The URL can be used to link to this page

pc_01 17 2002LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 17,2002 4:00 P.M, I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. II.Members Present:Richard Downing Judith Faust Craig Berry Bob Lowry Fred Allen,Jr. Robert Stebbins Norm Floyd Mizan RahmanBillRector Obray Nunnley,Jr. Members Absent:Rohn Muse City Attorney:Steve Giles II1.Approval of the Minutes of the November 29,2001 MeetingoftheLittleRockPlanningCommission.The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING JANUARY 17,2002 4:00 P.M. I.DEFERRED ITEMS: A.Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat (S-1329-A)—Southwest corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive B.Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R (Z-7113)—Southwest corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive II.NEW ITEMS: 1.Z-3490-A Otter Creek Farms —Long-Form PD-C 12800 Alexander Road 1A.Z-3490-B Otter Creek Farms —C.U.P. 12800 Alexander Road 2.Z-6293-A Cohy Manufactured Home —C.U.P. 17016 Crystal Valley Road 3.Z-6664-A J.A.Fair High School -C.U.P. 13420 David 0 Dodd Road 4.Z-7112 Neison Accessory Dwelling —C.U.P. 2405 S.Oak Street 5.Z-7128 Campbell Adult Day Care Center —C.U.P. 1304 S.Taylor Street 6.Z-7130 Martin Luther King Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center —C.U.P. 3012 M.L.King,Jr.Drive 7.LU02-03-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the West Little Rock Planning District from Commercial and Office to Mixed Use Area bounded by McKinley,Markham,University and Lee Agenda,Page Two II.NEW ITEMS: 8.LU02-15-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District from Single Family to Suburban Office East side of Chicot Road from Reva Drive south to Mabelvale Cut-Off 9.Z-7131 Polo Club in Chenal Valley —Long-Form PRD South intersection of La Marche Drive and Chenal Valley Drive 0 fD FERIRIALE p CITY UMHS(Q M9 I 336 N SIEWJKII09IMITAN 9TO (Q rq I00 MM RIOCE ' OIY LIMITS 89Ag.ROCHE Y PAMIAM Ml LE 08SHAOOEFORO0SAROIS HONKF RESEIMORI PCOJOHNBARROW C CMCOT Ml S9PPI (D ~UCHE6 OILER SPRINCS Tr 9 RNIYERSHYZFAIRPRK Q)ulSSCOTTAMRRIN 9 Pl SJOF&IT&PIKE YMMRO (Q 9 9LLIM DLKM OREHER CHES CMrARCH BROACH Y IN Z GERMAN 8" gZ RRIHIRAllLT TRADER PME OO January 17,J02 ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:S-1329-A NAME:Covenant Cove —Preliminary Plat LOCATION:Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Pam Brown-Courtney &Associates McGetrick &McGetrick Engineers P.O.Box 55145 319 East Markham Street Little Rock,AR 72215 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:52 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED REZONING:PD-R (Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R Z-7113 Item ¹8) PLANNING DISTRICT:11 CENSUS TRACT:24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1.A variance to allow a reduced front building line. 2.A variance to allow a private internal street. A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33-acre site into 52 single-family residential lots.The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet.The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine Road.The interior street will be a 50-foot private access and utility easement.Lots 1 —38 will be adjacent to the perimeter of the property and Lots 39 —52 will be interior lots.The lots will have rear access with a 35-foot access and utility easement.There January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)PILE NO.:S-1329-A will be a 10-foot no access easement provided adjacent to Romine Road and Leigh Drive.The applicant is proposing a 15-foot front building set back on all the lots.The side yard set back is proposed at 3.5-feet. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered.The area to the north,south,east and west is developed with single-familyresidencesandonlyascatteringofvacantlots.The site slopes upward fzom Lehigh Drive to Romine Road.The site isadjacenttoRomineRoadandLeighDrivebothofwhichare developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exceptionofsidewalks.The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to thissite. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners abutting the site and the Twin Lakes"A",Cypress Place,Kensington Place,John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B"Neighborhood Associations as well as the TwinLakesPropertyOwnersAssociationwerenotifiedofthePublicHearing.As of this writing staff has receivedseveralinfozmationalcallsfromtheneighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.(Romine and Leigh) 2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 3.A grading pezmit will be required on this development.4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Easements for proposed stozmwater detention facilities are required. 6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 7.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.8.Street name needs to be approved by David Hathcock.Call 371-4808 for more infozmation. 2 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1329-A 9.This development involves issues related to street lighting.The property owner may be responsible for installation of new streetlights or modification (if required)of existing streetlights.Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott 8 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. ~Et:N o t '. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. Count Plannin :No comment received. CATA:Project site is located near Bus Route ¹14 but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:No comment. Landsca e Issues:No comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(December 6,2001) Mr.Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and PD-R were discussed simultaneously.Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage,building setbacks,perimeter treatment).Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical.Staff noted the typical shown would not "work"for a few of the lots.Staff listed these 3 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1329-A lots for Mr.McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots.Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat.Staff noted a "turn-around"for Lot 1 should be shown.Staff also requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. Tad Borkowski,Public Works Staff,indicated street improvements would be required.He also stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. Mr.Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn-around"capability for Lot 1. Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a gated.Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community.Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr.McGetrick contact Dennis Free for additional information. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD-R to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on December 12,2001.The revised plat addresses the issues raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The internal sidewalks have been labeled at 5-feet.The alley has been moved to the west between Lots 3 and 4 to provide a turnaround for Lot 1.The applicant has provided a 10-foot no access easement adjacent to Lehigh Drive and Romine Road but has not indicated a 10-foot no access easement adjacent to the interior street. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot front platted buildingline.The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 25-foot platted front building line.A separate ordinance will be forward to the Board of Directors for review and approval of this request.The applicant is proposing the side yard setback to be a minimum 3.5-feet on all lots .Minimum side yard setbacks for detached single-family according to building code is over 3-feet.The 3.5-foot would meet the minimum requirement.The ordinance requires a 30-foot platted building line adjacent to collector streets (Romine Road) 4 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1329-A and 25-foot building line adjacent to residential streets (Lehigh Drive).The applicant needs to show these external building lines on the plat. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a private internal street.Private streets are allowable,if approved by the Planning Commission,in the form of a cul- de-sac and short loop street when determined the street can adequately serve the development. This plat is part of a PD-R;Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R,File No.Z 7113 Item No.8 on this agenda.The plat requires variances from the Subdivision Ordinance for an R-2 zoned,single-family subdivision which will be reviewed bytheBoardofDirectorsinaseparateordinance.The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look"with the homes pulled closer to the street,front porches and rear loadinglots.The property must be rezoned to PD-R,Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R file ¹Z-7113 for this plat to be valid. Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the preliminary plat.The proposed preliminary plat conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance and should have no adverse impact on the general area. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 2.Provide a 10-foot no access easement adjacent to theinternalstreet. 3.Provide a 30-foot platted building line adjacent to Romine Road and a minimum 25-foot platted building line adjacent to Lehigh Drive. 4.The property must be rezoned to PD-R Covenant Cove Long- Form PD-R File ¹Z-7113 or this plat is invalid. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002) Ms.Pam Brown-Courtney,the developer,and Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the 5 January 17,~002 ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1329-A application.There were numerous objectors present.Staff presented the application in conjunction with the Planned Residential Development Item ¹8 Covenant Cove Long-Form PRD,File No.Z-7113.Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to approval of the PRD since the two were so directly tied together.After a brief discussion the Commission voted to defer the item for two weeks to the January 17,2002 Public Hearing.(See Item No.8 for a more detailed minute record of this item.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Ms.Pam Brown-Courtney,the developer,and Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the application.There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the item in conjunction with the Planned Development File No.Z-7113.Staff stated the item was deferred from the January 3,2002 Public Hearing.Staff indicated due to the large number of persons in opposition of the application at the January 3,2002 meeting the Commission had suggested the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve some of theissues.Staff stated the meeting was held on January 10,2002 and was well attended.Staff indicated there was still opposition from the neighborhood and the applicant was not willing to change the application or site plan. Staff stated since the last meeting there had been one additionalletterofsupportreceived.Staff stated their recommendation was approval subject to the conditions previously noted.See Item No.B File No.Z-7113 for a more detailed record of the Planning Commission activity. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as filed to include staff recommendations and comments.The motion carried 6 ayes,4 noes and 1 absent. 6 January 17,)02 ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-7113 NAME:Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R LOCATION:Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Pam Brown-Courtney McGetrick &McGetrick Engineers &Associates 319 East Markham Street P.O.Box 55145 Little Rock,AR 72201LittleRock,AR 72215 AREA:10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:52 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2 PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED USE:Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS RE UESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33-acre siteinto52single-family residential lots a part of a preliminary plat,a separate item on this agenda (Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat Item No.2 File No.S-1329-A).The preliminary plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2,single-family subdivision.As a part of the PD-R the variances are being resolved. The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet.The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine January 17,~002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Road.The interior street will be a 50-foot private access and utility easement.The lots will have rear access with a 35-foot access and utility easement.There will be a 10- foot no access easement provided adjacent to the interior roadway and to Romine Road and Leigh Drive. The applicant proposes this development through a Planned Development-Residential.The homes will range in square footage from 1510 to 2065.The applicant proposes three and four bedroom homes all of which will be single story.The typical house plans shown indicate one of the structure has an appendage which extends into the proposed setback.The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look"with the homes pulled closer to the street,front porches and rear loading lots for the development. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered.The area to thenorth,south,east and west is developed with single-familyresidencesandonlyascatteringofvacantlots.The siteslopesupwardfromLehighDrivetoRomineRoad.The site isadjacenttoRomineRoadandLeighDrivebothofwhichare developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exceptionofsidewalks.The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to thissite. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the proposedrezoning.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet who could be identified,and the Twin Lakes "A",Cypress Place,Kensington Place,John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B"Neighborhood Associations aswellastheTwinLakesPropertyOwnersAssociationwerenotifiedofthePublicHearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Lehigh Drive and Romine are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to Subdivision Committee meeting,or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 8.Grading permit will be required on this development. 9.This development involves issues related to street lighting.The property owner may be responsible forinstallationofnewstreetlightsormodification(if required)of existing streetlights.Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott 8 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project.10.Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn-around capability for Lot 1.Paved alley standardis18-foot width. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. E~t:No o t '. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Fire De artment:Approved as submitted. Count Plannin :No comment received. CATA:Project site is located near Bus Route ¹14 but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Residential for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in a neo- traditional setting.The property is currently zoned R-2 Single-Family.A land use plan amendment is not required. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant'property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an objective of enhancing the climate for home ownership and attracting new residents to the area.An action statement recommending the development of affordable housing through new development and new subdivision development supports the Home Ownership Objective. Landsca e Issues:No comment. Buildin Codes:No comment received. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(December 6,2001) Mr.Pat McGetrick was present,representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and PD-R were discussed simultaneously.Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage,building setbacks,perimeter treatment).Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical.Staff noted the typical shown would not "work"for a few of the lots.Staff listed these lots for Mr.McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots.Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat.Staff noted a "turn-around"for Lot 1 should be shown.Staff also requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. Tad Borkowski,Public Works Staff,indicated street improvements would be required.He also stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. 4 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Mr.Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn-around"capability for Lot 1. Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a gate.Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community.Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr.McGetrick contact the Fire Marshall for additional information. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD-R to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.This PD-R is part of a preliminary plat File No.S-1329-A Item No.2 on this agenda.The plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2 single-family subdivision.As a part of the PD-R the variances are being resolved.The applicant proposes a "Bzodie Creek look"with the homes pulled closer to the street,front porches and rear loading lots. The applicant proposes the placement of a brick ground- mounted wall sign at the entrance to the subdivision.The perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced with a six-foot iron fence.The applicant does not propose the subdivision to be gated but,with the fencing,to have the appearance of a gated community. The applicant has provided six typical layouts for the subdivision.These typical structures range from 1510 square feet to 2065 square feet.All are one-story structures with at least three bedrooms.The average lot size is .12 acres with the minimum lot size being .09 acres. One of proposed typical structures has an appendage extending beyond the structure.The applicant has stated each of the lots will maintain a 3.5-foot side yard setback. The applicant has also indicated chimneys and porches will extend into the setbacks.Minimum building code requires a side yard setback of over 3-feet but the chimney can encroach into the setback 2-feet. 5 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-7113 The applicant indicated the common areas are to be landscaped and to be maintained by the property owners association.The applicant has relocated the alleyway to provide turn-around capability for Lot l. The property must be rezoned to PD-R,Covenant Cove Long- Form PD-R File No.Z-7113 for the plat,Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat File No.S-1329-A to be valid. Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD-R.The proposed PD-R zoning request for Covenant Cove Long-Form PD-R should have no adverse impact on the general area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PD-R subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002) Ms.Pam Brown-Courtney,the developer,and Mr.Pat McGetrick,of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,were present representing the application.There were numerous objectors present.Staff presented the rezoning request in conjunction with the preliminary plat,with a recommendation of approval of the pRD rezoning subject to approval of the preliminary plat. Mr.George Brown spoke in support of the application.Mr.Brown stated he lived across the street from the site and had lived in the area for more than 25 years.He stated the project would enhance the neighborhood by the addition of new housing stock to the area and by the addition of sidewalks to Lehigh Drive and Romine Road.He stated the project was only one home over the density currently allowed under R-2,single-family zoning. Ms.Betty Snyder of the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan spoke in favor of the application.She stated the neighborhoods had worked over the years to encourage new housing and development in the area.She stated she was unaware of the opposition to the application until recently.Ms.Snyder stated 6 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 she was available to work with the developer and the neighbors to work out any issues. Chairman Downing stated there were four cards in opposition of the application.He stated each of the persons would be given five minutes each to address the Commission.He then asked Mr. and Ms.Gray to come forward.He stated on their card they had indicated an opposition to an apartment complex.Chairman Downing stated the project was not apartments but single-family detached housing.Mr.and Mrs.Gray withdrew their opposition. Commissioner Allen questioned if the applicant had met with the neighborhoods.Mr.McGetrick stated the applicant had sent letters to the Kensington Place and the John Barrow Neighborhood Associations and had contacted the Campus Place Neighborhood Association.Mr.McGetzick stated the applicant was told the notification would be placed in the neighborhood association newsletter.Mr.McGetrick stated the property owners within 200 feet of the site were also notified.He stated his office phone number was placed in the notice and he had not received any comment until recently. Commissioner Allen stated the lack of communication with the Campus Place Neighborhood Association appeared to be the problem. He stated he felt if the applicant had met with the neighbors, some of the issues could have been resolved. Ms.Courtney stated in October she was contacted by persons in the area questioning the project.She stated she explained the project to these persons and gave her phone number along with the engineer's phone number to contact for more information.Ms. Courtney stated no one had contacted her or the engineer until very recently. Chairman Downing stated the problem was a miscommunication.He suggested a deferral of the item. Commissioner Faust questioned if the opponents,having heard the project,were still in opposition to the project.They indicated that they were.Commissioner Faust stated a temporary deferral was in order to allow the representatives 10 to 15 minutes to work through some of the issues. The item was deferred for 15 minutes by a vote of 10 eyes,1 noe and 0 absent. 7 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Once the meeting reconvened,Chairman Downing stated the applicant and the property owners were not able to reach an agreement in the time period and the applicant had consented to a two week deferral.A motion was made for the two week deferral and passed by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent. Mr.James DeVries stated he would be out of town in two weeks and requested the Commission hear his statements of opposition.The Commission granted Mr.DeVries his request. Mr.DeVries stated he lived on Vanderbilt Drive adjacent to thesite.He stated he was opposed to the project for three reasons; the John Barrow Action Plan called for infill housing to be of the same character as the existing housing;the area had springs and open watercourses,which create environmental concerns;and the increased traffic into the area,which would tax John Barrow Road even further. Commissioner Lowery questioned Mr.DeVries if he would be opposedifthelotswere10feetwider.Mr.DeVries stated his opposition was to the resoning.If the property were to develop according to current city standard,he would not be opposed. Commission Floyd stated with the Planned Development,even though the density would be higher the quality would also be higher. With a by-right development,the quality of homes could be significantly less than what was being proposed by Ms.Courtney. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Ms.Pam Brown-Courtney,the developer,and Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the application.There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the item in conjunction with preliminary plat File No.S-1329-A.Staff stated the item was deferred from the January 3,2002 Public Hearing.Staff indicated due to the large number of persons in opposition of the application at the January 3,2002 meeting the Commission had suggested the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve some of the issues.Staff stated the meeting was held on January 10,2002 and was well attended.Staff indicated there was still opposition from the neighborhood and the applicant was not willing to change the application or site plan. 8 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Staff stated since the last meeting there had been one additional letter of support received.Staff stated the recommendation was approval subject to the conditions previously noted. Mr.Michael Booker spoke in opposition of the application.He stated he was representing three neighborhoods Twin Lakes, Kensington and Campus Place.He stated the neighborhood meeting was well attended with approximately 80 persons present.He stated the participants voted at the meeting to not support the application.He stated only one person voted in favor of the application.Mr.Booker stated,there were two petitions in the neighborhood,one with 150 signatures and the other with 45 —50 signatures indicating opposition for the project.He stated the letter of support for the project was from the John Barrow Neighborