan, the City’s Future Land Use Plan, the Highway 10 Design Overlay District,
the Land Alteration Ordinance, the PZD Ordinance. He stated the development was
destroying the natural beauty of the area. Mr. Williams stated the development would
entail a huge destruction of nature. He stated the Commission should preserve the
topography of the area and adhere to the Land Use Plan adopted in 2003. He stated
the site was indicated as Suburban Office which would allow for a transition between
the single-family homes and the intense commercial development. Mr. Williams
requested the Commission deny the request and preserve the neighborhood.
Ms. Stacy Fletcher addressed the Commission on behalf of the Rabbi Pinchus Ciment,
Executive Director of the Lubavitch of Arkansas. She stated due to a major Jewish
festival of Shemini Atzeret and the observance of Judaism in the Orthodox manner the
membership was prevented from attending the public hearing. Ms. Fletcher read a
letter from Rabbi Pinchus Ciment. She stated the Rabbi was concerned with the
potential impact of the development on the adjoining properties. She stated the
increased traffic on Fairview Road was a concern since many families walked to the
Synagogue with their children on the Saturday and on holidays throughout the year.
She stated the there were obvious safety concern for cars and pedestrians and certainly
not worth the few extra dollars that might be earned by having such a large facility. She
stated a nice quiet office building would enhance the neighborhood and provide the
necessary street improvements on Fairview Road and not be a hazard and nuisance to
so many neighbors.
Ms. Fletcher stated the plan did not reflect an existing curb cut that was currently being
used by the Lubavitch of Arkansas, at the intersection. She stated by eliminating
Summit Road and with the inevitable closing of Woodland Heights on the southern
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
23
section to accommodate the Church, Fairview Road would become even more
congested.
Mr. Ray Rodgers addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the development was a rape and leveling of a hill. He stated no manmade
structure could match the beauty of nature. He stated soil erosion and increased traffic
would cause a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated Pleasant
Forest currently had a great deal of traffic on the roadway and one child had been killed
by a motorist. He stated If the intent was for the site to be developed as a commercial
development the property would have been zoned commercially. He stated commercial
development typically created crime. He stated the police department was currently
100 officers understaffed and the police department did not need any additional crime
problems. Mr. Rodgers stated the development would contribute to all forms of
pollution, promote traffic congestion and destroy property values.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the development would increase traffic on adjacent residential streets. She
stated 4000 cars per day would cause a great impact on the area residents. Ms. Bell
stated the bottom line was the neighborhood needed assurance from the city for traffic
control and calming to protect the existing residential streets.
Mr. Brode Morgan addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he was a resident of Cedar Branch and had lived in the area for 14 years. He
stated the site had changed from Multi-family to Suburban Office to now Commercial.
He stated he was concerned with the placement of a commercial development with a
large scale mall in his backyard. He stated he was also concerned with the removal of
Summit Road and the hillside.
Mr. John Burnett addressed the Commission in opposition of the request to place the
rear entrance within the development. He stated he represented Easter Seals and the
understanding was that the rear entrance would not be put in place. He stated he was
opposed to staff’s recommendation of placing the rear entrance on the site.
There was a general discussion concerning the current traffic counts on the existing
roadways and the projected traffic counts if the development were approved.
Comments also addressed the south entrance to the development and if the entrance
should be constructed to allow an alternative access point. Staff stated they felt the
secondary access point was necessary to divert traffic from Fairview Road and
Woodland Heights Road. Staff stated the traffic would access the site from the south
and they felt to direct traffic into a central location would have the least impact on the
area.
Truck access to the site was questioned. Staff stated they felt truck access would be
from Cantrell Road at the two traffic lights. There was a general discussion concerning
the drive on Fairview near Pleasant Ridge Road. Staff stated to relocate the drive to
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D
24
Pleasant Ridge Road would not meet the minimum driveway spacing criteria. Mr. White
stated the grade could not be achieved in this location.
There was a general discussion concerning Woodland Heights Road and the capacity.
Staff stated the road was designed to commercial street standards to carry 5000 cars
per day. Staff stated the street was not near capacity.
Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Dottie Funk what mitigation efforts could be put in
place to enhance the development. She stated in her mind there were none. She
stated the development was a nice development if it were located on a flat piece of
property. She stated she felt the site was overbuilt since there were so many variances
being sought.
The chair entertained a motion to delete the southern drive from staff's
recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent.
There was a general discussion concerning if the vote was a procedural vote or a vote
on the application. It was determined the vote was a procedural vote and a majority of
those present was sufficient to act on the item.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request as amended, including the deletion of the southern drive from staff's
recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-1441-A
NAME: Ranch Highlands West Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on Valley Ranch Drive, North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
FCC Grass Farms Partnership
Suite 300, Financial Center III
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 5.68 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District and
R-2, Single-family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 - Pinnacle
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated August 9, 2004 requesting this item be
deferred to the October 7, 2004 Public Hearing. The applicant has indicated the
deferral will allow for sufficient time to resolve the outstanding issues related to the
proposed zoning of the site, which the Commission will review at their September 9,
2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated August 9,
2004 requesting the item be deferred to the October 7, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff
stated the applicant had indicated the deferral would allow for sufficient time to resolve
the outstanding issues related to the proposed zoning of the site, which the Commission
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-A
2
would review at their September 9, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were
supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request to staff dated September 27, 2004 requesting this
item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September
27, 2004 requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were
supportive of the request.
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: S-1445
NAME: Thomas Park Estates Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Thomas Park Road and Sorrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Jerry and Evelyn Thomas
10 Thomas Circle
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72221
AREA: 10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots with private streets.
2. A variance from the Storm Water Detention Ordinance requirement.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property contains approximately 10 acres and is located east of Terra Bella
Addition and north of Thomas Park Addition. The property currently contains two
existing homes which are occupied by the subdividers, Jerry and Evelyn Thomas
on proposed Lot 1 and their son on proposed Lot 2. The Thomas’ have an
agreement with Terra Bella Addition to allow three curb cuts off Tulley Cove.
The developer is requesting the creation of a five lot plat, with three lots
accessing Tulley Cove. The proposed lots will be 140-feet in width and 240-feet
in depth or 0.77 acres, keeping with the estate type lots within Terra Bella.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1445
2
An existing sewer line is located at the southwest corner of the property. This
sewer line will be extended to the north to serve Lots 3 through 5. The existing
homes on Lots 1 and 2 are served by existing septic systems. An existing water
main runs along the east side of Tulley Cove and is adequate to serve the three
new lots.
The property fronts on the Little Maumelle River. Currently flood maps indicated
the 100 year flood elevation at 264.0 feet. The northern portion of the property is
within the floodplain and will be maintained in a Tract and remain as part of the
Thomas ownership. The developer would like to request a variance from the
storm water detention requirement. Flooding is controlled by the backwater from
the Arkansas River. This is similar to the situation that exists at the Ranch
development, located to the west of the site.
The developer is also requesting a variance to allow the development of lots on
private streets.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two single-family homes on the eastern portion of the property
while the western portion of the property is currently pastureland. There are
single-family homes located to the south and west of this site all accessed by
private streets. The area to the north is currently vacant and zoned R-2, Single-
family. A portion of the area to the north is located within the floodplain and/or
floodway.
Tully Cove is a concrete street with curb and gutter. There is not a sidewalk on
Tully Cove. The drive serving the eastern lots is a narrow drive extending from
Thomas Park Circle.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association and all abutting property
owners were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed subdivision takes access from existing private streets and
driveways. No boundary street construction is required.
2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1445
3
3. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Water facilities to serve these
lots are existing. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter
connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 5, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating the request was the creation of a five
lot plat to be developed with private streets. Staff requested Mr. White provide
additional information on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested a cross
access easement be provided between Lots 1 and 2 and a front yard building
setback line be indicated on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff also requested
a phasing plan if applicable.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1445
4
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted no boundary street
improvements would be required. Staff stated the storm water detention
ordinance applied to the proposed subdivision but an in-lieu contribution would
be acceptable.
There was a general discussion concerning ownership of the proposed Tract.
Mr. White stated the Thomas’ would continue to own the Tract. Mr. White stated
the Tract was being indicated since a large portion was located in the floodway.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the August 5, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated a cross access easement for Lots 1 and 2 as requested by staff. The
applicant has also indicated a 25-foot front building line for all the indicated lots.
The proposed lots will be developed in one phase.
The applicant has indicated a request for a waiver of the required storm water
detention facilities on the site. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels
an in-lieu contribution for the proposed storm water detention facility is more
appropriate.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates five lots to be developed with private
streets. Tulley Court is an existing private street with curb and gutter in place.
The indicated lots average in size from 0.77 acres to 2.0 plus acres. Lots 1 and
2 are served by existing septic systems while Lots 3 – 5 will be developed with
an extension of an existing sanitary sewer line. Staff feels the proposed lots are
comparable to existing lots in the area and if developed as proposed should have
minimal impact on adjoining properties. To Staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with private streets.
Staff recommends the applicant provide an in-lieu contribution for the proposed
storm water detention facilities.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1445
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested this item be deferred to the
October 7, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval. Staff stated the development met the minimum
Subdivision Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum square footage, lot widths
and lot depths. Staff stated the development was being developed on a private street,
which was constructed, to pubic street standard. Staff also stated the developer was
requesting an in-lieu contribution for storm water detention. Staff stated they were
supportive of this request. Staff noted this was an issue staff could sign-off on at an
administrative level but since the item was before the Commission it was best to make it
a part of the public record to confirm the avenue for the storm water detention.
Mr. Phillip Cox addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
Mr. Cox stated he lived on Lot 5 of the Terra Bella Subdivision. He stated the residents
of Terra Bella Subdivision had met with the property owners and requested the
development of the site with two lots. Mr. Cox stated when Terra Bella was developed
the parcel did not have access to Highway 10. He stated there was an agreement
between the property owners and the developer of Terra Bella to allow access to
Highway 10 and in turn two driveway cuts along the roadway to provide access to the
property owner’s pasture. He stated the neighborhood was supportive of the placement
of two homes on the site.
Mr. Kevin Barre addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the Terra Bella Subdivision contained 10 acres and 5 lots. He stated Tulley Cove
was a private street and questioned if the new homes would share in the cost of
maintenance. He stated the development was not in keeping with the existing
subdivision. He stated his understanding was also the two cuts were to allow access to
the pasture not access for future residential uses.
Mr. Ken Harrison addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the homes in the area contained 2 plus acres. He stated the lots in the Terra
Bella Subdivision did have narrow fronts but contained an increased depth.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1445
6
Mr. Harrison stated his desire was for two lots which was in keeping with the existing
cul-de-sac.
There was a general discussion concerning the development and the potential for
development for a ten acre site. Commissioner Floyd stated the developer could place
50 to 60 homes on the site if developed with the maximum lots per acre allowed.
Mr. White stated a gravity sewer line would be extended to serve Lots 4 and 5 of the
proposed subdivision. He stated the Property owners were agreeable to placing a
share drive between Lots 4 and 5 keeping with the two curb-cut agreement. He stated
under the Bill of Assurance the new homes would be required to join the Property
Owners Association and pay dues to share in the cost of street maintenance and any
other associated cost.
The Commission questioned if the development met the minimum requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated the development did meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance. The Commission questioned if there was any lead way
for denial. Staff stated there was not.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-7697
NAME: Ransom Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 14105 Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Mike Ransom
7 Valley Forge Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.37 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Town house development with eight units
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with the requested information following the August
5, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the
October 7, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to provide staff with the
requested information following the August 5, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting.
Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the October 7, 2004, Public
Hearing.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7697
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request to staff dated September 27, 2004 requesting this
item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September 27, 2004 requesting the
item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the request.
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: LU04-01-05
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: South side of Cantrell Road west of Taylor Loop Road
Request: Transition to Commercial
Source: Charles Basham
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 desires to develop
the property with commercial uses at the front of the property fronting Cantrell
Road and office uses on the rear half of the property.
Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was
reviewed within 12 months.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant currently zoned R-2, Single Family, and is 6.7 acres ± in
size. Bordering this property on the north and running northwest is Highway
10/Cantrell Road. The land directly north of Cantrell Road is zoned R2 with two
homes and several outbuildings. Northwest of the property are several homes
on large lots zoned POD, Planned Office Development and PDO, Planned
Development Office, which have uses of residential, offices and a bank. Further
to the northeast is a Walgreen’s store zoned PDC and a development zoned C3,
General Commercial District, anchored by a hardware store and other small
businesses. Directly to the east of the site is a PCD with a large antique and
home furnishings store. Further east are POD, Planned Office Development,
PDO, Planned Development Office, and even farther east are areas zoned as R2
and PCD. These uses include banks, a church, offices, a hair salon, an animal
clinic and single-family homes. South and east of the property is a R2 zone
developed with single-family homes. A little further south and east is vacant land
zoned PR for parks and recreational use.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-05
2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 6, 2004, a change was made from Transition to Commercial about a
quarter mile northeast of the applicants property to accommodate proposed
development.
On August 19, 2003 a change was made from Transition to Commercial to about
a half mile to the northwest of the property to accommodate a proposed
development.
On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made within a 1 mile radius of the
project site recognize existing conditions. These include Transition to Suburban
Office north of the site, Transition to Single Family about quarter mile west of the
site, Transition to Commercial about a half mile east of the site and on the
opposite side of Cantrell Road, and Transition to Single family about one mile
due east of the site.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. Cantrell Road is built
as a five-lane road through that area. East of the property is Taylor Loop Road
and further east is Pinnacle Valley, both Minor Arterials, which are built below
standard. The primary function of the Principal Arterial, Cantrell Road, is to serve
through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within
urbanized areas. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and though an urban
area and their primary function are to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area not to provide access.
PARKS:
There are no parks immediately adjacent or accessible to this property. To the
south and east of the property is Taylor Loop Community Park. Taylor Loop is
an undeveloped park consisting of 35.0 acres and is separated from the property
by a street lined with single-family homes. Running through the park is a creek.
This area is not in a “Service Deficit Area”.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-05
3
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The area under review is located near the western edge of the River Mountain
Neighborhood plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed one
objective relative to this case: “to promote vigorous enforcement of Landscaping
and Excavation Ordinance.” The Infrastructure goal also listed an objective
relevant to this case: “ensuring that roads are supportive of all transportation
modes.”
To address the Sustainable Natural Environmental Goal for the neighborhood
trees need to be preserved at the edge of properties in order to buffer different
uses and runoff needs to be controlled. The property is located on a Principal
Arterial and access points must be minimized to ensure that the guidelines for
the Infrastructure goal are met.
ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition. New development has
occurred immediately northeast of Highway 10/Cantrell Road and Taylor Loop
Road intersection in a C3 zoned area, as well as new development just east of
Pinnacle Valley. The Future Land Use Plan shows a concentration of
commercial uses located at the intersection of Taylor Loop and Cantrell Roads.
Presently Highway 10/Cantrell Road has a node system in place. The existing
Commercial node at Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10/Cantrell Road has 19.5
acres zoned for Commercial while the Land Use Plan recognizes 17.6 ± acres
available for Commercial uses. Amending this site would increase commercial
zoning about 36% in the area and increase Commercial uses on the Land Use
Plan by about 34%. Nodes on Highway 10/Cantrell Road are focused at major
intersections. This Commercial node is focused at the Taylor Loop Road
intersection and this change would result in an expansion of the existing node.
The Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition. Single Family lies directly
south of the site and Commercial directly east. Most Transition areas along
Highway 10/Cantrell Road were created to recognize that the area was not going
to stay residential, and would allow some densification of use while being
compatible with existing homes in the area. This particular area of Transitional
use area could now be recognized as a buffer between the two uses of different
intensities immediately adjacent to this property, Commercial and Single Family.
Located in the Commercial area is an antique and home furnishings store that
backs directly to homes in a Single Family area. The back of the store is visible
on Westchester Drive from Taylor Loop Road to Westchester Cove
(approximately five single family homes) even with the existing ten-foot natural
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-05
4
buffer. In ideal circumstances Commercial uses will not back directly on a
Single Family area with a small natural buffer, instead the buffer will be a use of
less intensity. In this case some of the buffer has been lost and minimized as a
result of the existing PCD, so it is important that the remainder is preserved.
Amending the land use plan would further decrease the buffer between the
area’s Commercial and Single Family areas even more and would put two uses
adjacent to each other with a minimal natural buffer in place.
However, in the general area there is vacant land shown as Commercial on the
Land Use Plan and zoned for Commercial development. It is questionable that
Commercial development of this property is justifiable because property is readily
available for this type of development in nearby existing commercial areas.
Furthermore, commercial development of this property along Highway
10/Cantrell Road could create pressure to develop land west and north of this
property with commercial uses, expanding the commercial node and decreasing
buffers with Single Family areas.
A study involving the Highway 10/Cantrell Road corridor will be started soon
analyzing the area’s Land Use Plan and determine what types of land uses will
be appropriate for this section of Little Rock. This study will take inventory of
existing uses, growth patterns, and identify the need and appropriateness of
specific land uses along the Highway 10 corridor. This study will provide
guidance on future land use decisions in the area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following: Walton Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood
Association, Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey Community
Improvement Association, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association Pleasant
Forest Neighborhood Association, Westbury Neighborhood Association,
Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, Secluded Hills Property
Owners Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association, and River Valley
Property Owners Association. Staff has received one comment from an area
resident of neutral nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that this item be deferred to the October 7, 2004 agenda due to
lack of information being provided by applicant.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-05
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: August 26, 2004
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2004
Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent
agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has met with the Westchester Neighborhood Association, which
has resulted in a site plan change. This does not change the application as filed.
At the present time the Planning Staff is reviewing the Land Use Plan along
Highway 10, which includes this site upon request of the Board of Directors. The
Highway 10 Land Use Review’s intent is to address specific demand for uses in
specific locations and identify appropriate locations for different uses between
Pankey and the Joe T. Robinson School’s. The review has just begun and the
Planning Staff is still receiving information on the current Highway 10 Land Use
Plan. Any change at this time would be premature and possibly detrimental to
the study effort.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 2,
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. The
motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: I.1 FILE NO.: Z-7700
NAME: Basham Cantrell Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located South of Cantrell Road, West of Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Basham Inc.
1123 South University Avenue, Suite 245
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
DCI Consultants, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 6.49 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office and commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
Staff has been unable to contact the applicant concerning outstanding issues from the
August 5, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the October 7, 2004 Public Hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the development of this site as an office and retail
development through a planned commercial development and the creation of a
three lot plat. The site plan includes the placement of four office buildings
totaling 40,000 square feet on the rear lot (Lot 3) and the placement of a 10,200
square foot retail building on proposed Lot 2. Lot 1 is proposed to be held for
future development.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
2
The proposed uses requested in the application are as follows: Lots 1 & 2 are
proposed to have the following commercial uses: Antique shop, with repair, Auto
parts and accessories, Bakery or confectionery shop, Bank or savings and loan
office, Barber and beauty shop, Beverage shop, Book and stationery store,
Butcher shop, Camera shop, Cigar, tobacco and candy store, Clinic (medical,
dental or optical), Clothing store, Community welfare or health center, Custom
sewing and millinery, Day nursery or day care center, Drugstore or pharmacy,
Duplication shop, Eating place without drive-in service, Establishment of a
religious, charitable or philanthropic organization, Feed store, Florist shop, Food
store, Furniture store, Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork, Hardware
or sporting goods store, Health studio or spa, Hobby shop, Jewelry store, Job
printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting, Key shop, Laboratory, Dry
Cleaners or pickup station, Lawn and garden center, enclosed, Library, art
gallery, museum or similar public use, Lodge or fraternal organization, Medical
appliance fittings and sales, Office (general and professional), Office equipment
sales and service, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper store, Pet shop,
Photography studio, Retail uses not listed (enclosed), School (business), School
(commercial, trade, or craft), Shoe repair, Studio (art, music, speech, drama,
dance or other artistic endeavors), Studio broadcasting and recording, Tailor,
Tool and equipment rental (inside display only), Travel bureau.
Lot 3 is to be limited to the following general office uses: Bank or savings and
loans office, Clinic (medical, dental or optical), Duplication shop, Establishment of
religious, charitable or philanthropic organization, Laboratory, Lodge or fraternal
organization, Mortuary or funeral home, Office (general or professional),
Photography studio, School (business), School (public or denominational), Studio
(broadcasting and recording), Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other
artistic endeavors), Travel bureau. The applicant is also requesting accessory
uses allowed under 0-3 zoning up to ten percent of the total floor area for Lot 3.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is tree covered site. To the east of the site is a commercial business,
David Claiborne’s Antiques, and to the west of the site is a single-family home.
To the south of the site are single-family homes in the Westchester Subdivision.
North of the site is a mixture of residential and non-residential uses. A Wal-
Green’s Pharmacy is located to the northeast and a bank to the northwest.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Westchester/Heatherbrae
Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the
site and all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified,
were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
3
phone calls in opposition to the request from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required. No survey
or proposed dedication is provided to document compliance.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. All
driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
3. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property and any proposed piping.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Shown the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-
way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) and
AHTD, District 6.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
8. Show cross-access easement for properties to the east and west.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
4
the private fire system. A water main extension will be required in order to
provide service to this property. On site fire protection will be required. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial Development for three lots with two lots of commercial
uses fronting on Cantrell Road and one lot in the rear with four office buildings.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda (LU04-01-05).
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements.
The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to
connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan
Landscape: Areas set-aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern and
western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
5
feasible on this property. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or
larger.
A tree count of trees 6-inch caliper or larger should be provided within the
proposed 40-foot wide southern perimeter land use buffer. This buffer should be
labeled as an undisturbed area. Temporary fencing must be in place to protect
trees prior to site work taking place.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16 2004)
Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Charles Basham were present representing the
request. Staff stated the item was a deferred item from the August 26, 2004,
public hearing and the applicant had requested to discuss the item before the
Subdivision Committee prior to the public hearing. Staff noted all comments
were previously given to the applicant and the applicant had addressed most of
the issues.
Staff stated the site had a history of drainage complaints. Staff questioned the
proposed detention. Mr. Brown stated detention would be handled from a
detention basin located near Cantrell Road. Mr. Brown stated there was not a
defined channel, just surface flow through the site. He stated a small portion of
the site would drain to the southwest along an existing drainage basin.
Mr. Brown stated landscaping comments had been addressed. He stated the
development would include the placement of the required buffer and screening.
He stated in addition a row of evergreen plantings would be added to the rear of
the buildings to further screen the development from the adjoining single-family
homes.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan indicating four single story office
buildings on proposed Lot 3. The applicant has also indicated a 10,200 square
foot retail building on Lot 2 and has indicated Lot 1 will be held for future
commercial development. The applicant is requesting the approval of a three lot
plat in conjunction with the PCD zoning request. The applicant has indicated Lot
1 will contain 1.26 acres, Lot 2 will contain 1.66 acres and Lot 3 will contain 3.57
acres. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires a two acre
minimum lot size for development. Through the Planned Development process,
sites containing less than two acres may be developed.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
6
The applicant has indicated signage on the proposed site plan consistent with
signage allowed in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District for Lots 1 and 2. The
applicant has indicated a single sign located on each of the proposed lots
abutting Cantrell Road a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square
feet in area. The applicant has indicated each of the buildings on Lot 3 will have
a single ground mounted sign a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four
square feet in area. The ordinance typically allows a single sign for each
individual lot.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development of the site as an office
and retail development. The proposed uses requested in the application are as
follows: Lots 1 & 2 are proposed to have the following commercial uses: Antique
shop, with repair, Auto parts and accessories, Bakery or confectionery shop,
Bank or savings and loan office, Barber and beauty shop, Beverage shop, Book
and stationery store, Butcher shop, Camera shop, Cigar, tobacco and candy
store, Clinic (medical, dental or optical), Clothing store, Community welfare or
health center, Custom sewing and millinery, Day nursery or day care center,
Drugstore or pharmacy, Duplication shop, Eating place without drive-in service,
Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization, Feed store,
Florist shop, Food store, Furniture store, Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar
artwork, Hardware or sporting goods store, Health studio or spa, Hobby shop,
Jewelry store, Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting, Key shop,
Laboratory, Dry Cleaners or pickup station, Lawn and garden center, enclosed,
Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use, Lodge or fraternal organization,
Medical appliance fittings and sales, Office (general and professional), Office
equipment sales and service, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper store, Pet shop,
Photography studio, Retail uses not listed (enclosed), School (business), School
(commercial, trade, or craft), Shoe repair, Studio (art, music, speech, drama,
dance or other artistic endeavors), Studio broadcasting and recording, Tailor,
Tool and equipment rental (inside display only), Travel bureau.
Lot 3 is to be limited to the following general office uses: Bank or savings and
loans office, Clinic (medical, dental or optical), Duplication shop, Establishment of
religious, charitable or philanthropic organization, Laboratory, Lodge or fraternal
organization, Mortuary or funeral home, Office (general or professional),
Photography studio, School (business), School (public or denominational), Studio
(broadcasting and recording), Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other
artistic endeavors), Travel bureau. The applicant is also requesting accessory
uses allowed under 0-3 zoning up to ten percent of the total floor area for Lot 3.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation for the office
development will be from 7:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday only.
Lot 1 is proposed to have limited hours of operation and may be open between
the hours of 5:00 am and 2:00 am seven days per week. Lot 2 is proposed to
have limited hours of operation between 6:00 am and 11:00 pm seven days per
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
7
week.
The applicant has provided the following phasing plan for proposed Lot 3. The
southern two buildings will be completed within 1.5 to 2 years following approval.
The other two buildings would be completed within 3 to 4 years following
approval. The applicant has indicated if a development is secured for Lot 1 the
PCD will be revised to indicate the building footprint, parking and landscaped
areas.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The site is located in an area,
shown as Transition on the City’s Future Land Use Plan, which does not allow for
commercial development. Staff feels the development is too far west of an
existing commercial node and does not feel the expansion of this node is
appropriate at this time. Staff feels the site should be developed with uses
allowed in the Transition category of the Future Land Use Plan to allow a step
down from the commercial node located at the intersection of Taylor Loop Road
and Cantrell Road. Staff feels the placement of the four office buildings on the
rear of the site is appropriate but also feels the front two lots should also be
developed with office uses. Staff would also question some of the requested
uses for the proposed office site. Staff does not feel a mortuary or funeral home,
studio (broadcasting and recording) or lodge or fraternal organization are
appropriate uses for the site.
In addition, the applicant has indicated the development of the site with a three
lot plat, two of which are less than the minimum square footage required by the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff feels the development of these two
lots with less than the minimum acreage required will erode the corridor. Staff
feels the site should be developed as an office development limiting the
commercial uses to those allowed in office zones or ten percent of the gross floor
area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working with them to resolve
outstanding technical issues associated with the proposed site plan. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the October 7, 2004, Public Hearing to allow
the applicant additional time to resolve the outstanding issues.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7700
8
item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the applicant. There were registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 4,
2004, requesting this item be deferred to the December 2, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff
stated the request would require a waiver of the By-Laws for the late deferral request.
Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: LU04-11-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-430 Planning District
Location: Between Interstate 430 and Shackleford Rd, north of Old
Shackleford Rd
Request: MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to CS (Community Shopping)
Source: Joe White, White-Daters Engineers
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District from MOC (Mixed Office
Commercial) to CS (Community Shopping). CS (Community Shopping) provides
for shopping center type development with one or more general merchandise
stores. The applicant has indicated they intend to develop the property
commercially using the site plan review process.
Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was
reviewed within the last two years.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant and currently zoned PCD-expired (Planned Commercial
District). The area requested is 63 acres ± in size. To the north the zoning is O3
(General Office) with office buildings, a hospital and two hotels. South of the
subject property is zoned PCD-expired (Planned Commercial District) and R2
(Single Family) and generally vacant. The PCD-expired is the remaining portion
of the PCD-expired involved in this change. The zoning has been requested to
change to office, O2 (Professional Office). To the east is Camp Aldersgate,
which is zoning OS (Open Space). West of the site, across Interstate 430 the
land is developed as single-family homes and zoned R2 (Single Family).
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
September 19, 2000, A change was made from LDR (Low Density Residential)
and MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to MX (Mixed Use) approximately a mile to
the southwest on the west side of Interstate 430 at Bowman Road and 36th
Streets. The proposal was to develop a church based campus with various non-
traditional outreach programs on the majority of the site.
July 17, 2001, A change was made from C (Commercial) to PR (Park)
approximately a mile to the northwest, on the west side of Interstate 430 in the
Birchwood Subdivision. This was part of a citywide classification of existing City
parkland to a new Park zone.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03
2
September 4, 2001, A change was made from PK/OS (Park/Open Space) to LDR
(Low Density Residential) approximately half a mile to the east. The proposal
was to expand a retirement community (Good Shepard) with the addition of
duplex or attached housing.
March 18, 2003, A change from SF (Single Family) to SO (Suburban Office)
approximately a quarter mile to the northwest, along Aldersgate Road. The
proposal was to develop the land to an office use.
November 4, 2002, A change from SF (Single Family) to LDR (Low Density
Residential) approximately a mile to the southeast. This change was part of a
package of changes resulting from an overall Land Use Plan review for this area.
The change was intended to more accurately reflect the current land use and
zoning of the area.
February 4, 2003, A change from MF (Multifamily) to MOC (Mixed Office
Commercial) approximately a mile to the southwest, south of 36th Street along
the west side of Interstate 430. The change was for an expansion of the
proposed use area to the south for a large primarily commercial development.
November 18, 2003, A change from MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to STD
(Service Trades District) approximately a quarter mile to the south at the
northwest corner of Shackleford and 36th Street. The proposal was made as a
result of a Planned Zoning District request for a service trades type of use in that
general location.
The application area is shown as MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) on the City
Land Use Plan. To the east is shown as Park/Open Space, with Multifamily and
Single Family beyond that. To the north, generally across Interstate 430 is
shown as Office and Suburban Office. Across Interstate 430 to the west is
shown for Single Family. To the Southwest across Interstate 430 is shown for
Mixed Use while south of the site is shown as Mixed Office Commercial) and
Office to the southeast.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Shackleford Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan. The Standard is for a
four or five lane road in a right-of-way of 90 feet. It is not built to standard.
Shackleford Road is currently a two-lane road. Significant widening will have to
be done along this frontage. There are no bikeways shown that would be
affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows this area to be
within 8 blocks of a public or private recreation or outdoor space.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03
3
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This application area is within the John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan area. That
Plan recommends medical and other business uses in this general area. The
Plan envisions employment and service opportunities to area residents from any
businesses, which might occur in the north portion of their Plan area.
ANALYSIS:
This site became Mixed Office and Commercial on the City Land Use Plan in
1987. Prior to that it had been Major Office. The change was made as part of a
larger review along Interstate 430, which had been started due to a rezoning
request for a Mixed Use development for the site – a mall, hotel and office
complex. The Plan was changed to Commercial/Office, which later became the
Mixed Office Commercial classification on December 1, 1987. The Staff write-up
indicates a “PCD recommended to assure high quality development and to
minimize traffic flow problems on Shackelford and 36th Street.” Due to concerns
about previous developments that had not materialized and the effects on Camp
Aldersgate special requirements were made of the development through the
Planned Development process.
In the successive sixteen years no development has materialized and the City
reviewed one alternative development proposal. After public hearings and Board
of Director approval, the City was taken to court where much of the case was
ruled in the City’s favor. However the applicant requested that the application be
withdrawn and the Board of Directors granted this request.
The site in question is heavily wooded and contains significant topographic
change. The elevation change is from near 360 feet to over 510 feet a difference
of 150 feet. There is a significant hilltop in the northeast section of the Plan
amendment area, with a lower hilltop just off the amendment area at the
southeast corner.
Most of Little Rock’s development, both residential and nonresidential, has been
to the northwest of this site. That is the site is on the southeastern edge of the
major growth area of the City. Based on development, both subdivision and
building activity, development is to the northwest of the site and has been for
several decades. Most of the new office and commercial development in Little
Rock has occurred along Markham, Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Roads west of
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03
4
Interstate 430. To a lesser extend this development as occurred along Markham
east of Interstate 430, Shackleford Road north of Interstate 430, and Kanis and
Bowman Roads.
Interstate 430 has for years been eyed as a potential Office and or Commercial
corridor. In the 1970s and 1980s the City worked, through its Plans, for this to be
an Office corridor with major commercial at Rodney Parham and Interstate 30
and a lesser commercial area at Colonel Glenn Road. During the 1980s and
1990s increased amounts of commercial development were shown at the two
remaining un-developed or under-developed interchanges – Shackleford and
Colonel Glenn Road. This was marked by the afore mentioned amendment in
1987.
Over the last five to ten years the City has added significant amounts of
commercial at the Colonel Glenn Interchange with Interstate 430. This addition
has been in all four quadrants of the interchange. A small commercial center and
multiplex theater as well as several freestanding commercial businesses have
been developed. The City has approved a large commercial development in the
last few months – a ‘Power’ Center.
The concerns raised in 1987 about the development of this land still remain –
effects on Camp Aldersgate, development of Shackleford Road to arterial
standard and the ability of the Shackleford interchange to hand traffic volumes,
which might be generated.
Through the City’s actions over the last several years, the decision has been
made to locate the Community Shopping area at the Interstate 430 – Colonel
Glenn interchange. Large amounts of commercial zoning are in place and not
development along Colonel Glenn Road. To the north while developed, the use
pattern is more office and support commercial to the office developments. The
need or desirability of another large commercial area at the Shackleford
interchange is questionable.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: John Barrow and
Sandpiper. As of this writing, no comments have been received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A development that includes or is
predominantly commercial needs to be reviewed using the Planned Zoning
District process to assure all issues and concerns are addressed.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 9,
2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to waive 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 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
On July 28, 2004, the applicant requested a deferral to meet with staff to discuss
the application. A meeting was held with the applicant, but no changes to the
Land Use Plan Amendment were discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2004
Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent
agenda and was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff has received one neutral comment about this application. No meetings
have been held with the applicant in regard to the Land Use Plan amendment nor
have any changes been made to the application since the last planning
commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004
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.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: J.1 FILE NO.: Z-4923-B
Owner: Summit Mall Co., LLC
Applicant: Shackleford Crossings, LLC
Location: Southwest corner of S. Shackleford Road
and Interstate 430
Area: 97.446 Acres
Request: Rezone from PCD to O-2 and C-2
Purpose: Future Office and Commercial Development
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Mixed Residential Office and Commercial uses (across I-430);
zoned R-2, O-2, O-3 and C-2
South – Mixed Residential, Office and Commercial uses (along Old
Shackleford and S. Shackleford Roads); zoned R-2, O-3, C-2,
C-3 and PCD
East – Camp Aldersgate (across S. Shackleford Road); zoned OS
West – Single Family Residences (across I-430); zoned R-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Shackleford Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be
required.
2. With future development, provide design of streets conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these
streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
Intersection improvements and freeway ramp improvements may also
be required.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route 3 (Baptist Medical
Center part-time route) runs along Aldersgate Road to the east.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B
2
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and
Sandpiper Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan
shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has
applied for O-2 and C-2 zoning for future office and commercial
development.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Community Shopping for the
area to be zoned C-2 is a separate item on this agenda.
The request for the O-2 area does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
Master Street Plan:
Shackleford is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan.
Currently, Shackleford Road is built to a two-lane standard. Dedication of
right-of-way and street improvements may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/O-2 to PCD, establishing
the Summit Mall – Long-Form PCD. The approved site plan included a
shopping mall, office buildings, hotel, restaurants and associated parking.
Over the years, the PCD received several time extensions from the
Planning Commission. On April 3, 2001, the Board of Directors passed
Ordinance No. 18,456, the Summit Mall – Revised PCD, as approved by
the Planning Commission on September 14, 2000. Residents filed suit
challenging the Board’s April 3, 2001 decision. The court ruled in the
City’s favor. On February 24, 2004, the Board of Directors approved
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B
3
Ordinance NO. 19,057 which revoked Ordinance No. 18,456 (Summit Mall
– Revised PCD). The City’s official zoning maps currently designate the
property as PCD – expired.
Shackleford Crossings, LLC (agent for Summit Mall, LLC) prospective
owner of the 97.446 Acre property at the southwest corner of S.
Shackleford Road and I-430, is requesting to rezone the property from
PCD-expired to “O-2” Office and Institutional District and “C-2” Shopping
Center District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 62.443 acres
to C-2 and the south 35.003 acres to O-2. The rezoning is proposed for
future commercial and office development of the property. The O-2 and
C-2 zoning districts are site plan review districts, and future development
of the property will require Planning Commission review and approval.
The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying
degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located
immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along
the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford
Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and
wooded.
There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of
Shackleford Road which is surrounded by this 97 acre property. The
general area contains a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses
and zoning.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Mixed Office
Commercial. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Community
Shopping for the north 62.443 acres is a separate item on this agenda
(Item #2).
Staff does not support the requested O-2 and C-2 rezoning. Staff feels
that it is not appropriate to establish a zoning pattern for this large acreage
tract without first reviewing a site plan for the property’s development. The
concerns raised over the years regarding the development of this property
are still valid. These include traffic volume, street improvements,
excavation, tree preservation, retaining walls and the effects of a large
development on the surrounding properties, including Camp Aldersgate
and Comcast. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed rezoning is
premature. Staff would prefer to see a proposed PCD or POD
development for the property, so the development issues associated with
the property can be discussed simultaneously with a zoning/use plan.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B
4
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested O-2 and C-2 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting
that the application be deferred to the September 9, 2004 agenda. Staff
supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their
bylaws and accept the deferral request less than five (5) days prior to the public
hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
The application was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting
that the application be deferred to the October 7, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported
the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
The application was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and requested that it be deferred to the October 21, 2004 meeting to
allow for further review. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
agreed to staff’s deferral request.
There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda
and approved for deferral to the October 21, 2004 meeting. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-867-NNNNN
NAME: Chenal Valley Phase 25 (Lots 1 – 79 Block 83) Replat
LOCATION: Located West of Chenal Parkway and North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Chenal Properties
#7 Valley Club Circle
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 32.54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 79 FT. NEW STREET: 4,300
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a 15-foot front building line for Lots 11 – 12 and 61-62 Block 83
of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
2. A variance to allow a 20-foot front building line for Lots 22 – 23, 32, 38 – 43, 55 – 56,
64 and 67-72 Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
3. A variance to allow a 15-foot rear yard setback for Lots 53 – 79 Block 83 of the
Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
On June 22, 2001 a preliminary plat was approved for the proposed subdivision.
Several of the lots have been final platted but no new homes have been
constructed on the lots. The applicant proposes to replat these existing lots to
allow a reduced platted building line on a portion of the lots. The applicant has
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-NNNNN
2
indicated a fifteen (15) foot platted building line for Lots 11 – 12 and 61 – 62
Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision. The applicant has indicated
a twenty (20) foot building line for Lots 22 – 23, 32, 38 – 43, 55 - 56, 64 and 67 –
72 Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision. The applicant is also
requesting a reduced rear yard setback of fifteen feet for Lots 53 – 79 Block 83 of
the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
The development is proposed as a gated community with private streets. There
are seventy-nine (79) lots proposed and the site contains 32.54 acres. The
applicant has indicated the average lot size as 75-feet by 130-feet or 9,750
square feet. The proposed density is 2.42 units per acre.
The proposed development will be constructed in three phases with Lots 1 – 12,
20 – 23, 31 – 32 and 40 – 79 in the first phase. Lots 13 – 19 will be developed in
the second phase and Lots 24 – 30 and 33 – 39 in the final phase.
The area abutting Chenal Parkway has been indicated as a dedicated tract to be
preserved as open space. The applicant has indicated a no vehicular access
easement through the proposed tract.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tract, which was final platted in July of this year. The
applicant has begun the construction of a guardhouse, which is located at the
entrance to the subdivision. The Chenal Valley Country Club is located to the
west of the site with the tennis courts being located near the proposed residential
lots. The area abutting Chenal Parkway has been indicated as a dedicated tract
to be preserved as open space.
To the south of the site, is a single-family subdivision (the Oaks at Chenal), which
has developed with reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks. Chenal Parkway,
a four lane median divided roadway, is located to the east of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
abutting property owners along with the Bayonne Place Property Owners
Association, the Duquesne Place Property Owners Association and the
Margeaux Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment on the proposed revision to platted
building lines.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-NNNNN
3
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 information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Easements are required as platted in Instrument 2004-
051912, Plat Book H, Page 4. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating the
request was to reduce the platted building line for selected lots. Staff questioned
if the applicant was willing to consider a reduced rear yard setback and to more
align the house fronts along the street. Mr. White stated most of the activity was
taking place in the rear yard area and the applicant felt the rear yard was more
beneficial to the potential property owners. Staff stated this was only a
suggestion and requested Mr. White contact the developer to see if he was
willing to go along with staff’s suggestion. Staff also requested Mr. White place
in writing the justification for the reduced building line.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies,
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-NNNNN
4
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the justification of the reduced front building line is most
of the family activities are taking place in the rear yard area therefore the
developer is requesting to not reduce the “play area” of the lot.
Staff initially raised the concern of limited front yard area for driveways and
parking forcing guest parking on the street. The applicant has also indicated the
development will be a gated community with private streets which should have
minimal impact on traffic circulation. The development is to be developed with a
small number of homes (79 lots), which should not generate a great deal of
traffic.
The applicant has also requested a reduced rear yard setback on the lots
abutting the golf course property. Staff feels this should not have any adverse
impact on the adjoining properties. The site abuts a dedicated green space tract
which should give the appearance of a large setback.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to replat these existing lots to allow a
reduced platted building line on a portion of the lots. Staff does not feel a fifteen
(15) foot platted building line for Lots 11 – 12 and 61 – 62, a twenty (20) foot
building line for Lots 22 – 23, 32, 38 – 43, 55 - 56, 64 and 67 – 72 and a reduced
rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet for Lots 53 – 79 all in Block 83 of the Chenal
Valley Phase 25 Subdivision will have any adverse impact on adjoining
properties. There are seventy-nine (79) lots proposed and the site contains
32.54 acres. The applicant has indicated the average lot size as 75-feet by 130-
feet or 9,750 square feet. The proposed density is 2.42 units per acre. The
indicated lots sizes are more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance and the proposed density is consistent with existing
single-family densities in the area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be constructed in
three phases with Lots 1 – 12, 20 – 23, 31 – 32 and 40 – 79 in the first phase.
Lots 13 – 19 will be developed in the second phase and Lots 24 – 30 and 33 – 39
in the final phase. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s proposed phasing plan.
The area abutting Chenal Parkway has been indicated as a dedicated tract to be
preserved as open space. The applicant has indicated a no vehicular access
easement along the Parkway as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-NNNNN
5
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat and the indicated variances.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed plat should have minimal impact on
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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the following variances:
1. A variance to allow a 15-foot front building line for Lots 11 – 12 and 61-62
Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
2. A variance to allow a 20-foot front building line for Lots 22 – 23, 32, 38 – 43,
55 – 56, 64 and 67-72 Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
3. A variance to allow a 15-foot rear yard setback for Lots 53 – 79 Block 83 of
the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they did not feel the reduced
building line and reduced setbacks would have any adverse impact on the adjoining
properties. 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 following variances:
1. A variance to allow a 15-foot front building line for Lots 11 – 12 and 61-62 Block 83
of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
2. A variance to allow a 20-foot front building line for Lots 22 – 23, 32, 38 – 43, 55 – 56,
64 and 67-72 Block 83 of the Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
3. A variance to allow a 15-foot rear yard setback for Lots 53 – 79 Block 83 of the
Chenal Valley Phase 25 Subdivision.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1261-D
NAME: Kenwood Subdivision Replat and Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the North side of David O Dodd Road, just West of I-430
DEVELOPER:
Theo Treadway
1921 North Monroe Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 69.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 215 FT. NEW STREET: 9,260
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow the placement of a six foot fence within the required setback.
2. A variance to allow double frontage lots as was previously approved.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the Kenwood
Subdivision on November 11, 1999. The development included the placement of 210
single-family homes on 70 acres. The lots were to be accessed by public streets with
one outlet proposed to David O Dodd Road. The applicant was approved a deferral of
street improvements to David O Dodd Road with the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,175
by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 4, 2000, for a five year period. The
specific deferral approved was for the pavement widening to 29.5 feet from centerline,
with sidewalk placement. In response to concerns from area residents, the plat
included an undisturbed, ten foot wide buffer along the entire David O Dodd Road
frontage.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-D
2
The Little Rock Planning Commission was scheduled to hear an appeal of the City’s
Land Alteration Ordinance at their June 12, 2004 Public Hearing, which was withdrawn
prior to the hearing. The developer cleared several acres of trees without an approved
development plan. The applicant agreed to a fine of $10,000, which was paid to the
City’s tree fund. The developer also agreed to clean and reseed the site to eliminate
any future erosion.
The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a replat of Lot 86 at their August 26,
2004 Public Hearing to remove the required ten foot undisturbed buffer. The applicant
secured approval of property owners located to the west who were opposed to the
original development of the subdivision and requested the ten foot undisturbed buffer be
added to the plat. There was no neighborhood opposition to the request at the August
26, 2004 Public Hearing. The Commission placed the item for inclusion on the Consent
Agenda and approved the request by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes a replat of twenty-five (25) single-family lots and a
revision to the preliminary plat for the Kenwood Subdivision. The applicant is
requesting a replat of Lots 59 - 85, 87 - 95 and Lots 1 – 12 of the Kenwood
Subdivision and a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat to add five
additional lots to the proposed subdivision.
The original subdivision included the placement of a ten foot undisturbed buffer
along the rear of the lots abutting David O Dodd Road. The applicant is
requesting the required buffer be removed and the owners be allowed to place a
six foot fence along the property line within the required setback. The applicant
has indicated a ten (10) foot no vehicular access easement along the rear of the
lots to exclude access from David O Dodd Road.
The applicant is also requesting the addition of five (5) lots to the previously
approved preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated the lots will be added to
the interior of the proposed subdivision. The average lot size proposed is 75-feet
by 125-feet or 9,375 square feet. The applicant has indicated a proposed density
of 3.08 units per acre.
The proposal includes the development in seven (7) phases. Lots 1, 59 – 96 and
Lots 164 – 176 were developed in the first phase. The proposal includes the
development of Lots 2 – 20 and 97 – 112 in the second phase. The third phase
includes Lots 194 – 215 and Lots 37 – 58. Lots 177 - 193 are included in the
fourth phase. The applicant has indicated Lots 146 – 162 in the fifth phase, Lots
127 – 143 in the sixth phase and Lots 21 – 36 and Lots 113 – 124 in the final
phase. The phasing plan is consistent with the previously approved phasing
plan.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-D
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Phase I of the subdivision has been final platted and new homes have been
constructed on a majority of the lots. A final plat was executed for Phase II of
the proposed subdivision in August of this year. There are single-family uses to
the east, west and south of the site. J.A. Fair High School is located to the north
of the site.
There are a few trees located in the additional phases of the proposed
subdivision. The developer previously logged the site, eliminating most of the
significant trees on the property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Stagecoach Dodd
Neighborhood Association along with all abutting property owners were notified
of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from
area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment regarding the removal of existing buffer.
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 information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to portions of this property. This development will have minor impact on
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-D
4
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 information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the applicant was requesting to remove a previously platted
undisturbed buffer along the lots abutting David O Dodd Road and to add five
additional lots to the previously approved preliminary plat. Commissioner Rector
questioned feelings of the neighbors to the west of the site concerning the buffer
removal. Mr. White stated to his knowledge, they were not opposed to the
request.
Staff requested the applicant provide additional information on the proposed
preliminary plat. Staff requested the applicant dimension all lot lines and to
include a building line on the proposed lots. Mr. White stated this would not be
an issue and a revised plan would be submitted to staff on or before September
22, 2004.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies,
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated all lot dimensions and included the proposed building line
on the preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated the subdivision will be
developed with a twenty-five foot building line and a ten foot no right of vehicular
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-D
5
access easement will be placed along the rear of the lots abutting David O Dodd
Road. The indicated building line proposed is adequate to meet the minimum
building line per the Subdivision Ordinance for lots developed on a residential
street. The indicated ten foot no right of vehicle access easement is also
adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for
double frontage lots abutting an arterial street.
The applicant has indicated the average lot size will be 75-feet by 120-feet or
9,000 square feet. The proposed development contains 69.7 acres and is
proposed with 215 single-family lots. The applicant is proposing a density of 3.08
units per acre, which is adequate to meet the single-family densities per the
zoning ordinance. The applicant has also indicated 9,260 linear feet of new
public street will be added as a result of the proposed subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to replat the lots abutting David O
Dodd Road and to add five additional lots to the preliminary plat for the
subdivision. The original subdivision included the placement of a ten foot
undisturbed buffer along the rear of the lots abutting David O Dodd Road. These
lots have been final platted and developed with single-family homes. The
applicant is requesting the required buffer be removed and the owners be
allowed to place a six foot fence along the property line within the required
setback. Several of the owners of these lots have installed fences, many of
which are located within the buffer area. The applicant has indicated a ten (10)
foot no right of vehicular access easement along the rear of the lots to exclude
access from David O Dodd Road. Staff feels the removal of the buffer will have
minimal impact on adjoining properties. The buffer was added to the preliminary
plat at the public hearing to satisfy adjoining property owners’ concerns with the
proposed development. Since the development of the subdivision, these
property owners do not appear to be opposed to the removal of the buffer and
allowing the fences to be placed within the setback at this time.
The applicant is also requesting the addition of five (5) lots to the previously
approved preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated the lots will be added to
the interior of the proposed subdivision and will average 75-feet by 125-feet or
9,375 square feet. The indicated lot sizes are more than adequate to meet the
minimum requirements per the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s request. The indicated density of 3.08 units per acre is similar to
single-family development densities throughout the City.
The proposal includes the development in seven (7) phases. Lots 1, 59 – 96 and
Lots 164 – 176 were developed in the first phase. The second phase was
recently final platted and construction of new homes is anticipated to begin in the
next thirty days for Lots 2 – 20 and 97 – 112. The third phase includes Lots 194
– 215 and Lots 37 – 58. Lots 177 - 193 are included in the fourth phase. The
applicant has indicated Lots 146 – 162 in the fifth phase, Lots 127 – 143 in the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-D
6
sixth phase and Lots 21 – 36 and Lots 113 – 124 in the final phase. Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s phasing plan. The phasing plan is consistent with
the previously approved phasing plan.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. To Staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the
removal of the ten foot undisturbed buffer area and the placement of the six foot
fence within the required setback should have minimal impact on adjoining
properties. In addition staff dose not feel the addition of five lots to this proposed
subdivision will have any impact on the proposed development. No change is
proposed to the previously approved street improvement deferral, which was
granted by Ordinance No. 18,175 on June 4, 2000.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to place a six foot fence
within the required setback for the lots abutting David O Dodd Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated they had not received any comment from area residents
concerning the proposed request. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. 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 remove
the 10-foot undisturbed buffer from the plat and to place a six foot fence within the
required setback for the lots abutting David O’ Dodd Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1451
NAME: Doyne Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Zeuber Road and Frazier Pike
DEVELOPER:
Roger Doyne
4501 Frazier Pike
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.033 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 – Sweet Home
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lot 2.
2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lot 2 (24-feet).
3. A waiver of the required street improvements to Zeuber Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a lot split for this parcel located at 4501 Frazier Pike.
The applicant has indicated the average lot size of 90-feet by 300-feet or 27,000
square feet. Proposed Lot 2 is indicated as 70.10-feet by 300.04 feet and
proposed Lot 1 is indicated as 110.00-feet by 300.07-feet. Proposed Lot 2 will
require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased Lot
Depth to Width Ratio.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1451
2
The applicant has also indicated a 24-foot building line for proposed Lot 2 and a
35-foot building line for proposed Lot 1. The indicated building line for Lot 2 will
require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased building
line adjacent to an arterial street.
The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way from Fraizer Pike but is
requesting a waiver of the required street improvements.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family home on a large tract of land. The area to the
north is vacant as is the area to the east of the site. The area to the south of the
site is zoned AF or Agriculture and Forestry. The area to the north of the site is
zoned I-2, Light Industrial District.
There are single-family homes located to the south of the site and a new single-
family subdivision is currently under construction (Apple Blossom Subdivision).
To the north of the site are industrial uses located within the Port of Little Rock.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The College Station Progress League and all abutting property owners 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. Frazier Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required as indicated
on the proposed preliminary plat.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1451
3
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. A short 2-inch water main extension will be required in order
to provide service by Central Arkansas Water to this property. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the proposal included the subdivision of an existing tract
into two lots. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the
review process. Staff requested the applicant provide the names of owners of
unplatted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision. Staff also noted Frazier Pike
was classified as a minor arterial and a 35-foot building line would be required for
residential lots.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated right-of-way
dedication was sufficient. Staff stated a waiver of street improvements would be
supported.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the names of owners of property abutting the proposed
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1451
4
subdivision and the applicant has indicated a 35-foot building line adjacent to
Frazier Pike for proposed Lot 1.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated
an average lot size of 90-feet by 300-feet or 27,000 square feet. Proposed Lot 2
is indicated as 70.10-feet by 300.04 feet and proposed Lot 1 is indicated as
110.00-feet by 300.07-feet. Proposed Lot 2 will require a variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased Lot Depth to Width Ratio.
The applicant has also indicated a 24-foot building line for proposed Lot 2 and a
35-foot building line for proposed Lot 1. The indicated building line for Lot 2 will
require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased building
line adjacent to an arterial street. Staff is supportive of the variance request.
The indicated building line matches an existing structure on the site. Staff feels
the continuation of the existing building should have minimal impact on adjoining
properties.
The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way from Frazier Pike but is
requesting a waiver of the required street improvements. Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. To Staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the
proposed split of this existing tract into two single-family lots should have minimal
impact on 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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the following requested variances:
1. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lot 2.
2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lot 2 (24-feet).
3. A waiver of the required street improvements to Zeuber Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they had not received any comment
from area residents concerning the proposed request. Staff presented a
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1451
5
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 following requested
variances:
1. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lot 2.
2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lot 2 (24-feet).
3. A waiver of the required street improvements to Zeuber Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1452
NAME: Mirage at Pinnacle Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Pinnacle Road and Highway 300
DEVELOPER:
Pinnacle Mirage LLC
10 Livree Lane
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Laha Engineers
6602 Baseline Road, Suite E
Little Rock, AR 72219
AREA: 23.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 104 FT. NEW STREET: 4,572
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 – Pinnacle Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 20, 2004, requesting this
item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September
20, 2004, requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff
stated they were supportive of the applicant’s request.
The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1453
NAME: Bryant Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: located at 3601 Rocky Lane
DEVELOPER:
Johnny Bryant
3609 Rocky Lane
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
The Holloway Firm, Inc.
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 4.85 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow a reduced building line.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the subdivision of this 4.85 acre tract into three single-
family lots. The applicant has indicated the proposed lots will range in size from
0.824 acres to 2.738 acres. Each of the indicated lots currently houses a single-
family home, which will remain. On proposed Lot 3 there are currently two barns,
one of which is located within the required building setback. The proposed
structure is located on the property line abutting Rocky Lane. The applicant has
indicated a variance to allow a reduced building line around the existing structure
to run with the life of the structure. Upon removal of the barn, the required
twenty-five foot building setback will be placed on all new structures.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1453
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three homes on a single tract of land. There are numerous
outbuildings and barns located on the site. Across Rocky Lane, there are single-
family homes located on large tracts. To the east of the site is vacant land;
currently zoned R-2, Single-family. To the north of the site are also single-family
homes, both site built and manufactured homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an
active neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed right-of-way dedication is acceptable for a standard residential
street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. The applicant has
provided certification for the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the
means of wastewater disposal.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) would apply to this project in
addition to normal charges. Approval of City of Little Rock Planning is required
prior to service. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional
information.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1453
3
County Planning:
1. Provide Certificates of Accuracy for Pulaski County, also.
2. Tie to two established land corners.
3. Provide State Plane Coordinates on at least two corners (North Zone, NAD83).
4. Provide Certificate of Approval for Pulaski County, also.
5. Indicate the name of the County Road shown of the Plat.
6. Provide a separate description for the right-of-way dedication.
7. Label all structures (buildings) in this addition.
8. Show basis for elevations (benchmark).
9. Show all building setbacks as outlined in rules and regulations.
10. What is structure near road at southwest corner of Lot 3? Clarify.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was to subdivide an existing tract into three single-family lots. Staff stated there
were currently homes located on each of the proposed lots. Staff also noted the
applicant did have approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning
the existing septic systems on the site. Commissioner Rector questioned an
existing structure located on proposed Lot 3. Mr. Holloway stated the structure
was an existing horse barn. Commissioner Rector questioned if a building line
variance would be required. Staff noted it would and should only include the life
of the structure.
Public Works comments were discussed. Staff noted the indicated right-of-way
dedication was acceptable. Staff stated a waiver of street improvements to
Rocky Lane would be required.
County Planning comments were addressed. Staff stated there were technical
requirements, which needed to be included on the proposed plat. Staff
requested the applicant provide certification for the County in addition to the City
certifications. Staff also requested the applicant indicated State Plane
Coordinates and the name of the county road on the proposed preliminary plat.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1453
4
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated a 25-foot building line adjacent to Rocky Lane and has
adjusted the building line around the existing barn. The applicant has indicated
the reduced building line will be for the life of the existing structure, after which
the required twenty-five foot building setback will be placed on all new structures.
The applicant has included certifications for County Planning. The applicant has
indicated State Plane Coordinate information will be added at the time of final
platting. Staff is supportive of this request. Typically City plats do not require
State Plane Coordinate information at the time of preliminary platting; only prior
to the final plat being executed.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The applicant is requesting
the subdivision of this 4.85 acre tract into three single-family lots with lots ranging
in size from 0.824 acres to 2.738 acres. Each of the indicated lots currently has
a single-family home and a functioning septic system. The request is to allow
each of the homes to be contained on an individual lot. The applicant has
submitted an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the
existing septic systems as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Rocky Lane. The
applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way sufficient to meet the current
Master Street Plan requirements. Staff is supportive of the request.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat to allow the subdivision of this
site into three single-family lots. To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed plat
should have minimal impact on 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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of required street
improvements to Rocky Lane.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced building
line for Lot 3 to run with the life of the existing structure.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1453
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated they had not received any comment from area residents
concerning the proposed request. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff recommends approval
of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and
F of the above report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested waiver of required
street improvements to Rocky Lane and the requested variance to allow a reduced
building line for Lot 3 to run with the life of the existing structure.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1454
NAME: Whispering Hills Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located South of Alexander Road and West of Pam Drive South
DEVELOPER:
P.E. Investments, LLC
2212 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Laha Engineers
6602 Baseline Road, Suite E
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 5.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 15 FT. NEW STREET: 970
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced front building line for Lots 1 – 15 (15-feet).
2. A variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for Lots 1 – 15 (15-feet).
3. A variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lot 10.
4. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the street to exceed the length of a
minor residential street.
5. The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required storm water
detention.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the subdivision of this 4.09-acre tract into fifteen (15)
single-family lots. The lots are indicated to average 8,900 square feet with the
minimum lot size proposed as 7,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision will
result in a density of 3.14 units per acre. The applicant has indicated the
development will be constructed in two phases with Lots 1 – 3 and Lots 8 – 15
developed in the first phase. Lots 4 – 7 will be developed in the second phase.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454
2
The development includes the placement of a new cul-de-sac street extending
from Alexander Road. The applicant has indicated 970 linear feet of new street
will be added to the City as a result of the proposed development.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced front building line for
Lots 1 – 15 and a reduced rear yard setback for the indicated lots also set at 15-
feet. The applicant is also requesting a reduced lot width for Lot 10.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site located south of Alexander Road. Pam
Drive has not been extended to the proposed subdivision with current access to
the site from Whispering Drive. There is a pond located to the east of the site on
an adjoining parcel. To the west of the site is a single-family neighborhood,
Whispering Hills Subdivision Phase I. To the south of the site is vacant R-2,
Single-family zoned property. North of the site has developed with single-family
homes located on large lots accessed by Alexander Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed development and the proposed minimum
square footages of the new homes. Staff has indicated this is not a question
typically requested of the applicant. Staff has noted the indicated lot sizes meet
with minimum ordinance requirements. All abutting property owners, the
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Alexander Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. 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.
3. The area reserved for storm water detention is a fairly small, odd shaped
area. Provide additional details of construction.
4. A standard street width of 26-feet measured back of curb to back of curb is
required (length of street exceeds the criteria for a minor residential street).
Sidewalk is required on one side of the street.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454
3
5. For service consideration, the subdivision should connect through to the west
as was originally planned, especially since no was cul-de-sac constructed in
Whispering Hills.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve all the
indicated lots. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to portions of this property. This development
will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact
Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the applicant. Staff gave a brief
overview of the proposed request and indicated there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. Laha dimension
all property lines and provide the buildable area on each of the indicated lots.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the development would
require on-site detention. Mr. Laha stated he was providing detention and would
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454
4
provide staff with additional details concerning the proposed detention. Staff also
noted the indicated street exceeded the maximum length of a minor residential
street. Staff stated a standard 26-foot street with sidewalks would be required
unless a variance was approved. Staff stated they would support a variance due
to the limited number of lots proposed.
There was a general discussion concerning Whispering Drive located to the
west. Staff stated the proposed street should be extended westward and access
to the proposed subdivision taken from the existing street. Mr. Laha stated he
felt the neighbors would be less opposed to the proposed development if access
was not proposed from their neighborhood. Staff stated a cul-de-sac or turn-
around should be provided at the end of the existing street to allow for proper
turning around of trucks and automobiles.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies,
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the dimensions of all property lines and included the
buildable area for each of the lots on the proposed preliminary plat. The
applicant has revised the preliminary plat to allow Whispering Drive, which
currently terminates at the western property line, to extend to the east and allow
a connection to the proposed subdivision. The applicant is also requesting an
access to Alexander Road via Pam Drive South. The applicant has requested
the proposed street to be a minor residential street. The applicant is also
requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required storm water detention facility.
The indicated lot sizes meet the typical ordinance requirement for single-family
development. The applicant has indicated one of the lots Lot 10 with a reduced
lot width. The ordinance typically requires a lot to have a minimum lot width at
the building line of 60-feet. The indicated lot has a lot width at the building line of
50 feet.
The applicant is requesting a reduced building line of 15-feet for all the indicated
lots. The applicant is also requested a reduced rear yard setback of fifteen feet
for all the indicated lots. The applicant has indicated with the reduced building
setbacks there will be more buildable area, increasing the desirability of the lots.
The lots indicate a building area ranging from 1500 to 1600 square feet. The
proposed lots range in size from 7000 square feet to 18,260 square feet. The
average lot size proposed is 8,900 square feet. The indicated lot sizes are
adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirements.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454
5
Staff is not supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. The indicated plat results
in a variance to all the indicated lots and the in ability to meet the detention
ordinance requirement. This leads staff to question if the application should be
revised and resubmitted as a PRD development. In addition, even though the
lots meet the minimum square footage requirements set forth in the Subdivision
Ordinance staff does not feel the configuration of the lots is such that the lots will
be buildable lots. Staff feels the applicant is “over building the site” and should
reconsider the placement of this large number of lots on this site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated they
felt the development should be filed as a PRD. Staff stated there were a number of
variances being requested and some question as to the buildability of several of the
indicated lots.
Mr. Laha stated the developer was requesting a variance to allow a 15-foot building line
on all the indicated lots and a reduced rear yard setback on all lots. He stated this was
being requested to avoid confusion of builders. He stated the development had
indicated detention on the site plan. He stated the development would not generate a
great deal of water to address and the indicated detention should be adequate to handle
the run-off from the development.
Mr. Harold Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he lived at the end of Whispering Drive. He stated the road was a 2 inch
asphalt street which could not withstand a lot of construction traffic. He stated the
proposal he first saw indicated the development of 10 homes and not the indicated 16
homes. He stated with the development of ten homes that would be ten cars per day.
He stated most homes had two cars and with children the number would only be
increased. He stated he was opposed to the development of the subdivision based on
the number of homes proposed and the condition of the existing roadway.
Mr. Raymond Schieber addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
request. He stated his home was located at 13511 Alexander Road. He stated the
area did not have a property owners association and he was not informed of the request
in a timely manner. He stated the reduced setbacks were a concern for area residents.
He stated the Bill of Assurance for the existing subdivision had certain criteria for
development including minimum lot sizes, minimum square footages of homes and a
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1454
6
25-foot building line. He stated based on the indicated plat there appeared to be
several lots which would not be buildable. Mr. Schieber stated the Alexander Road
area were soils types that were not stable and the development could have stabilization
problems.
Mr. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the site was a difficult site to develop and based on the number of variances and
the detention variances it appeared the developer was trying to maximize the buildable
area. She stated she also felt the development should be reconsidered as a PRD.
Ms. Janet Berry addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. She
stated as President of the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and a member of
the Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee she was in favor of new
development in the area. She stated when the action plan was being developed and
updated a few years ago the members were shocked to see how few new homes had
been constructed in the area. She stated the area needed new construction.
Mr. Paul Evans, the developer, addressed the Commission. He stated his desire was to
construct quality homes in the 1300 to 1600 square foot range. He stated CDBG Grant
money would be sought to assist homebuyers with down payment assistance. He
stated Whispering Drive could be blocked during construction not allowing heavy trucks
and equipment to access the roadway.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the need for a
PRD vs. a single-family plat. Staff stated the Board recently denied a request for a plat
with a number of variances which was to be re-filed as a PRD and brought back to the
Commission at their December 2004 public hearing. Staff stated they felt with the
number of variances being requested and the lot configuration there were serious
concerns with the buildability of four of the indicated lots.
Mr. Laha stated his original proposal did not include the extension of Whispering Drive.
He stated the road was added at the instruction of staff. He stated the developer’s
desire was to not allow the connection and add an additional lot. Staff stated the street
needed to be extended since a turn-around was not constructed in the previous plat.
There was a discussion concerning the reason the developer did not want to file the
application as a PRD. Mr. Laha stated the develop was not ready to commit to the floor
plan for each of the indicated lots. The Commission stated maximum buildable area
was all that would be required.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request for deferral to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-1096-E
NAME: Autumn Office Park Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 1012 Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:
Autumn Road, LLC
1012 Autumn Road, Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Surveying
1012 Autumn Road, Suite 1
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 2.35 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District and R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430 Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an additional sign to be
located on the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the development of this 2.35 acre site with four office
buildings. The applicant has indicated the buildings will be single story buildings
containing a total of 27,200 square feet of space. The applicant has indicated
access will be provided from Kanis Road and secondary access from Autumn
Road through a 25-foot common access easement.
The applicant is requesting signage in two locations on the site. The applicant is
requesting the placement of a six foot tall, sixty-four square foot sign adjacent to
Kanis Road. The second sign proposed is near the northern building and is
proposed as six feet in height and thirty-two square feet in area. Directional and
informational signs will be placed within the site per ordinance requirements.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
2
The applicant has indicated the site will be developed with 22,399.89 square feet
of landscaped area or 21.88 percent. The total building coverage is 26.57
percent. The applicant has indicated 115 new parking spaces will be added as a
result of the development.
The applicant has indicated a garage will be added to the end of the
northeastern-most building. The applicant has indicated garage doors will be
added on the east and west facades to allow vehicles and trailers to be pulled
into the building and stored overnight. The applicant has indicated the area will
not be a maintenance or garage area and will function as overnight storage of
vehicles only.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a scattering of trees. Clearing has started on the property
located to the east of the site abutting Kanis and Autumn Roads. To the north of
the site is a hospital and to the east of the site are non-residential uses. There is
an approved POD located on the northeast corner of Kanis and Autumn Road to
allow office/showroom/warehouse activities and to the north of the POD is a
second POD for a gymnastics center. At the intersection of Financial Center
Parkway and Autumn Road is a bank and across Autumn Road is the IHOP.
West of the site is currently zoned R-2, Single-family and still functioning as
single-family residential. To the northwest of the site is a mini-warehouse
development accessed from Hermitage Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an
adjoining property owner. The John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the
Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the
Birchwood Neighborhood Association along with all owners of property located
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required (55-feet is
proposed).
2. A contribution in-lieu of construction for boundary street improvements will be
required for Kanis Road.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
3
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start
of construction.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property. Show existing and proposed final contours and cross
sections of any critical cut or fill sections.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact the Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Provide a ten foot utility easement along the western perimeter of the
proposed site. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Off-site improvements may be
required in order to provide adequate fire protection to this site. Additional fire
hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain
information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). If
there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional
information.
Fire Department: One additional fire hydrant will be required. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
4
Landscape: The width of the proposed landscape strip along the western
perimeter is less than the minimum 6 feet 9 inches allowed by the landscape
ordinance. Additionally, the proposed width of the perimeter landscape strip
immediately north of Tract 4 and along a portion of the eastern perimeter is less
than the minimum 6 feet 9 inches allowed by the landscape ordinance.
In order to receive credit toward fulfilling interior landscape ordinance
requirements, interior landscape islands must have a minimum width of 7 ½ feet.
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.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to present landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Randy Alberius was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development then stated there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned the indicated
signage and if the proposed signage would be adequate to serve the four
proposed office buildings. Mr. Alberius stated the intent was to place a six foot
tallby sixty-four square foot sign adjacent to Kanis Road and place a second sign
within the development. He stated the second sign would be a maximum of six
feet in height and thirty-two square feet in area.
Staff also stated a portion of the property was currently zoned R-2, Single-family
which would not allow the indicated development. Staff stated the applicant had
submitted a request to rezone the R-2, Single-family zoned portion of the
property which would be heard by the Commission at their October 21, 2004
Public Hearing. Staff stated they felt comfortable allowing the site plan review to
continue and requiring as a condition of approval the successful rezoning of the
property.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated right-of-way
was more than adequate to meet the required right-of-way dedication for a minor
arterial. Staff stated the required right-of-way dedication would be 90-feet or 45-
feet from the centerline. Mr. Alberius stated he would revise the plan to remove
the extra fifteen feet and include the area in parking, building or landscaping.
Staff also questioned the proposed location of storm water detention.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
5
Mr. Alberius stated the detention would be provided underground. He stated he
would submit details to Public Works staff concerning the proposed inlets and
discharge rates.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed finished elevations of
the site. Mr. Alberius stated the site would be lower than the Malmstrome site
located to the east. He stated the finished grade would be ten to fifteen feet
below the site to the east and his site would be looking at a retaining wall for the
Malmstrome development.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated landscaping
did not meet minimum ordinance requirements in two locations. Staff stated the
area to the north and a small portion along the property line adjacent to the
Malmstrome property was not adequate to meet the minimum six feet nine
inches. Mr. Alberius stated the desire was to match an existing curb and
landscaping line located in each of these locations. Staff stated the decrease in
landscaping would be a City Beautiful Commission issue to resolve. Staff stated
the November meeting would be the earliest meeting possible to resolve the
issue. Staff noted all other interior landscaping appeared to be adequate.
Mr. Alberius stated he would meet with staff to discuss all his options.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated signage on the proposed site plan. The applicant is
requesting a variance to allow two signs to be located on the site. The applicant
has indicated a six foot sign adjacent to Kanis Road not to exceed sixty-four
square feet in area. The applicant has also indicated a six foot sign located near
the northern-most building with the sign area not to exceed thirty-two square feet.
The zoning ordinance allows only one sign location per parcel. The applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the second sign location. Staff is supportive of the
proposed signage and the applicant’s requested variance to allow an additional
sign on the site.
The applicant has revised the site plan to include the placement of the required
landscaping along the northern property line and the small portion along the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
6
property line adjacent to the Malmstrome property. The indicated landscaping is
six feet nine inches in width, adequate to meet the minimum ordinance
requirement.
The applicant has revised the site plan to indicate the right-of-way as required for
a minor arterial or 45-feet from the centerline. The applicant has also met with
staff concerning the proposed detention facilities. The applicant has indicated
detention will be provided underground. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
indicated right-of-way and detention facilities.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for the development of this 2.35 acre
site with four office buildings. The site plan includes the placement of single
story buildings containing a total of 27,200 square feet of space. The site plan
also includes access from Kanis Road and secondary access from Autumn Road
through a 25-foot common access easement.
The site plan indicates the development of 22,399.89 square feet of landscaped
area or 21.88 percent. The total building coverage is 26.57 percent and there
are 115 parking spaces proposed with the new development. The typical
minimum parking required for a 27,200 square foot office building would be 68
parking spaces. The indicated parking is more than adequate to meet the
minimum ordinance requirements.
The applicant has indicated a garage will be added to the end of the
northeastern-most building. The applicant has indicated garage doors will be
added on the east and west facades to allow vehicles and trailers to be pulled
into the building and stored overnight for security. The applicant has indicated
the area will not be a maintenance or garage area and will function as overnight
storage of vehicles only.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan review. To Staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the
proposed development should have minimal impact on adjoining properties if
developed as proposed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested variance to allow an
additional sign location on the site.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1096-E
7
Staff recommends the portion of the property currently zoned R-2, Single-family
be successfully rezoned to O-3, General Office District prior to any development
of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they had received one informational
phone call from an area resident concerning the proposed request. Staff stated they did
not feel the placement of an office development on the site would have any adverse
impact on the adjoining properties in the area. 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 presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s requested variance to
allow an additional sign location on the site. Staff also presented a recommendation the
portion of the property currently zoned R-2, Single-family be successfully rezoned to
O-3, General Office District prior to any development of the site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S-1415-B
NAME: Bowman-Kanis Retail Center Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
USA Drug
3017 North Midland Drive
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 10.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District, with conditions
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On October 20, 1998, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,850
rezoning an 11.25-acre tract to O-3 and C-3 on the northwest corner of Kanis and
Bowman Roads. The proposal included the development of the site with a 300 foot by
150 foot “no build area” at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads. The site had
limited driveways onto Kanis Road. The eastern drive, located approximately 200-feet
west of the Kanis/Bowman Road intersection, was proposed as a right-turn exit only.
The western driveway, located approximately 300 feet west of the Kanis/Bowman
intersection, was to be a service entrance/exit only. The approval also limited the
permitted uses to those listed in the “C-2” Shopping Center District.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
2
A proposal which included this tract of land was reviewed and approved by the
Commission earlier in 2003 but was not forwarded to the Board of Directors for final
action. The applicant proposed to rezone the site from various zoning classifications to
PCD to allow the development of a home center on the site.
Ordinance No. 18,985 adopted November 18, 2003, established the Bowman and Kanis
Retail Center Long-form PCD. The Planning Commission heard the proposal at their
October 16, 2003 Public Hearing and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the
Board of Directors.
The applicant proposed a seven-lot plat through the Planned Development process.
Lots 1 - 6 were zoned C-3, General Commercial and Lot 7 was zoned O-3, General
Office. The applicant proposed a USA Drug to locate on Lot 1 (an allowable use under
the C-3 zoning classification) but the building was proposed to be located within the
area previously approved as a no-build zone (300-foot by 150-foot).
The applicant indicated only one lot would be developed under the proposed
development plan and requested Lot 1 be designated with PCD zoning (with C-3 uses
as alternative uses) retaining the C-3 and O-3 zoning on the other six lots.
The applicant submitted a request to revise a previously approved PCD and allow the
addition of gas pumps to the original USA Drug PCD on March 11, 2004. At the
applicant’s request, the Commission deferred the request until the May 6, 2004, Public
Hearing, at which time the applicant requested a revocation of the PCD Zoning and the
restoration of the previous C-3, General Commercial District zoning, with conditions.
The Little Rock Board of Directors at their June 15, 2004, Public Hearing approved the
request for revocation by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,124.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes the construction of a 16,500 square foot retail
building along with 117 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated there will be
four gas pumps and a kiosk added to the site necessitating the site plan review
process. As indicated, when the property was zoned to C-3, General
Commercial District, there were conditions placed on the zoning. The site plan
included the placement of a 300-foot by 150-foot “no build area”. The proposed
buildings are located outside of this “no build area”.
The proposed site plan indicates the placement of two pylon signs, the maximum
allowed by ordinance. The signs are to be located near the western drive on Lot
1 and at the intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation from 5:00 am to
1:00 am, seven days per week. The applicant has also indicated a maximum
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
3
building height of 35-feet and all site lighting will be low level and directional,
directed inward away from residentially zoned properties.
The proposed site plan indicates a right-of-way dedication of 45-feet from the
centerline on both Bowman and Kanis Roads. The applicant has also indicated a
20-foot radial dedication at the intersection of the two roadways. The applicant
has indicated all required street improvements will be constructed to the
roadways with the development of individual lots abutting the roadway. A twelve
foot turn lane will be added to Kanis Road at the intersection with Bowman Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a plant nursery, which is currently being demolished. The site
is relatively flat, with drives from Kanis Road and Bowman Road. Both Kanis and
Bowman Roads adjacent to the site are not constructed to Master Street Plan
standard.
To the north of the site is vacant C-3, zoned property currently preliminary platted
into seven lots. To the east of the site is a vacant O-3 zoned tract abutting Kanis
Road with C-3, General Commercial District zoned property located to the
northwest. Other uses in the area include commercial and office uses. The
Creekwood Plaza Shopping Center is located across Bowman Road to the east
and a drycleaners is located across Kanis Road in a strip retail center to the
south. To the southeast of the site is a commercial business, currently a liquor
store.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site, the John
Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber
Ridge Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment regarding proposed change to
add a fuel canopy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact the Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
4
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. If there
are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas
Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. A Capital
Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in
addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including
metered connections off the private fire system. This development will have
minor impact on 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 information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Proposed building landscape areas need to be clearly identified.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Dickson Flake were present representing the applicant.
Staff presented a brief history of the site along with an overview of the proposed
development. Staff stated the current request was for a multiple building site
plan review to allow the placement of a gas canopy and pumps on the site in
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
5
addition to the USA Drug Store. Staff requested the applicant provide a detailed
signage plan including canopy signage proposed. Staff also requested the
applicant indicate the no build area on the proposed site plan.
Staff questioned the sight distance exiting the pharmacy drive through.
Mr. White stated this was an issue and he would realign the drive to correct the
problem.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated building
landscaping did not appear to be adequate. Mr. White stated he would address
this concern. He stated the landscaping was included but not clearly identified.
There was a general discussion concerning the indicated layout and the
placement of the gas canopy and pumps. Mr. White stated the location would
allow for customers to park and fill up then pull forward to go into the store.
There was a question regarding the maneuverability within the site with the
current location of the pumps. Mr. White and staff stated the location would allow
for traffic flow and stacking outside the right-of-way.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicted a detailed signage plan for the proposed development.
The applicant has also indicted the no build area on the site plan. The applicant
has adjusted the pharmacy drive through to allow for additional sight distance
and clearly identified the building landscaping.
The proposed development includes the construction of 16,500 square feet of
retail space along with 117 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated there
will be four gas pumps and a kiosk added to the site. The typical minimum
parking required for a retail building containing the indicated square footage
would be 55 parking spaces. The indicated parking is more than adequate to
meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The proposed site plan indicates the placement of two pylon signs, the maximum
allowed by ordinance. The signs are to be located near the western drive on Lot
1 and at the intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads. The ordinance typically
allows signage in commercial zones a maximum of thirty-six feet in height and
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
6
one hundred sixty square feet in area. Since the site has frontage on two streets,
the ordinance would allow the placement of the two signs as indicated on the site
plan. The applicant has indicated signage will be placed on the street frontage
facades of the canopy identifying the business without pricing information. Staff
is supportive of the indicated signage.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 5:00 am
to 1:00 am seven days per week. The applicant has also indicated a maximum
building height of 35-feet and all site lighting will be low level and directional,
directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. Staff is supportive of
the indicated hours of operation and the proposed site lighting.
The proposed site plan indicates a right-of-way dedication of 45-feet from the
centerline on both Bowman and Kanis Roads. The applicant has also indicated a
20-foot radial dedication at the intersection of the two roadways. The applicant
has indicated all required street improvements will be constructed to the
roadways with the development of individual lots abutting the roadway. A twelve
foot turn lane will be added to Kanis Road at the intersection with Bowman Road.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s indicated right-of-way dedication and the
indicated street improvements.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the
development of the site consistent with ordinance requirements for a subdivision
multiple building site plan review. As indicated, when the property was zoned to
C-3, General Commercial District, there was a condition placed on the zoning to
include the placement of a 300-foot by 150-foot “no build area”. The proposed
buildings are located outside of this “no build area”. The applicant has met the
minimum ordinance requirements with regard to building coverage, building
setbacks, signage and access and circulation. The applicant has also indicated
landscaping adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirements of the
zoning and landscape ordinances. To Staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the
proposed placement of the retail building and the addition of the gas canopy,
pumps and kiosk should have minimal impact on 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 staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1415-B
7
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they had only received informational
phone calls from area residents concerning the proposed request. Staff stated the
applicant had met the minimum ordinance requirements for a site plan review under the
current ordinance. 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 Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S-1455
NAME: Hefley Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 5100 Studer Road
DEVELOPER:
Lisa Hefley
5100 Studer Road
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
Ollen Dee Wilson
P.O. Box 604
North Little Rock, AR 72115-0604
AREA: 8.74 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 30 – Buzzard Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant filed a request for a Subdivision Site Plan review at the instruction
of staff. Staff later determined the request should be amended to a Planned
Residential Development request to allow the placement of a single-wide
manufactured home on the site currently zoned AF – Agriculture and Forestry.
Prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors, if approved by the
Commission, this request will be amended to a zoning request (File No. Z-7730).
In 2002, as a part of the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction the applicant’s
property was zoned AF with a CUP to allow for training and boarding of horses.
The applicant indicated at the time of rezoning they wanted to ensure they could
run cattle and horses on their farm. The applicant raises Quarter Horses on the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
2
property and plans would involve completing the fence and to join two properties
owned by the applicant in order to run cattle. The property currently has a cattle
barn.
A manufactured home was moved to the property located at 5300 Studer Road
by the applicant earlier this year without prior zoning approval. The applicant
placed the home in a location where two manufactured homes were previously
located. The applicant located the home in this area because the meter loops,
septic tank and well were already in this area. The applicant has indicated the
home will be used by an employee as housing and a part of his compensation
package.
The applicant is requesting to be allowed uses as are allowed in AF – Agriculture
and Forestry in addition to the placement of the home on the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located in the western portion of the planning jurisdiction in a very
rural setting. There are several residences located in the area mostly located on
acreage. The area has a mixture of housing types, both site built and
manufactured homes. Studer Road is an unimproved county road with open
ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents expressing concern with the proposed development. All property
owners located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Provide an approval
from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed means of
wastewater disposal.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
3
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No water service is available from Central Arkansas
Water. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Outside the service area. Provide a letter of approval from the
area volunteer fire department concerning the ability to serve the structure.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant
had originally filed a site plan review request to allow the placement of a
manufactured home on the site. Staff stated after further review it was
determined there was also a use issue and a PRD application should be filed for
the proposed request. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to
complete the review process.
Staff requested the dimensions from all property lines for the home placement.
Staff also questioned if there were any decks porches or patios proposed with
the new home. The applicant stated the home was located approximately ten
feet from the rear property line and several hundred feet from the front property
line. The applicant stated the home was located in this area to limit the visibility
from the roadway and from adjoining properties. The applicant stated the home
was a new home and was purchased to allow their farmhand a place to live. She
stated the home was not a rental unit nor would the home ever become a rental
unit.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
4
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has indicated the dimensions from property lines as requested at
the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the home sits approximately ten feet from the rear property line and
several hundred feet from the front property line. The applicant has also located
the existing septic system and the existing well on the site plan. There are two
other structures located on the property; a dairy barn and a cattle barn. There is
a single drive to access the site from Studer Road.
The typical ordinance rear yard setback for a single-family home is twenty-five
feet. The applicant has indicated the home was placed within ten feet of the rear
property line. The applicant indicated the home was located in this area since
there were previously two manufactured homes located in this area. The
applicant has stated the location was chosen not only to limit visibility from the
roadway of the home but to also take advantage of the existing well and septic
system. Staff supports the placement of the home in this location.
With the exception of a small percentage of the site, the site is currently zoned
AF – Agriculture and Forestry. The zoning allows for agriculture and forestry
operations, to include the raising of livestock and poultry. The applicant has
indicated cattle and horses will utilize the site for grazing. The site also contains
two barns, one an old dairy barn and the second a cattle barn. The applicant is
requesting to utilize the allowable uses in AF – Agriculture and Forestry for the
site, once rezoned to PD-R. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has indicated all transport elements will be removed and a
permanent foundation and underpinning with permanent materials will be put in
place on the home if approved. The applicant has also indicated off-street
parking per single-family dwelling standards will be provided.
Screening is not proposed as a part of the development. Staff would recommend
the applicant provide a year around screening device along the rear of the
property around the home to aid in screening of the adjoining properties. This
screening could be accomplished through evergreen plantings, a fence or wall.
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning request. To Staff’s knowledge there
are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
5
Staff recommends the dwelling only be occupied by an employee of the
applicant.
Staff recommends compliance with the following siting criteria established in
Section 36-262(d)(1):
a. Removal of all transport elements.
b. Permanent foundation.
c. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood.
d. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures.
e. Underpinning with permanent materials.
f. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
Staff recommends the applicant provide a year around screening device along
the rear of the property located near the home to aid in screening of the adjoining
properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Randy Frazier was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff introduced the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff
stated the development was originally filed as a site plan review based on staff’s
instruction. Staff stated they later determined a site plan review application was not the
appropriate application and if the Commission recommended approval the application
would be modified prior to being forwarded to the Board of Directors. Staff stated the
notification mailed by the applicant to area property owners was the correct notification
form. Staff noted if the development were approved staff would recommend screening
be placed along the rear of the new home to screen the adjacent homes.
Mr. Frazier addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the owners
had moved in the single-wide manufactured home on the 8.7 acre tract recently
purchased to provide housing for an employee. He stated the home was not a rental
unit directly but was a part of the employee’s compensation package.
Mr. Frazier provided a presentation indicating the area as a rural area. He stated the
area was clearly a rural area and the proposed home was not out of character with the
area. He stated the home was placed in the chosen location because there were
previously two manufactured homes located on the site. He stated the home was
located 13 feet from the rear property line not 10 as staff had indicated. He stated the
home was a new home and not out of character with the area. Mr. Frazier presented
the Commission with a petition of support from area residents.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
6
Ms. Nina Orsini addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the indicated structures in the presentation were not representative of the homes
in the area.
Mr. Beau Glenn addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated there were a number of objectors present who had lived in the area for a number
of years. He stated most of the persons in attendance had lived in the area 10 plus
years. He stated the Hefley’s had moved to the area three years ago. He stated the
Commission had received a petition with a large number of the homes located on
Studer Road opposed to the proposed manufactured home being located on the site.
Mr. Glenn stated the new homes being constructed in the area were sizable homes. He
stated the placement of a manufactured home on the site was in violation of a number
of city ordinances and codes. He stated with the placement of a manufactured home
near the existing homes would have an adverse impact on property values in the area.
He stated if the home concerned existing homeowners potential homebuyers would be
concerned as well.
Mr. Glenn stated in a meeting with the Hefley’s they had indicated a willingness to
relocate the home on land behind their home. He stated the Hefley’s indicated the cost
to move the home would be $6000 and if the residents were willing to share in the
expense they would be willing to move the home. He stated the Hefley’s had invested
1.8 million dollars in 135 acres. He questioned the placing of a manufactured home on
the site by the Hefley’s based on their investment in the area.
Commissioner Lowry questioned the objection being raised by residents. Mr. Glenn
stated the location and the decrease in property values. Commissioner Lowry
questioned if the home was relocated what effect this would have on property values.
Mr. Glenn stated the home was located on a tract which had a creek separating the
home from the Hefley’s property. He stated the tract appeared to be a independent
home and not a part of the Heafley’s property.
Clint Aguiar addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the manufactured home was located adjacent to his rear property line. He stated
his family moved to the area because of the scenic beauty, the rural area and the new
home construction. He stated Studer Road was 2 ½ miles long and there were 60
homes with 2 manufactured homes. He stated he felt the placement of a manufactured
home on the parcel would affect future homebuyers in the area. He stated the
manufactured home was clearly visible from the roadway with foliage. He stated five
months out of the year there was no foliage and the home would be even more visible.
Mr. Aguiar stated the manufactured home was located very close to his rear property
line. He stated currently this portion of his property was not being maintained in the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1455
7
same manner as the remainder of his property but his families future plans included the
cleaning of all area and utilization of this entire acreage as yard area.
Mr. Aguiar stated there were manufactured homes located on this site several years
previously. He stated the manufactured homes were moved more than six years ago.
He stated the manufactured homes were put in place for the previous property owners
grandchildren. He stated once the children “got back on their feet” they would move
and the homes would be removed. He stated he felt allowing the home to remain was
going down a slippery slope. He stated with 85 percent of the property owners who
received letters opposing the request this should be a clear indication of how the area
residents felt of the placement of the home on the site. He stated the home should be
relocated to an area with limited to no impact on adjoining properties.
Commissioner Lowry questioned if a limits were placed on the occupancy and/or the
number of years the home could remain on the site would the neighbors be willing to
accept the location. Mr. Aguiar stated they would not due to the diminished property
values.
There was a general discussion concerning the request and potential uses of the site. It
was noted there were numerous noxious uses that could locate on the site. It was
determined in the Commission’s opinion the negative impacts could be mitigated by
screening the home from the adjoining properties and the roadway.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: S-1456
NAME: Big Boy’s Toys Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located South of Baseline Road, just East of Gator Park
DEVELOPER:
BBTS, LLC
19712 Mallard Cove
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Surveying
1012 Autumn Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 6.75 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow advanced grading on the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting the development of this 6.75 acre site currently zoned
I-2, Light Industrial District as an “upscale” boat and RV storage facility. The
development is proposed in three phases. The first phase will include the
clearing, grading and fencing of approximately 2.0 acres in the southwest corner
of the property. This area will be used as a storage and lay down area for
construction equipment and materials. The owner/developer will construct a
temporary privacy fence along the southern property line to screen the adjacent
R-2, Single-family district zoned properties. The developer also has indicated a
temporary access to the storage lay down area will be maintained.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
2
Phase 2 of the development will consist of the grading and clearing of the
remaining 4.75 acres and to construct (73) enclosed boat and RV storage units.
All paving and drainage will be constructed during the second phase. In the third
phase, the developer is proposing to remove all improvements previously
constructed in Phase I and to construct (97) enclosed boat and RV storage units,
completing the project.
The proposed storage buildings will be metal buildings, with all doorways facing
to the interior of the project. The applicant has indicated all fencing will be chain
link or ornamental iron. All driveways and entrances will be concrete or asphalt
per existing City ordinances.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with more dense vegetation located near the southern
property line. The area to the east is zoned PD-I and the area to the west is
Gator Park, zoned I-2, Light Industrial District. The area to the south is also
vacant and currently zoned R-2, Single-family. To the north of the site is the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Other uses in the area
include residential and non-residential uses. There are single-family homes and
an open air boat and RV storage facility located to the northeast of the site,
across Baseline Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, Town and Country Neighborhood
Association 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 one
informational phone call from an area resident.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required. The
proposed right-of-way dedication is acceptable.
2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the
planned development.
3. 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.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
3
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to the property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property. Show contours at minimum 5-foot intervals.
6. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210. Provide driveway spacing of 150-
feet from the property boundary. The width of driveway must not exceed 36-
feet.
7. Entrance gate design must be approved by Traffic Engineering, Nat Banihatti
(501) 379-1818. Design must provide a turn-out for vehicles that do not gain
entrance to the facility and provide adequate distance from the future edge of
pavement for stacking three vehicles.
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 information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will
be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development
will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact
Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
4
Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
At least 70% of the proposed land use buffer along the southern perimeter must
remain undisturbed. All areas required to be preserved must be protected with
temporary fencing.
Unless otherwise provided for, a 6-foot high opaque fence, either a wooden
fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is
required along the southern perimeter of the site.
Since this development is proposed to be built in phases, tree removal should be
limited to those areas being developed.
An irrigation system to water on-site landscaped areas along Baseline Road will
be required.
Landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will
be required prior to obtaining a building permit.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Randy Alberius was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an
overview of the request indicating the development was to be developed in three
phases. Staff stated the first phase included the advance clearing of a portion of
the site to allow for a materials “lay-down” yard for the steel to construct the first
phase of the building construction. Staff stated the developer then proposed to
construct all the hard surface areas and the buildings in the second phase of the
building construction. Staff stated screening would be required during all phases
of development.
Staff requested the applicant provide additional information concerning the
proposed signage plan. Staff stated the development would also be required an
opaque screening fence or the rear of the buildings could act as screening if
designed with no openings. Staff also stated each of the phases would need to
be coordinated with staff prior to any grading activities on the site to ensure
compliance.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed
development was to be gated but the site plan did not allow for a turn-around for
vehicles entering the site and not accessing the gate. Staff also stated the
indicated drive did not allow for stacking of vehicles waiting to enter the site.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
5
Staff noted the driveway was to be a maximum of 36-feet in width and located
near the center of the property. Mr. Alberius questioned the required location of
the driveway. Staff stated if the developer moved the drive to the west and more
centered on the property frontage, staff would be supportive of the placement.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed buffers
appeared to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff stated at least 70
percent of the southern perimeter buffer must remain as undisturbed and
protected with temporary fencing.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised at
the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the driveway and turn-around as requested by staff. The applicant has
indicated a single sign will be utilized not to exceed six feet in height and sixty
square feet in sign area. The ordinance for industrially zoned properties typically
allows for a sign area not to exceed seventy-two square feet in sign area and a
maximum of thirty feet in height. The indicated signage is acceptable per the
zoning ordinance.
The applicant has indicated building screening will be utilized upon final
completion of the development. The applicant has indicated screening will be
placed along the southern property line and adjacent to properties zoned or used
as residential. The applicant has also indicated the southern buffer will remain
as undisturbed per the zoning ordinance or at least 70 percent of the area will
remain undisturbed.
The proposed development includes the placement of 40 units containing 14-feet
by 50-feet, 64 units containing 14-feet by 40-feet and 70 units containing 12-feet
by 30-feet. The proposed development includes 176 total units upon build out.
The applicant has indicated approximately 30 percent building coverage and 20
percent of the site in landscaping and open space.
The development is proposed in three phases. The first phase will include the
clearing, grading and fencing of approximately 2.0 acres in the southwest corner
of the property. This area will be used as a storage and lay down area for
construction equipment and materials. The owner/developer will construct a
temporary privacy fence along the southern property line to screen the adjacent
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
6
R-2, Single-family district zoned properties. The developer also has indicated a
temporary access to the storage lay down area will be maintained. Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s request but would recommend the applicant
coordinate each of the phases with staff prior to construction to ensure
compliance with existing ordinances and approvals.
Phase 2 of the development will consist of the grading and clearing of the
remaining 4.75 acres and to construct (73) enclosed boat and RV storage units.
All paving and drainage will be constructed during the second phase. The
applicant is requesting open air storage for boats and RV’s in this area until the
beginning of Phase 3. In the third phase, the developer is proposing to remove
all improvements previously constructed in Phase I and to construct (97)
enclosed boat and RV storage units, completing the project. Staff is supportive
of the applicant’s phasing plan.
The proposed storage units will be metal buildings, with all doorways facing to
the interior of the project. The applicant has indicated the roof material will be
constructed of a painted material to be non-reflective.
The applicant has indicated all fencing will be chain link or ornamental iron
except in areas requiring year around screening. The applicant has indicated
fence heights will not exceed fence heights allowed in industrial zones or a
maximum of eight feet in height. All driveways and entrances will be concrete or
asphalt per existing City ordinances.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan. To Staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The applicant has
indicated the development of the site consistent with existing ordinance
requirements with regard to building height, setback, signage and buffering. Staff
feels the proposed development should have minimal impact on adjoining
properties if developed as indicted.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends each phase of development be coordinated between the
applicant and staff prior to development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no outstanding issues
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1456
7
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they had received one informational
phone call from an area resident concerning the proposed development. Staff stated
the applicant had met the minimum ordinance requirements for a site plan review under
the current ordinance. 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 Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: S-1457
NAME: Hampton Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Dixon Road and HWY 65/167
DEVELOPER:
Dr. Reginald J. Hampton
1714 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 17.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: Not zoned
PLANNING DISTRICT: 27 – Fish Creek Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 23, 2004 requesting this
item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of
this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had not resolved the issue related to the means of wastewater
disposal. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the December 2,
2004, Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve the issue related to the
proposed septic system and placement.
October 11, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1457
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
NAME: Tract 5 Chenal Valley – The Promenade at Chenal – Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Red Development Company
4717 Central
Kansas City, MO 64112
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 47.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 3200 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-2, Shopping Center District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST (APPLICANT’S STATEMENT):
The Promenade at Chenal, a 531,981 square foot open-air, life-style center, is
proposed to be located in Chenal Valley. The shopping center will be home to a
variety of upscale national, regional and local retailers, restaurants and
entertainment venues. The development is proposed to be anchored by a
155,000 square foot Dillard’s department store, the center will be designed in a
Gothic style. The open-air design of the center replicates a nostalgic Main Street
Shopping district. Vehicular access to the Main Street allows convenient parking
in front of the store or restaurant. Extensive sidewalks, landscaping and
hardscape will create a pedestrian-friendly environment ideal for shopping,
entertainment and socializing.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
2
The French Gothic design style will showcase buildings and steeply pitched slate
roof treatments punctuated by vertical elements such as masonry piers, tall
windows and decorative tower elements. Stone and brick square pillars will
anchor the entrance features and the corners of the buildings. The materials
used will be warm and earthly such as brick stone, precise stone, simulated
stucco and simulated slate roofs. With its refreshing openness and strong,
vertical lines, the shopping center reflects the heavily timbered landscape of the
Chenal Valley area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant wooded site on the west side of Chenal Parkway. Chenal
Parkway has been constructed as a four lane median roadway with curb and
gutter but without sidewalks adjacent to the proposed development. LaGrange
Drive has been constructed with curb and gutter adjacent to the southern
boundary of the property but also dose not have a sidewalk in place. Rahling
Road has not been constructed adjacent to the site but is proposed as a part of
the development. There are commercial and office uses located in the area
southeast and south of the site. To the north of the site is currently vacant and
zoned PCD.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Margeaux
Place Property Owners Association, the Duquesne Place Property Owners
Association, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Parkway
Place Property Owners Association, the St. Charles Community Association and
all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Existing and proposed right-of-way widths are adequate to meet current
Master Street Plan Requirements. Sidewalk improvements are shown as
required.
2. Rahling Road is classified as a principal arterial, however, construction is
shown to a minor arterial standard, which corresponds to Phase 1 standard
for a principal arterial. A third lane each direction will ultimately be required.
3. Repair or replace any existing curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
3
4. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
the start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-
of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
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 an approved prior to the
start of construction.
6. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property and the location of all storm water facilities. Show the
proposed final contours and critical cross sections of maximum cut and fill.
7. Street improvement plans shall be include signage and striping. Traffic
engineering must approve complete plans prior to construction.
8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpot) for additional information regarding street light
requirements.
9. A traffic study for the site is currently under review, and comments will be
provided under separate cover.
Traffic Comments:
1. Left turn lane into main entrance on west bound Chenal Parkway needs to
increase to 250 feet.
2. A 200 foot right turn lane needs to be added at both shopping center
entrances on east bound Chenal Parkway.
3. Shopping center entrances on La Grande Drive and Rahling Road need to be
increased to 36 feet.
4. A 200 foot right turn lane needs to be added at both shopping center
entrances along north bound Rahling Road.
5. Rahling Road needs 2 through lanes, 2 left turn lanes, and one right turn lane
at the intersection of Chenal Parkway.
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.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
4
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. A water main extension and on-
site fire protection will be required in order to provide service to this property.
Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and
contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the
hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional information.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: Current there is no bus service in the area. If the City elects to extend
bus service to this area, the cost would be approximately $200,000 annually for
full day and evening service. To accommodate future transit service to the
Promenade at Chenal Valley, CATA recommends that as part of the project a
bus pullout bay be added to allow the bus to pull out of traffic while loading,
enhancing both safety and traffic flow. The preferred location would connect
pedestrians directly to the shopping plaza via a sidewalk, minimizing the need to
walk through the parking lot. A bus pullout, however, could be constructed at
virtually any location along the streets surrounding the proposed shopping plaza.
The pathway from the bus stop to the main entrance should be developed with
ADA and pedestrian safety in mind. Please contact CATA at (501) 375-6717 for
additional information.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: The proposed street buffer width around the perimeter of the site is
less than the full width requirement of 50 feet, but with one exception, meets
ordinance requirements when averaged out. The one exception being the
proposed street buffer average width proposed along Rahling Road, which is
3,232 square feet short of the requirement.
Additional interior landscape islands are required to help soften the impact of
large areas of proposed asphalt. Interior landscape islands should be generally
evenly distributed throughout the on-site paved areas.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
5
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or
larger. A minimum of 75% of the dripline of trees to be preserved must be
protected with temporary fencing.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the request was a site plan
review to allow the placement of a commercial shopping center on the site. Staff
requested the applicant provide additional information concerning the proposed
development. Staff requested the applicant provide a detailed signage plan, the
proposed building coverage and the total floor area in the general notes section
of the site plan. Staff also requested the applicant provide a bus stop for CATA
to access the site. Staff noted CATA had submitted a more detailed request and
the applicant should contact them directly for additional information.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed site plan
indicated the development of boundary street improvements and the placement
of additional traffic signals on the site. Staff stated clearing and grading permits
would be required for the site and approved prior to construction. Staff
questioned if the development would be constructed in phases. The applicant
stated the development would be constructed in a single phase.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the indicated landscaping
around the perimeter of the site was less than the full width requirement of fifty
feet, but with one exception, the indicated buffer met ordinance requirements
when average out. Staff stated the one exception was the proposed street buffer
average width along Rahling Road was 3,232 square feet short of the
requirement. Staff also stated interior landscaping islands were required to help
soften the impact of large pave areas. Staff stated the interior landscape islands
should be evenly distributed through the site.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided a detailed signage plan, maximum building height, total
floor area and total building coverage. The applicant has indicated four 50-foot
tower elements and three 60-foot tower elements. The Zoning Ordinance allow
steeples, chimneys or similar ornamental structure to be constructed provided
the structure does not exceed twice the height permitted in the classification.
The site is zoned C-2, Shopping Center District with allows a maximum building
height of 45-feet. The indicated structures are within the allowable height for
C-2, Shopping Center District zoning.
The applicant has indicated all mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. The applicant has also indicated the low
architectural walls will be faced with stone or brick and conform to the general
architectural theme of the center.
The applicant has addressed landscaping comments by increasing the street
buffer along Rahling Road to meet the minimum ordinance requirement. The
applicant has also included landscape islands within the development to soften
the impact of the on site paved area. The applicant has not included the
placement of pedestrian tables to allow for safe pedestrian movement within the
development. Staff would recommend pedestrian tables be added to the site to
allow safe movement and connectivity throughout the site.
The proposed site plan includes the placement of 3079 parking spaces. There
are 2379 surface parking spaces and 700 deck parking spaces. Based on the
total retail square footage of the site 2364 parking spaces would typically be
required. The indicated parking is more than adequate to meet the minimum
parking demand.
The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Chenal Parkway Design
Overlay District and signage allowed in commercial zones per the Zoning
Ordinance. The Chenal/Financial Center Design Overlay District allows a single
sign not to exceed one hundred square feet in area and eight feet in height. In
cases where a parcel fronts on two streets one sign per different street may be
erected. The signs are to be monument type signs. The applicant has indicated
façade signage, over-door transom signage and blade signage (required). The
total sign area and lettering height is based on the tenant space leased by the
retailer but less than typically allowed per the zoning ordinance for signs in
commercial zones.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
7
The applicant has indicated the maximum building coverage of 429,353 square
feet or twenty-one percent of the total site area.
The applicant has indicated a bus pull-off located along LaGrande Drive. The
applicant has indicated pedestrian access will be provided per CATA’s request
and comply fully with ADA requirements.
The applicant has indicated additional lanes per Traffic Comments. The
applicant has increased the length of the left turn lane into the main entrance on
the east and west bound traffic lanes. The applicant has also indicated turn
lanes along Rahling Road as requested by staff.
The applicant is requesting approval of the creation of a five lot plat with cross
access easements in conjunction with the site plan review. The applicant has
indicated the lots range in size from 1.17 acres to 36.29 acres. Property zoned
C-2, Shopping Center District typically requires a minimum lot size of five acres,
except in those instances where a subdivision site plan and plat proposing
peripheral lots and multiple ownership is approved by the Commission. The
ordinance further states there shall be not less than three hundred feet of district
frontage on at least one abutting street, whether for single or multiple building/lot
development. Proposed Lots 1 – 3 do not appear to meet the minimum lot
frontage criteria established for the zoning district. The lots appear to be 260-
feet plus. Staff does not feel the reduced lot frontage will have any adverse
impact on adjoining properties. Although the lots are located on a public street,
the indicated lots do not have direct access to the roadway through a curb-cut.
Staff feels the serving of these lots by internal drives will lessen any potential
negative impact on the adjacent roadway. Staff is supportive of the reduced lot
frontage.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan and proposed preliminary plat. Staff
feels the applicant has met most of the minimum requirements with regard to a
zoning site plan review for the proposed site with regard to landscaping, access
and circulation, signage, maximum building height and parking. To Staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
request. Staff feels the proposed development should have minimal impact on
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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with less than the required 300-foot minimum street frontage.
Staff recommends additional pedestrian tables be added to the site to allow safe
pedestrian connectivity through the site.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5936-C
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff stated the development was a site plan review request and the applicant
had meet the minimum ordinance standards for the review process.
Mr. Daters stated he was requesting to amend his application and place an additional
condition of approval. He stated when the areas of transition between the cuts and fills
were determined the developer would survey and locate all the trees in these areas.
Mr. Daters stated they would then take all necessary steps to save the identified trees.
He stated the developer would also incorporate hardwood species in their replanting of
landscaped areas.
Ms. Dottie Funk addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated the current
ordinance did not require the preservation of trees on site. She stated she appreciated
the developer commitment to not “mow down” all the trees on the site if possible. She
stated the ordinances were adopted six years ago with a lot of work between citizens,
staff and the Commission. She stated it was possibly time to review the ordinances to
see if there were areas that needed refining.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-7721
NAME: Selman Multisectional Manufactured Home –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 19105 Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynnah Selman
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
placement of a multi-sectional manufactured home on
this R-2 zoned, 5-acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of Colonel Glenn Road, just east
of Burlingame Road. The property is outside of the city limits, near the
western boundary of the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The general area is very rural in nature. The primary land uses are single
family homes on larger tracts and large areas of undeveloped, wooded
properties. This site is located within a mixed use node established
around the Colonel Glenn/Burlingame intersection. A commercial
electronics company is located on the PCD tract adjacent to the east. A
small apartment complex is adjacent to the west. An office use is located
on the C-1 zoned property to the northwest. The C-1 zoned property to
the northeast contains a vacant commercial building. Other uses in the
area include two churches and a cemetery. The area contains both site-
built and manufactured homes. The proposed use should be compatible
with uses in the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of this request. There
is no neighborhood association in this area.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains an existing, gravel driveway. There is sufficient area
available for the area required on-site parking space.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7721
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met. Approval of City of Little Rock
Planning is required prior to obtaining water service.
Fire Department: Outside of Little Rock Fire Department service
boundary. Provide comments from local Volunteer Fire Department,
which services this area.
County Planning: No Comments received; check with Pulaski County
Planning. Contact David Harris at 340-8260.
CATA: No comments; outside of service area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 16, 2004)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and noted the Utility and
Fire Department Comments. Staff also noted the requirement that placement of
the home comply with the siting criteria of Section 36-254(d)(5) of the Code.
The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the
item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has recently placed a 28’ X 80’ multisectional manufactured home
on the R-2 zoned, 5-acre tract located at 19105 Colonel Glenn Road. The
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7721
3
property is located outside of the city limits, near the western boundary of the
City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. The applicant was not aware of the requirement
to comply with the City’s Zoning regulations. On June 10, 2004, the applicant
applied for water service and was denied by the City’s Zoning Enforcement Staff
because no C.U.P. had been approved. On August 4, 2004, the applicant
applied for this C.U.P.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. The home is a newer model with vinyl
siding and a pitched, shingled roof. Placement of the home well exceeds the
setback requirement for the R-2 zoning district. The Health Department has
approved the septic system. The proposed home is not out of character with
other development in the overall area. The property is not within a subdivision
and is not covered by a bill of assurance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Central Arkansas Water Comments in Section 6 of
the Staff Report.
2. Written approval must be obtained from the volunteer fire department
serving this area prior to release of water.
3. Compliance with the following siting criteria from Section 36-254(d)(5) of
the Code:
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.
4. Approval must be obtained from Pulaski County Planning.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7721
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “Staff Recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5522-A
NAME: St. Mark’s Episcopal Church Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 1000 Mississippi Avenue
DEVELOPER:
St. Mark’s Episcopal Church/Crave Creative Catering
1000 North Mississippi
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 14.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2 - CUP
ALLOWED USES: Church Facility
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Church facility and a commercial catering service
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 21.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone this existing church site to PD-O to allow a
commercial catering company to operate from the existing church kitchen
facilities. The applicant has indicated there will not be any exterior modifications
to the structure and there will not be any activities on the site other than the
preparation and cooking of the food. The applicant has stated there will not be
any consumption of food or pick-up service available on the premises. The
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-A
2
applicant has also indicated the days and hours of operation will be limited to
normal business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm daily with the exception of special
events. The applicant has indicated there will be no more than four employees of
the business and no more than four vehicles parked on the site during operation.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing church with several buildings and activities on the
site. The kitchen is existing and is located near the parking area long the west
side of the building. There are single-family uses located to the south and west
of the site and across Mississippi Avenue to the east. To the north of the site is
also a church facility. Evergreen Street is located along the northern boundary,
which has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard. Mississippi Avenue
is located on the eastern boundary of the property and has also been constructed
to Master Street Plan standard.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and all residents
located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the
public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the
area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available. Food preparation requires grease trap review
and approval. 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: Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an
approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is
required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to
the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-A
3
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by
a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within
ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at
992-2431 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this
project. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Public/Institutional for this property. The
applicant has applied for a PD-O to operate a small commercial catering facility
out of an existing kitchen. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the
Land Use Plan that would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan: Mississippi Street is shown as a Minor Arterial, and
Evergreen Drive and ‘H’ Street are shown as Collectors on the Master Street
Plan. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements.
‘H’ Street is shown as a Class III bikeway east of the site. A Class III bikeway is
an on street bikeway with special signage and on existing vehicle area with no
separation from vehicular traffic. This development will not affect the Class III
bikeway.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The neighborhood
action plan mentioned no aspects directly related to this case.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating a commercial catering facility
was proposing to use the existing kitchen facility located in the church. Staff
stated there would not be any additional building construction or parking
construction to allow the business to operate on the site. Staff also stated there
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-A
4
would not be any activity on the site other than preparation and cooking of the
food.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated there will not be any additional building construction or
paving on the site. The applicant has indicated the commercial catering facility
will utilize the existing church facilities kitchen for food preparation only. The
church is also requesting the allowance all previously approved uses in their
original CUP be allowed to continue to take place on the site. Staff is supportive
of this request.
Staff feels the applicant’s proposal for cooking, preparing and delivering food
items to customer, and preparing food trays to include hot and cold items will not
have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties. The site will not generate
any customer traffic which staff feels is a plus. The applicant has indicated there
will not be consumption or pick-up service available on the premise. The
applicant has also indicated there will not be any additional signage as a part of
the development. Staff feels this is appropriate since no customer traffic will be
taking place on the site.
Staff is supportive of the proposed allowance of a commercial catering facility on
the site. To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed request should have minimal
impact on 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 staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the PD-O zoning stating the
zoning was to be limited to a church and a commercial catering facility as was proposed
in the applicant's request. Staff stated there was to be no pick-up service or
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5522-A
5
consumption of food on the site. Staff stated that the objectors requested a condition
that if the property was not used as a church the property would revert to R-2, Single-
family. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no other outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. 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 and the reversion to R-2 on the conditions requested by the
objectors.
Mr. Randy Frazier stated he had worked with staff to address the neighbors concerns.
He stated his clients did not feel comfortable rezoning 27+ acres to PD-O without a
revocation clause. He stated with the stipulation of the scope of the catering facility
being limited and the revocation of the PD-O zoning in the event the property is no
longer used as a church addressed his and the neighbors concerns.
Mr. Charles Fogle stated his concerns had been addressed with the condition placed on
the site reverting to single-family.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
NAME: Arkansas Teachers Retirement Revised Long-form PRD – Lot 6
LOCATION: Located on the East side of Chenal Valley Drive, just North of
Rahling Road
DEVELOPER:
ATRSRP, LLC
c/o Chris Barrier
425 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 72.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 2300
CURRENT ZONING: PRD
ALLOWED USES: Retirement Village Development
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PRD
PROPOSED USE: Retirement Village Development – Lot 6 Nursing Home
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,163 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 20,
1999, rezoned the site from R-2 and MF-18 to PRD to allow the establishment of a
Planned Residential Development titled Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village – Long-
form PRD. The proposal included the rezoning of 71.9 acres from R-2 and MF-18 to
PRD to allow for the development of the Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village, a
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
2
stepped-care retirement facility. The development would house retired persons with
facilities including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and
Alzheimer facilities.
There were 23 independent living cottages located within the western portion of the
property, with the main retirement center located within the center and eastern portions
of the property. The following was a synopsis of the proposed project:
Main Facility
Independent living – 300 units, 4 stories
Assisted living – 100 units, 4 stories
Skilled nursing facility – 100 beds, 2 stories
Alzheimer facility – 30 beds, 1 story
Village Center and Activities – 44,000 square feet, 1 story
523 parking spaces
Independent Living Cottages:
23 cottages
Cottage garages – 34 parking spaces
On-street visitor parking at cottages 46 spaces
A single access point from Chenal Valley Drive was proposed, with a fire lane access at
the southwest corner of the property, near the cottages. The proposed site plan
indicated a large amount of green space, which was to be undisturbed, along with a
proposed lake, walking trails and a lakeside pavilion.
In March of 2002, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System decided to reevaluate the
project. ATRS decided to proceed with excavating to the finished grade indicated and
approved on the site grading plan, extending sewer lines to the site, drainage
construction, seeding and erosion control, power and telephone utility crossing the site
were installed underground and no additional trees were to be removed from the site
except those necessary to install utilities. A restoration plan was submitted to the City
for approval. The applicant adhered to City’s requirements in the restoration of the site
and the developer’s obligations were met.
A proposal was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Little Rock Planning
Commission at their August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to allow two of the indicated lots to
develop with the retirement village concept. The applicant proposed the development
of the site with eight individual lots through a preliminary plat in conjunction with the
request to revise the PRD zoning. The applicant indicated Lot 2 would be developed as
an assisted living facility. Proposed Lot 8 was indicated for garden style patio homes.
The applicant also indicated all uses would remain similar to the multi-unit residential
retirement facility as approved on the original PRD.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
3
The Board of Directors is scheduled to hear the revision request for Lots 2 and 8 at their
October 5, 2004, Public Hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved PRD to allow a
nursing and rehabilitation center to locate on Lot 6. Chenal Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center is proposed as a one hundred-fourteen bed skilled nursing
facility. Chenal will be licensed by the State of Arkansas Department of Human
Service, Office of Long Term Care. Chenal will be approved by the Federal
Government Agency, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.
The facility will be affiliated with Arkansas Hospice. The plans are for a twelve
bed hospice wing staffed by Arkansas Hospice nursing personnel. This wing will
have a separate entrance. The purpose is to be able to offer specialized
services and support to patients who are actively dying and their family
members. This has been a successful affiliation with the applicant’s facility,
Lincoln Plaza Nursing Center of Lonoke, Arkansas.
Chenal Nursing and Rehabilitation Center will offer the full range of services
required by nursing home patients with the exception of those requiring
respirators. The skilled nursing staff will assess and evaluate the individualized
care and treatment plan for all levels of patient care, including but not limited to
the assessment and observation of the minimum, ambulatory care patient,
assessment, monitoring and administration of medications, including injections,
assessment, monitoring and administration of artificial fluids including vascular
access devices, intravenous therapy, feeding tubes, nursing care will provide
oversight of bathing, dressing and grooming to total care by nursing staff of
bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting and modes of transportation, i.e.,
wheelchair, geriatric chairs, wound care, surgical dressings and treatment will be
provided as prescribed and required of the patient by nursing and physical
therapy.
In addition to routine nursing home care required by the patients, rehabilitation
services will be offered to include: physical therapy, speech therapy,
occupational therapy, audiology, hydro-therapy. A chapel will be available for
psychological support services. A licensed beauty shop and beautician will be
available with full range salon services; barber, hair styling, manicure, pedicure,
and all hair dressing.
There will be three well balanced, nourishing meals and snacks prepared by a
full restaurant style kitchen. The registered dietitian and a licensed dietary
supervisor will work together to provide menus to include special and restorative
diets as prescribed by the patient’s physician.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
4
Other amenities offered by Chenal Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, will include
whirlpool baths with lift, individual heating and cooling units, cable television,
private telephone service, laundry and linen services, daily housing keeping,
transportation to medical and dental appointments, outdoor excursions and
shopping, computerized security system for the wandering patient, emergence
call-light system.
The development will include 90 staff positions. The day shift will require
approximately thirty-four staff and consultants. The evening shift will require
approximately twenty-seven staff and consultants. The night shift will require
approximately fifteen staff. This includes Arkansas Hospice Staff.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site and most of the interior trees were cleared as a part of
the original approval. The applicant did replant several interior trees and reseed
the site as a part of the restoration plan. A regional detention facility is located
near Chenal Valley Drive.
Chenal Valley Drive has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard with
curb and gutter. There is not a sidewalk in place along the property frontage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place
Property Owners Association, Margeaux Place Property Owners Association, all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents located within
300-feet of the site who could be identified were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
This review pertains to Lots 2 and 6 -
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock code and the Master Street Plan on Chenal
Valley Drive and in the new subdivision.
2. 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 must be submitted and approved prior to the start
of construction.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
5
3. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpot) for additional information regarding street light
requirements.
4. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.
a. For Lots 2: If driveways are to be located near the property line, the
lots must share a single driveway access centered on the property line.
The width of driveway most not exceed 36-feet.
b. For Lot 6: The northern-most driveway must intersect perpendicular to
the street and be located at least 200-feet from the adjacent street
right-of-way. For the southern- most drive, no cross-over intersections
are allowed within 75-feet of the adjacent right-of-way. In addition,
sufficient spacing and radius most be provided to allow vehicles to
enter and exit without entering opposing lanes.
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.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be
private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be
installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State
of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required.
Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and
contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the
hydrant(s). Locations of water mains are different than shown on the plans.
Central Arkansas Water waterline and access easements are not shown.
Exchange easements will be required if facilities and access are relocated.
Required relocation or adjustment of water facilities would be done at the
expense of the developer. A maximum of five (5) feet of cover and minimum of
30-inches of cover will be allowed over the existing water mains. If the Central
Arkansas Water communication line across this site needs to be relocated that
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
6
work also will be done at the expense of the developer. Water service and
access to facilities must be maintained with no interuption during construction of
this development. 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 Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Multifamily for this property. The applicant has applied for
a Revised PRD to build a 114-bed nursing home. The request is consistent with
the original PRD application, which is reflected by the current Land Use Plan
Map. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Rahling Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Minor
Arterial street and is built to Minor Arterial standards with four lanes and a raised
median. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and
their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area.
Chenal Valley Drive is shown as a Collector. A Collector’s purpose is to connect
traffic from Local Streets to Minor Arterials with a secondary function of providing
access to adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements for turn lanes.
A Class I Bikeway is shown on Rahling Road from Chenal Parkway to Taylor
Loop Road. A Class III Bikeway is shown on Chenal Valley Drive from Chenal
Parkway to Rahling Road. The bikeways shown will not be affected by this
development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: The proposed driveway, and a portion of the proposed parking lot,
project over into the required 18 ½ foot wide minimum on-site street buffer area
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
7
along the sites southern perimeter. The full width requirement average, in this
area, is 37-feet.
Unless otherwise provided for, 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 residentially zoned property to the
north.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating the
development was to allow a nursing home on proposed Lot 6 of the Arkansas
Teachers Retirement property. Staff stated there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide
the total building area in the general notes section of the site plan. Staff also
requested the applicant provide a detailed signage plan. Staff questioned the
treatment of the perimeter of the site, including materials and techniques
proposed to screen adjoining properties.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated drives for
Lots 2 and 6 should be shared drives and located on the property lines. Staff
also stated the drive may not exceed 36-feet in width. Staff stated a grading
permit would be required prior to any land clearing on the site. Staff stated
sidewalks would be required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock
code and the Master Street Plan.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated parking lot
projected over into the required 18 and ½ foot wide minimum on-site street buffer
along the southern perimeter. Staff also stated screening would be required to
help screen the property from the residentially zoned property to the north.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
8
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the building will be a single story building. The applicant
has indicated the total lot area for the proposed development as 1.04 acres. The
applicant has indicated 121 parking spaces will be provided. The typical
minimum parking required for a facility of this type would be one space per bed
or 114 parking spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the
minimum parking required.
The applicant is requesting the screening required to the north of the site not be
put in place. The applicant has indicated 209-feet of “yard area” between the
property line and the property located to the north of the site. The applicant has
also provided a letter from the owner of the property to the north stating they are
not opposed to the elimination of the screening. The property located to the
north is very steep terrain and the intent of the owner (Chenal Properties) is to
maintain this area as open space. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has redesigned the driveways to conform to Public Works
comments. The applicant has indicated drives will be shared for proposed Lot 2
and has relocated the drive for proposed Lot 6 away from the intersection. Staff
is supportive of the drives and the proposed placement of the drives.
The applicant has indicated two sign locations. The signs are proposed as
monument style signs 100-square feet in area and a maximum of eight feet in
height. Staff is supportive of the indicated signage. The total sign area is
consistent with signage allowed in the nearby Chenal/Financial Center Design
Overlay.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the placement of a
nursing home facility in this retirement village community should not have a
negative impact on adjoining properties and to staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to not require screening to
the north of the proposed development for Lot 6.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6532-C
9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they felt the development carried on
the overall concept of a retirement village as was previously proposed. 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 not require screening to the
north of proposed Lot 6.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-7720
NAME: Denison – Bailey Creative Arts Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 1517 – 1611 Wright Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Denison-Bailey Land Company, LLC
9 Covewood Circle
Little Rock, AR 72204-5928
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.98 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-6, High Rise Apartment District
ALLOWED USES: Multi-family – not to exceed 72 units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Creative Arts Studio and Loft Apartments
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
According to the applicant the rational for the development is two-fold. Firstly,
the supporters of the development strongly believe that there is a dire need to
provide a venue for the repair and adaptive reuse of discarded furniture, light
fixtures and small appliances for consumer use. From an environmentally
friendly standpoint, the community needs to be sensitive about the overburdened
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720
2
landfills that serve the City according to the applicant. It is a more serious need
when these discarded items clutter the curbs of our streets crating an
unacceptable appearance in our neighborhoods, as well as, causing additional
expense for pickup by the City.
As a creative solution to be dilemma, the applicant is proposing to provide at the
center a workshop environment where skilled craft persons can train less skilled
and physically handicapped persons in the small scale production and repair of
furniture, light fixtures and small appliances. All training in the small scale
production will occur in a spacious, functional (fully handicapped accessible), and
entirely enclosed workshop environment.
The second aspect of the center is to provide a functional and efficient space for
the applicant’s present business requirements that includes the design and
production of ceramics and needlecrafts. Training shall be provided in ceramics
and needlecrafts will be offered to the same clientele as mentioned above. The
applicant and family members have fifty years plus experience in
design/production, and building crafts industry and have maintained a reputation
for the quality of their work. The applicant would like to share their experience
with the community by giving back through training to those who have assisted
them in the past. The finished products will be displayed for sale in a formal
showroom. The future development includes a loft apartment above the design
studio. Long range plans include the development of four additional units on the
site to possible house handicapped students enrolled in the Centre.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with the exception of an existing wood frame home located on
one of the six lots. There is a steep grade change from Wright Avenue. There is
a narrow functioning alley located to the south of the site. There is a nightclub to
the east of the site and a funeral home to the west of the site. To the south of the
site are residential uses; both single-family and duplex housing. To the north of
the site, along Wright Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive, are residential
and non-residential uses. There is a produce stand located at the northwest
corner of Wright Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Central High Neighborhood
Association, the Wright Avenue 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. As of this writing
staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Wright Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. According
to the survey, an additional 5-feet would be required.
2. Repair or replace and curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approve prior to the
start of construction.
4. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development.
5. The only access proposed to the site is through an existing one lane alley.
The platted alley width is 20-feet. Widen and improve the alley to 18-feet
pavement width for two way traffic.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required
for project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility 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. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide adequate fire protection to this property. Additional fire
hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain
information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central
Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This
development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720
4
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 Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Short Form PCD for a variety of uses including a small appliance
repair shop, live-work units, and an artist studio. The request does not require a
change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Wright Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a
Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban
area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area. This section of Wright Avenue has special design standards.
These 'special' design standards are a Right-of-Way of 60 feet and a three-lane
section with additional requirements at major intersections. This property is not
located near a major intersection but may require dedication of right-of-way and
street / sidewalk improvements.
Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate
vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: The proposed landscape areas within the interior of the on-site
paved area is less than the 542 square feet requirement by 97 square feet. This
requirement takes into account the reduction allowed within the designated
mature area of the city.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating the applicant was requesting a
mixed use development to include residential and commercial activities. Staff
stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process.
Staff requested the applicant provide details of the proposed construction
materials including the treatment of the rear of the building. Staff also requested
the applicant provide a detailed signage plan including any proposed building
signage and any ground mounted signage. Staff stated the proposed dumpster
would require screening and requested the applicant provide a note concerning
the proposed screening on the site plan.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way
would be required along Wright Avenue. Staff also noted the existing alley was
not sufficient for two lane automobile traffic. Staff requested the applicant
provide additional paving adjacent to their property to 18-feet of pavement to
increase the width of the alley.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed landscape
areas within the interior appeared to be less than the 542 square feet required by
ordinance by 97 square feet. Staff stated the indicated areas did take into
account the reduction allowed within the designated mature area.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 16, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the construction dates as requested by staff. The
applicant has stated construction is anticipated to begin in early 2005 and be
completed by late 2005. The applicant has also indicated signage for the
proposed development. The applicant has indicated building signage will be the
primary signage. The applicant has indicated a wall mounted sign on the Wright
Avenue façade. The applicant has indicated the sign will be approximately six
feet wide and two feet high. Wall signage typically allowed in commercial zones
is a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. The indicated signage is less
than signage typically allowed. The applicant has also indicated the proposed
screening of the dumpster consistent with dumpster screening per the zoning
ordinance.
The applicant has indicated the building will be constructed of concrete block,
natural stone, metal fascia panels and a standing seam metal roof. The Centre
is proposed as a 6,150 square foot metal framed arts and crafts workshop on a
concrete slab with an upper level loft living apartment. The future loft apartments
will be constructed of similar architecture. The applicant is also proposing the
placement of an outdoor arts/crafts studio along the eastern and western sides of
the building. The applicant proposes the placement of a six foot chain link fence
along the eastern property line for security.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 15 on-site parking spaces. A retail
development based on the indicated square footage would typically require 20
on-site parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the indicated parking. Staff feels
15 parking spaces should adequately address the potential parking demand
since the applicant has indicated the desire to reach out to the community, which
should allow area residents to walk to the Centre for instruction.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720
6
The applicant has indicated the alley adjoining their property will be paved per
staff’s comments to an eighteen foot alleyway to allow for two way traffic. Staff
feels with the addition of the paving on this existing 20-foot alleyway, there
should be adequate travel lanes and allow for emergency and non-emergency
services access to the site. There is no access proposed to Wright Avenue.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation from 9:00 am to
5:00 pm Monday through Friday and on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays by
appointment only. Staff supports the proposed hours of operation.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The proposed development is
located in an area shown as Mixed Use on the City’s Future Land Use Plan.
Staff feels the placement of a mixed-use development of residential and
commercial and the indicated proposed hours of operation should not have a
significant 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 staff report.
There is to be no outdoor display of merchandise including finished and
unfinished furniture and appliances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated to
their knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
request. Staff stated they had only received informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed request. Staff stated they felt the development of a
commercial center and loft residential units on the site should have minimal impact on
the adjoining properties. 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 stated there was to be no outdoor display of merchandise including
finished and unfinished furniture and appliances.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7722
NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and “I” Street
DEVELOPER:
Lagniappe Addition, LLC
2106 Beechwood
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential – currently six platted lots
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential – four lots proposed
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance –
1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a
reduced width of a pipe stem lot.
2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15-feet).
3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive.
4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 – 4 (5-feet).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six
lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD-R. The applicant
has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from “I” Street
near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
2
minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being
requested along “I” Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side
yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also
requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the
indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners
as well as the existing homeowners in the area.
The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be
2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the
construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The
applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding,
antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows
and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood
shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique
gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps.
The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The
stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to “I” Street with 16-feet of pavement
and a 30-foot access and utility easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots
abutting “I” Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. “I” Street is a narrow
roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by
single-family homes located on 50-foot by 150-foot lots; many of the homes
sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family
home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of
property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents located within 300-
feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for
operation or private property.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
3
2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or
sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of “I” Street prior to
occupancy.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start
of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east
property boundary.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required
for the project. Contact 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: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to
allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact
the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required
placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor
impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas
Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
4
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights-Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four
single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the
Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: ‘I’ and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the
Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary
purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street
extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street
standards.
Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate
vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that
“overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving
the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood.” The second goal is: “the city's land-
use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique
neighborhood scale “ and the third goal is “Advance the possibilities of the
Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock.” New
development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing
neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area.
Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce the possibility of
neighborhood deterioration. The Public Infrastructure goal states “…Hillcrest
should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum
long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and
desirability of the neighborhood.” A primary objective of this goal is: “Street
geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented
neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the
original neighborhood.” This goal is supported by numerous action statements:
“The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following
principles… 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the
pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network
are integral parts of the transportation system.” Also the Public Infrastructure
goal addresses new construction standards. “The following street standards are
recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In
all cases where improvements are made to street segments, the cross section
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
5
should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2)
Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of
curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet with parking allowed on
both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood-wide standard on both sides of a
street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at
least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of
varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way
require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated
pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets
shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15)
miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per
hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials.” All streets affected or
created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood
Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest
Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest
streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously
platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood
and have an access drive to serve the new homes.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received
several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed
development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed
homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a
typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also
stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right-
of-way.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would
not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should
be designed to a standard 80-foot cul-de-sac or tee-type turnaround. Mr. White
stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale
development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He
stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire
protection. Mr. White stated all other services would be received at “I” Street.
Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in-lieu contribution was being
requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
6
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
impact on traffic in the area. It was stated “I” Street was a narrow roadway and
currently it was impossible to pass on “I” Street when trucks were parked. Mr.
White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per
Master Street Plan requirements.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments
suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There
was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum
square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not
wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative
ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The
applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a
typical building footprint on the proposed site plan.
The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be
2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the
construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The
applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding,
antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows
and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood
shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique
gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps.
The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16-feet of pavement and a 30-
foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire
department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the
indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage
collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the
placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant
has indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with
evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll
their container to the street for collection and return the container to the
receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be
handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on “I” Street for all four
proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those
proposed in the new home construction.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
7
The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The
applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a
fifteen foot building line along “I” Street. The applicant has indicated the side
yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically
requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard
setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s requested reduced setbacks. The indicated
setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area.
The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and
side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a
maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening
fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home
owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to place an
eight foot fence in the indicated area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the
redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot
development and two tracts through a PD-R. There are two tracts proposed
within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property
owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has
indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from “I” Street near
the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the
proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically
requires to width of the stem to be 30-feet. The indicated 10-foot pipe stem
would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem
to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems
are proposed as ten feet adjacent to “I” Street with 16-feet of pavement and a 30-
foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted
lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to place an eight foot fence
along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots.
Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of
a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe
stem.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
8
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested variance to allow a
reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested variance to allow a
reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow the development
of lots with a private access drive.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There
were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of
approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a
request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the
development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met
with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan.
She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the
suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been
located on the site and if possible they were to be saved. She stated the materials in
the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been
concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and
two car driveway.
Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on
the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and
two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well
with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in-fill development.
Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she
was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the
development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was
best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing
trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight-foot fence being placed on the
property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested.
Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed
development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his
clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on
the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more
acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in-fill development which typically
did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
9
over-fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from
the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the
intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns
with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the
residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the
developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the
proposed development.
Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was
dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the
development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on “I” Street.
Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated his home was at 4305 “I” Street and his desire was to preserve the
neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of
the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware
of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development
would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated “I” Street was currently
22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there
was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed
but with 2 homes, not 4 homes.
Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of
character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart
not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements
redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would
double on “I” Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two
homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment
would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side
yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32-feet. He stated the developers
have given the residents a “kinda looks like” but no assurance of how the development
would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated.
Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He
questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40-foot drop from the
front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street
and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer
the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer.
Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a
profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of
character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722
10
handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the
Commission deny the request for development as proposed.
Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct
one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as
proposed.
Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed
them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October
11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the
meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand.
Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes
would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted
as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated
the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White
stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other
area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years.
Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a
deferral until additional information could be obtained.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of
property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers
would be willing to take a two week deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve
the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by
a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-4644-C
NAME: Yelenich Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 2000 and 2010 South University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Marc Yelenich
110 South Shore Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 S. Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 10+ Acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses)
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses) – Placement
of banners of decorative light poles.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission provided a
recommendation of approval of a request for a two lot subdivision as a part of a PCD
request. On Lot 1, the applicant proposed the placement of 90,000 square feet of self-
storage, mini-warehouse. The applicant proposed a 2-story 2,400 square foot resident
manager’s office as a part of the development. The units would be ground level single
story units. Approximately 25% of the units would be climate controlled units.
Lot 2 consisted of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3, General Commercial
District uses being requested. There were approximately 10 individual business bays
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4644-C
2
within the development, however, the interior walls would be moveable to accommodate
various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants. The
applicant requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot in addition to
proposed signage for Lot 1. The sign would be located near the driveway at be
approximately 10-feet by 15-feet or 150 square feet in area. The applicant proposed a
LED reader board as part of the signage. The applicant indicated the building façade
would have sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification.
The Board of Directors approved the PCD request on January 21, 2003, with the
adoption of Ordinance No. 18,810.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise his previously approved PCD to allow the
placement of banners on the decorative light poles within the development. The
applicant has indicated the banners will be located on seven of the light poles
within the parking lot. The banner bars would allow up to three feet wide by five
feet tall seasonal banners (i.e.) Holidays, Christmas, Fourth of July, Easter,
Thanksgiving.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has developed with two mini-warehouse buildings and a strip retail center.
The area to the east of the site is vacant and tree covered with the area to the
southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension Service Center. Uses to the north
of the site are commercial type uses such as check cashing, liquor store and
restaurants. Uses to the south and west of the site are single-family residences of
the Boardmoore and Point O’ Woods neighborhoods.
South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this
location. Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the north
at Boyle Park Road. Currently there are plans to widen South University Avenue.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Broadmore Neighborhood Association, the Curran-Conway Neighborhood
Association, the Oak Forest Neighborhood Association, the Point O Woods
Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the
site and all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified
were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any
comment from area residents.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4644-C
3
D. ANALYSIS:
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff does not feel the placement of
banners on the decorative light poles will have any negative impact on the
adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated the banners will not be used as
advertising only to add character to the development and greet customers with
seasonal messages. The zoning ordinance does not allow the placement of
banners without special approval. The applicant is requesting the revision to the
PCD to allow the placement. All other aspects of the previously approved
development will remain. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the placement of banners on
the light poles within the development subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. The banners are not to contain any advertising including the name of any
business on the site.
2. The banners must be properly maintained. Any banner that is damaged
must be immediately removed or replaced.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant failed to notify property owners as required by the Planning
Commission By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the
December 2, 2004 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: LU04-01-06
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: SWC Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive
Request: Transition to Commercial
Source: McGetrick, Pat
On September 24, 2004, the applicant asked to defer the request for six weeks.
Staff recommends deferral to the December 2, 2004 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 2,
2004 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.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 19.1 FILE NO.: Z-6219-B
NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long-form POD
LOCATION: on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive
DEVELOPER:
HWY 107 Associates, LLC
3801 Woodland Heights
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 7.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Office/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 23, 2004 requesting this
item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of
this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September 23 2004, requesting the
item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were
supportive of the applicant’s request.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-3326-E
NAME: Pulaski Bank Short-form POD
LOCATION: 12719 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Pulaski Bank and Trust Company
5800 “R” Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET:
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
ALLOWED USES: Office and Institutional uses
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: Bank, Mortgage Company and all allowable O-2 Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
According to the applicant, Pulaski Bank desires to be a part of Little Rock’s
growth and progress which has brought them to begin to build their newest
branch and commercial lease facility at Highway 10 and Sam Peck. The building
contains space that has been leased to Pulaski Mortgage Company, Lender’s
Title Company and contains an additional 2,500 square feet of ground-floor
space for lease.
Pulaski Mortgage will occupy the entire second floor of the building, which will
house the headquarters for its operations in 8 states and will provide office space
for 50 employees. Lender’s Title will occupy one-third of the first floor with six
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3326-E
2
employees and Pulaski Bank will occupy one-third of the first floor with eight
employees to conduct retail and commercial banking.
Pulaski Bank is requesting a rezoning of the property from O-2, to POD with O-2
uses as permitted uses. This would allow the bank to have street signage
measuring 100 square feet and 10 feet in height versus 72 sure feet and six feet
in height. The change of the zoning to POD from O-2 will allow the property to
have street signage for the Bank and the building tenants visible from the street
while remaining within a size that is common in the overlay area. Examples of
businesses in the area that have the size of sign being requested are
Metropolitan National Bank, Pleasant Ridge West, Westside Plaza and Kroger.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Construction is almost complete on the new bank facility located on the
southeast corner of Sam Peck and Cantrell Road. The site to the west of the
bank is currently vacant but was recently approved for a POD to allow the
development of an office/retail center. North of the site are non-residential uses
including two office buildings and a church. South of the site is the YMCA
Center.
C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004)
The applicant was present. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a rezoning
from O-2 to POD to allow the site to place a larger sign than was typically
allowed. The stated the applicant was requesting to place a ten foot by one
hundred square foot sign on the site. Staff stated to their knowledge there were
no other issues. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
D. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has indicated upon completion the new bank facility will contain
four separate office users. The site was previously approved through a zoning
site plan review process for the placement of a sign not to exceed six feet in
height and seventy-two square feet in area. The Highway 10 Design Overlay
District typically requires commercial building sign to be a single monument
ground-mounted sign located in the landscape area of the front yard. The sign is
to be a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-two square feet in area.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a single ground mounted monument
style sign to be a maximum of ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in
area. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant has indicated
there will be four users of the site including Pulaski Bank and Pulaski Mortgage
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3326-E
3
Company. If the development had been approved as a commercial development
the signage allowed would the same area the applicant is requesting.
Staff feels the rezoning of the site to POD to allow the placement of the indicated
signage in the front yard area should have minimal impact on adjoining
properties. There are similar uses in the area which also have the total sign area
being requested by the applicant.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested POD subject to a single ground
mounted monument style sign being placed on the site not to exceed ten feet in
height and one hundred square feet in sign area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they had only received informational
phone call from area residents concerning the proposed request along with a letter
requesting the signage be consistent with signage allowed for other developments in
the area. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested POD subject
to a single ground mounted monument style sign being placed on the site not to exceed
ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in sign area.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-7091
NAME: Presbyterian Village Long-form PRD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located on the northwest corner of Rodney Parham Road and
Brookside Drive
DEVELOPER:
Presbyterian Village, Inc.
510 Borrkside Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Development Consultants, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 18.472 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PRD
ALLOWED USES: Nursing Home Facility and Elderly Housing
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an off premise sign.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,593 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 20,
2001, established the Presbyterian Village Long-form PRD. The retirement community
consisted of several buildings containing a variety of housing types for the elderly.
Building heights range from one to three stories. The requested PRD zoning approved
a major redevelopment and expansion of the facilities. The development plan was
proposed with two components; north site and south site.
The south site contained 8.09 acres. The facility contained 105 nursing care beds and
104 independent living apartment units. The site was to be razed with the exception of
37 independent living apartments. A new three-story, 95,000 square foot health care
building and 111 parking spaces were to be constructed on the site. The health care
building was to have 111 beds.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7091
2
The north side of the site was undeveloped and contained 10.36 acres. Fifteen
independent living villas were to be constructed along the east side of the new
driveway. The units were to be a series of duplex and single-family homes. The site
was also to contain a 210,000 square foot independent living apartment building. The
buildings would vary in height from three to four stories. There were 190 parking
spaces proposed within the development.
A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance was also approved to allow a fifty-foot
cut along the western perimeter of the north site. An undisturbed area, varying in width
from 25 feet to 160 feet was to remain along the western perimeter of the north site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant has requested approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the improvements associated with the
Presbyterian Village Long-form PRD. The applicant has indicated economic
constraints have not allowed them to begin construction as anticipated. As a
result, the applicant, requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of
the previously approved PRD.
The applicant is also requesting to be allowed to place an off premise sign on the
site to advertise the new residential units to be added to the northern site. The
sign is located on the “south site” lot at Rodney Parham and advertises the
independent living units on the “north site”. The site is located within the
approved PRD.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains the existing Presbyterian Village located in multiple buildings.
A row of apartment buildings is located on Brookside to the east. A nursing
home is located to the north of the site. A commercial shopping center is located
to the west.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Sturbride, Santa Fe Heights and Treasure Hills Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has not received any
comment from the indicated neighborhood associations.
D. ANALYSIS:
Although the previous ordinance allowed the Commission the ability to grant two,
one-year time extension; the ordinance adopted May 6, 2003, as per Section 36-
454 (e) “ … the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7091
3
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. The applicant may request and the planning commission may grant one
extension of time of not more than two-years.”
The applicant wishes to retain the option of developing the site as originally
planned. If the extension is approved, the PRD will expire in November 2006
and the site may be subject to revocation action by the Commission.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for a two year time extension for the
proposed development and the request to allow the placement of an off-premise
sign located on the “south site” near Rodney Parham Road advertising the
coming of the new retirement homes located on the “north site”.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval
of the request for a two year time extension for the proposed development and the
request to allow the placement of an off-premise sign located on the “south site” near
Rodney Parham Road advertising the coming of the new retirement homes located on
the “north site”.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: NOV #0227
Name: Sally Yates Property, Appeal Land Alteration
Violation, Chap 29-166
Location: Undeveloped property at 11227 Dewitt Lane in Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Mrs. Sally Yates
Request: Appeal Notice of Violation #0227 for cutting trees
without a grading permit.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Dewitt Lane is a private street. Sardis Road is a minor
arterial street.
2. Development Potential and Land Use
This 30 acre property is zoned R2 and fronts Dewitt Lane. All adjacent
property is also zoned R2.
3. Neighborhood Position
Public Works has not received any inquiries.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Responding to a drainage and street damage complaint, staff observed trees
being cleared on approximately 26 acres of 30 acre subject property adjacent to
Dewitt Lane. Staff issued Notice of Violation #:0227 (“NOV”) to Mrs. Sally Yates’
timber harvesting contractor on July 2, 2004 for cutting and clearing trees on the
R2 zoned property without a grading permit per Section 29-186(d)(3). The NOV
required the property to be restored to its original condition to the maximum
extent practicable per Section 29-170(c). Staff estimates 2900 trees were cut,
and Mrs. Yates representative estimates 1140 trees were cut.
Mrs. Yates is appealing the NOV because she states the city codes requiring a
grading permit are impossible for her to meet since a grading permit cannot be
issued for the select harvest and Mrs. Yates has no plans to develop the
property. Mrs. Yates believes the ordinance does not foresee the situation where
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: NOV #0227
2
a large forested tract of land within the City may be utilized and managed without
development.
Staff explained to Mrs. Yates, the code does provide a method to harvest timber
by rezoning the property to AF, agriculture forestry that is exempt from land
alteration regulations. Staff and Mrs. Yates were unable to agree to a settlement.
Staff believes there are three issues that need to be decided by the Commission.
For the first issue, staff requests that the Planning Commission uphold the
determination that there was sufficient cause to issue notice of violation and
allow the case to proceed to environmental court for clearing and grading without
a permit. Fines up to $500 per tree can be accessed by the court, as well as
requiring full restoration. Mrs. Yates representative has offered a $2,348
contribution to the tree fund as an administrative settlement. Staff does not
support this remedy.
The second issue is to determine if the restoration plan as proposed by
Ms. Yates should be approved. No restoration is proposed. Staff would support
not planting additional trees since a large number of trees remain on the
property. However, there is now a large amount of tree tops on the ground with
adjacent residential structures. Staff requests that the treetops to be removed if
required by Fire Marshall.
The third issue is that Ms. Yates requests approval to select harvest trees from
the remaining 5 acres of the property. Staff does not support this request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: September 16, 2004
James Rankin of Perkins and Trotter attended the meeting representing Sally
Yates. Mike Hood from Public Works presented a brief history and status of the
item.
STAFF UPDATE: September 27, 2004
Since the subdivision committee meeting, Public Works staff met on site with the
Barry Burke, Fire Inspector with the Fire Department and James Rankin. The
Fire Department believes the large amount of tree tops on the ground creates a
fire hazard and the tops should be removed. No on-site burning would be
allowed unless additional clearing were done first.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: NOV #0227
3
Mr. Rankin has expressed a desire to reach an administrative settlement of the
enforcement issues by making a voluntary contribution to the tree fund. Staff
does not support the offer of $2,348.00. While the ordinance does not provided
for administrative penalties of this type, the Commission has in one other
instance accepted a $10,000 contribution to settle an enforcement case.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Mike Hood with Public Works presented the item and requested that the
Commission determine three items. The first that the Commission uphold the
notice of violation that trees were removed in violation of the ordinance. Second,
that the Commission approve the request by the applicant not to plant new trees
because of the large number of trees and require that remedial work be done to
address fire dangers as determined by the fire department. Third, that the
Commission reject the request to log the remaining 5 acres portion of the
property that was not logged.
There was some discussion among the Commissioners and staff about under
what circumstances the ordinance would allow a tract to be logged and AF
zoning.
The applicant, represented by James Rankin did a brief presentation explaining
where the property was located and where the land was logged. Mr. Rankin
stated that Mrs. Yates did not know that the property was zoned AF and it would
be cost prohibitive to replant all that land with 2” trees. He explained that that
Mrs. Yates’ father owned the property and is now in a nursing home and the
money was needed for his expenses. She did not know it was a violation to cut
the trees. He also contended that the ordinance was flawed because and it
should not be applied to this case. He also said the ordinance addresses
“indiscriminate” clearing and his client only did select harvest of timber.
There was some discussion about the appropriate remedy. Mr. Rector said that
he believed the ordinance does not properly address this case. Cindy Dawson
did clarify the ordinance should apply in this case and specifically addresses
cutting of trees and that there was a lot of trees that were cut. There was some
further discussion among Commissioners on if the case should be deferred until
the AF zoning was obtained.
Anna Olive at 1121 DeWitt lane spoke at the hearing presented pictures showing
what the property looks like. She complained about the damage the loggers did
to DeWitt lane (a private street) after it had just been repaved. They talked to the
logging company and they refused to repair the yards and street damage. She
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: NOV #0227
4
said the logger cut some of their trees on a five foot buffer even after he was told
where the property line was. Ms. Olive also stated that she spoke to the logger
and he told her he knew they needed a permit but didn’t have one. So far, no
one has fixed the damage.
Jeff Olive re-iterated that he was also concerned about the damage including
knee high ruts in the yard.
Ruth Bell spoke in favor of upholding the spirit of the ordinance including
cleaning up the forestry debris. She also thought there ought to be a way to
incorporate forestry management.
Jimmy Smith and Brent Bumpass also expressed support for the statements
made by the Olives.
Mr. Rankin reiterated that they had done the logging in a responsible manner in
compliance with a plan done by a forester with the Forestry Commission. He
assured that any damage would be repaired when this matter is settled.
Chairman Raman inquired about the value per acre of the trees cut and if the
logger knew if a permit was issued. Rankin responded that there had been some
negotiations about penalties with staff, but nothing was resolved. About 3,000
trees were cut. Commission Lowery made a motion to approve the issuance of
the Notice of Violation, seconded, and approved 6 to 2 in favor.
Troy Laha asked to be recognized and pointed out that the land should have
been surveyed and marked before logging under state law and that getting a
logger to fix damage would be next to impossible.
Cindy Dawson, Commission attorney clarified that Commission action was
needed for the remediation plan. There was a discussion on the appropriate
action among the Commissioners and staff. Mike Hood recommended that the
applicant not be required to plant trees but remove the tree tops to address fir
danger. Motion and second to approve, was passed.
The applicant, James Rankin withdrew the original request to select cut the
remaining timber on an un-harvested, five acre tract.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: NOV #0212
Name: Doug Meyer Property, Appeal Land Alteration
Violation, Chap 29-166
Location: Undeveloped property at 12115 Colonel Glenn Road
in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Mr. Doug Meyer
Request: Appeal Notice of Violation #0212 for constructing fill
and cutting trees without a grading permit.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street.
2. Development Potential and Land Use
This approximate 12 acre property is zoned C3, commercial and fronts
Colonel Glenn Road just west of David O. Dodd Road. The adjacent
property to the east toward David O. Dodd Road is a narrow strip of
undeveloped R2 zoned property. The property to the south across David
O. Dodd Road is an undeveloped O3 zoned property. The property to the
southwest is zoned O3 and directly to the west is Joe’s Market, an R2
zoned non-conforming use.
3. Neighborhood Position
Public Works has not received any inquiries.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff observed trees being cleared on an approximately 12 acres property
fronting Colonel Glenn Road and David O. Dodd Road. Staff issued Notice of
Violation #:0212 (“NOV”) to Mr. Doug Meyer on July 21, 2004 for cutting and
clearing trees on the C3 zoned property without a grading permit per Section
29-186(d)(3). The notice required the property to be restored to its original
condition to the maximum extent practicable per Section 29-170(c).
It is estimated 16 mature hardwood trees were cleared without a grading permit
and fill was placed on the site. In a letter received on August 23, 2004,
Mr. Meyer acknowledged the violation but is appealing the ordinance
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: NOV #0212
2
requirement to restore the site to the maximum extent practicable. Restoration
requested by Public Works to meet the ordinance includes remove all stumps
and dumped debris, grade and establish grass cover on all exposed soil, replant
trees at 30 foot spacing, maintain erosion controls, and install a barrier across
entrance.
Mr. Meyers has stated that this restoration is not prudent because construction
will begin on the property in 6 months. However, no plans for development have
been provided nor has an application for a building permit filed and no restoration
work has been done to date.
The ordinance provides that if trees had been planted and grass cover restored
at the site within 30 days of issuance of the notice of violation, then no further
enforcement action would be taken. However, if the violation is not corrected in
30 days by restoring the site, staff may issue a citation to appear in
Environmental Court. Fines up to $500 per tree can be accessed by the court, as
well as requiring full restoration. Mr. Meyers representative has offered a $200
contribution to the tree fund as an administrative settlement. Staff does not
support this remedy.
Staff believes there are two issues that need to be determined by the
Commission. For the first issue, staff requests that the Planning Commission
uphold the determination that there was sufficient cause to issue notice of
violation and allow the case to proceed to environmental court for clearing and
grading without a permit. The violation has been acknowledged by Mr. Meyer in
writing.
The second issue is to determine if the restoration plan as proposed by
Mr. Meyer should be approved. Under Meyer’s plan, all restoration required by
staff would be done except for the tree planting and fill removal. Staff would
support that restoration plan given the current zoning of the property if the
Commission upholds the issuance of the Notice of Violation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: September 16, 2004
Joe White of White Dates attended the meeting representing Doug Meyer.
Mike Hood from Public Works presented a brief history and status of the item.
Mr. White expressed an interest in settling the issues.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: NOV #0212
3
STAFF UPDATE: September 27, 2004
Since the subdivision committee meeting, Public Works staff reached a proposed
settlement of the appeal. Mr. Meyers will plead guilty in Environmental Court of
grading without a permit. Staff will recommend a $500 fine and restoration
consisting of seeding to control erosion and removal of debris from the site.
Therefore, the applicant requests that his appeal of the Notice of Violation be
withdrawn.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
The Planning Commission voted on their consent agenda to withdraw the appeal
without prejudice.
October 7, 2004
ITEM NO.: 24
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Section 36-513. of Chapter
36 of the Code of Ordinances providing for
procedures and regulations regarding the parking of
motor vehicles on residential properties.
REQUEST: That the Planning Commission receives comments
from interested parties and the Plans Committee and
vote on a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Public Notice:
Notice of the proposed Ordinance Amendment and of the Commission hearing
was sent to the 149 neighborhood associations and coalitions registered with the
City and to the Department maintained Ordinance Amendment contact list of 50±
individuals, companies and agencies.
PLANS COMMITTEE: (MAY 26, 2004)
Staff presented a first draft of the proposed Ordinance. The Committee made
several suggestions, including: more clearly defining the front yard area, adding
trailers to the definition of motor vehicle, allowing the use of pavers, specifying
that the unpaved parking surface must be covered with gravel or a similar
material, and adding authority for the planning director to approve variances.
In response to questions from the Committee, staff stated the intent was to
regulate parking in the area between the residence and the street, not just in the
front 25 feet of the property, regardless of the depth of the property. Staff also
stated there was no intent to allow parking in violation of the ordinance as a
nonconforming use.
Commissioner Floyd suggested allowing use of a permeable surface. Staff
responded that such proposals could be looked at on a case by case basis and
possibly approved by the Director. Commissioner Floyd also voiced concern
about the amount of additional paved area that might be created and the
resulting run-off.
Commissioner Meyer voiced support for the Ordinance and stated he felt
eliminating “parking in mud holes” would increase property values.
Mary Rogers, of the Pecan Lake Neighborhood Associations, voiced support for
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.)
2
the ordinance.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the intent of the Ordinance was to limit the number
of vehicles on a site or to get rid of mud holes. Staff responded that they felt the
intent was to restrict parking on improper surfaces, not to limit the number of
vehicles on a site.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff is proposing an ordinance amendment which would establish procedures
and criteria regulating the parking of motor vehicles in the front yards and street
corner side yards of residential properties. The basic intent of the ordinance
amendment is to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on unpaved yards. Staff
believes that allowing the unregulated parking of motor vehicles on unpaved
yards results in the problems of standing water and the carrying of dust and dirt
upon the public streets and has a detrimental effect on the esthetics of residential
neighborhoods.
Similar ordinances were reviewed from other cities: including Springfield,
Missouri; San Jose, California and North Little Rock’s Argenta District.
Staff felt it was important to allow some relief from the requirement to have a
paved driveway, in recognition of the cost to citizens. Consequently, staff
suggests allowing the use of a specified, gravel driveway area in lieu of
pavement for those unable to pay for a paved driveway.
Several suggestions were made by the Plans Committee which have been
incorporated into the proposed ordinance.
Enforcement will be on a complaint basis primarily or in conjunction with the
City’s Targeted Neighborhood Enforcement Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance Amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 17, 2004)
There were several persons present. Staff had received statements of support
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.)
3
from the Pecan Lake, John Barrow, Oak Forest Neighborhood Associations, the
Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods and one citizen. Statement of opposition
had been received from two citizens.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff presented the item and noted a few proposed
changes. In response to a question, Mr. Carney stated he anticipated
enforcement of the ordinance to be primarily complaint driven or in conjunction
with targeted neighborhood enforcement.
Commissioner Allen stated he felt the Ordinance was unclear and additional time
was needed to study the issue. Mr. Carney responded that much time had gone
into the issue and he urged adoption of the ordinance.
In response to a question, Mr. Carney stated that the language of Sections (d)
and (e) was similar, with a subtle difference. He stated the language made it
clear that the ordinance would be enforceable under any circumstance.
Commissioner Williams stated he thought the prospect of enforcement was
unrealistic. He also stated time was needed to study the potential impact of the
ordinance. He stated he felt there would be an inordinate impact on properties of
lower value and persons of lower income. Commissioner Williams stated there
would be an impact on traffic if more persons were forced to park in the street.
Director of Planning and Development Tony Bozynski asked the commissioners
to specify what they hoped to gain from additional study.
Sharon Sellars, of 7615 Leawood Blvd., spoke in support of the ordinance. She
showed photographs of a property next to hers that had vehicles parked in the
yard. She stated it was a problem all over town. Commissioner Lowry asked
Ms. Sellars if it were better to park in the yard, to park in the street or to pave the
entire front yard. Ms. Sellars responded that none of the those choices was best.
Sharon Welch-Blair, president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association,
spoke in support of the ordinance. She read a letter of support that had been
sent by Kathy Wells, president of the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods. Ms.
Welch-Blair gave examples of properties in the downtown area that had vehicles
parked in the front yard. She said doing so had an impact on neighboring
properties. Ms. Welch-Blair said most of the properties in her neighborhood with
vehicles in the front yard also had a driveway. She said parking in the yard also
results in broken street curbs and sidewalks.
Commissioner Lowry said most of the properties east of University Avenue were
developed in an era when homeowners had only 1 or 2 vehicles; now there are
more vehicles per residence.
There was a discussion of the impact of having more pavement on properties.
Ms. Welch-Blair stated she was fine with more pavement.
Chairman Rahman asked if it might not be appropriate to defer the issue for more
study. Mr. Carney asked what additional information the Commission needed.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.)
4
Commissioner Adcock stated the Commission should vote on the ordinance and
forward it to the Board. She stated the proposed Ordinance had been well
publicized and well studied.
Commissioner Floyd stated he felt it was an elitist ordinance that would impact
areas and persons least able to afford new driveways. He stated it would affect
properties all over the City. Commissioner Floyd stated he estimated the result
would be the paving of 6,000 parking pads, creating additional stormwater
run-off. He urged the use of permeable surfaces and stated he thought the
Ordinance was totally unenforceable.
Janet Berry, speaking on behalf of the Legion Hut and West Baseline
Neighborhood Associations, spoke in opposition. She voiced concerns along
racial lines and also commented that the Ordinance would be difficult to enforce.
Scott Holladay, of 2017 S. Arch Street, spoke in support of the Ordinance. He
stated the Downtown Neighborhood Association had worked for a long time to
see this type of Ordinance adopted. Mr. Holladay stated parking on unpaved
yards decreases property values. In response to a question from Commissioner
Lowry, Mr. Holladay stated most persons would respond by parking in an
appropriate location. Commissioner Floyd said if there was no alternative,
people will have to pave their yards.
Pat Gee, president of the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association, stated the
association had voted to support the ordinance.
Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, asked if the
ordinance would apply to short-term parking, such as washing your car or when
guests came to your home. Mr. Carney responded that, strictly speaking, the
Ordinance would apply but some common sense would be applied. Ms. Bell
stated that, in some cases, the solution of putting more vehicles on the street is
negative because of inadequate infrastructure.
Commissioner Rector stated he had thought it was a simple ordinance; but
obviously it is not. He stated it needed more study.
Troy Laha, of 6602 Baseline Road, stated it was wrong to give the Planning
Director the authority to grant variances. He asked why there was not a
provision to grant nonconforming status. Mr. Laha also voiced concern about the
inability of the City to enforce the regulations. He stated putting more vehicles on
the streets would create problems.
Director of Planning and Development Tony Bozynski stated several issues had
been raised and staff was open to the idea of deferring the issue for more study.
Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, asked the Commission to tell staff what
additional information was needed.
Commissioner Stebbins stated the proposed ordinance was clearly supported by
many citizens and the City’s leadership.
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.)
5
Commissioner Floyd stated if the intent was to prohibit parking in mud holes in
the front yard, just say so.
A motion was made to defer the item to the July 29, 2004 meeting. The motion
failed to receive a second.
A motion was made to approve the proposed ordinance. The vote was 4 ayes,
3 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstaining (Rector). The motion was denied.
Commissioner Lowry asked that staff inform the Board there was a good deal of
discussion about the issue and there was opposition from several
commissioners.
STAFF UPDATE:
In response to concerns raised at the Commission meeting, Staff revisited the
proposed ordinance and made some changes. The changes specifically address
those instances where an individual cannot construct either a paved or gravel
driveway. Subsections 1(d) and (e) have been amended to allow an unpaved
parking pad in addition to an unpaved, designated driveway area. Both the
driveway and parking pad are not to exceed twenty (20) feet in width. This will
allow a driveway and a “flagpole” type parking pad off of the driveway, each of
which is not to exceed twenty (20) feet in width. Additionally, those same two
sections were amended to allow use of a hard packed surface for the driveway
and parking pad. The hard packed surface must be maintained in a manner that
does not result in the creation of dust, mud, silt or standing water.
The amended ordinance was discussed at the July 24, 2004 Neighborhood
Connections and September 1, 2004 Plans Committee meetings and received
favorable response at each. On September 7, 2004, notice of the October 7,
2004 Planning Commission meeting and a copy of the proposed ordinance were
sent to each of the neighborhood associations and coalitions and the ordinance
amendment contact list; a total of some 200 persons/organizations. Although
there was no specific response to the September 7 letter, there have been
several letters received by staff throughout the process; both in support and
opposition.
Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004)
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff presented
many letters received from citizens and neighborhood organizations. Most all of
October 7, 2004
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.)
6
the letters were in support of the proposed ordinance. There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
DRAFT NO. 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS PROCEDURES AND LAND USE
REGULATIONS REGARDING PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN
FRONT YARDS OR CORNER STREET SIDE YARDS OF RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas finds that the
parking of motor vehicles on the front yards or corner street side yards of residential properties in
areas not paved or designated for parking results in the problems of standing water and the
carrying of dust and dirt upon public streets and has a detrimental effect upon the esthetics of
residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas finds that it is in
the best interest of the City to regulate parking in the front yards and corner street side yards of
properties used as a residence; and
WHEREAS, the proposed regulations were presented and discussed at a public hearing of
the City of Little Rock Planning Commission where the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the proposed regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That Chapter 36., Section 36-513. be deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following text:
Sec. 36-513. Motor Vehicle parking on residential properties.
(a) Any portion of a lot, tract or parcel of land zoned for residential use may
be utilized for the parking of motor vehicles unless prohibited by other provisions of the
zoning ordinance.
(b) For purposes of this section, “Motor vehicle” means a passenger vehicle,
truck, boat, camper, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, golf cart, all-terrain vehicle, trailer,
or other similar vehicle. “Motor vehicle” does not include a motorized wheelchair,
bicycle, tricycle or quadri cycle. “Paved” means treated or covered with concrete,
asphalt, pavers or other similar material and maintained in such a manner as to provide a
mud-free and dustless surface.
(c) For purposes of this section, “front yard” and “corner street side yard”
mean the open space between the pavement of the street and a line as established in this
section, extending from one side of the lot to the opposite side of the lot.
2
$VYLHZHGIURPWKHVWUHHWWKHOLQHVKDOOVWDUWDWDSRLQWRQWKHOHIWORWOLQHDQGVKDOOH[WHQGSDUDOOHO
WRWKHVWUHHWWRWKHQHDUHVWFRUQHURIWKHSULQFLSDOVWUXFWXUHDQGWKHQDORQJWKHIDFHRIWKHSULQFLSDO
VWUXFWXUHWRWKHULJKWFRUQHUDQGIURPWKDWSRLQWRQDOLQHSDUDOOHOWRWKHVWUHHWWRDSRLQWRQWKHULJKW
ORWOLQH )LJXUH
),*85(
(d) No person shall keep, store or park any motor vehicle, whether operable or
inoperable, on any portion of a front yard or corner street side yard of any property used
as a residence, except on a paved surface or on an unpaved, designated driveway area and
parking pad not to exceed twenty (20) feet in width. The unpaved, designated driveway
area must be surfaced with gravel or a similar material or hard-packed in a manner that
does not result in the creation of dust, mud, silt or standing water.
(e) No owner, tenant, manager or occupant of property used as a residence
shall allow or suffer another person to keep, store or park any motor vehicle, whether
operable or inoperable, on any portion of a front yard or corner street side yard of any
property used as a residence, except on a paved surface or on an unpaved, designated
driveway area and parking pad not to exceed twenty (20) feet in width. The unpaved,
designated driveway area must be surfaced with gravel or a similar material or hard-
packed in a manner that does not result in the creation of dust, mud, silt or standing water.
3
(f) The planning director may approve variances from the provisions
established by section 36-513 provided the property owner can evidence a circumstance
or hardship unique to the property. Appeals from the administrative judgment of the staff
shall be filed with the board of adjustment. The content of the filing shall consist of:
(1) A cover letter addressed to the chairman and members of the board of adjustment
setting forth the request; (2) a copy of all pertinent graphic materials or correspondence.
This filing shall occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the staff.
(g) Nothing contained in this section is intended to nor shall be construed or
interpreted to permit parking that is prohibited or restricted by any other provision of this
code.
(h) No keeping, storing or parking of any motor vehicle in violation of this
section shall be deemed to be nonconforming under Article III of this chapter.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. The various parts, sections and clauses of this
ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, clause
or word is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 3. REPEALER. Any ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. Whereas, it has been determined that it is
necessary that the proposed regulations become effective immediately to protect the quality of
life in residential neighborhoods; an emergency is hereby declared and this Ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon its passage.
PASSED:_____________________
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ _____________________________
C i t y C l e r k M a y o r
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney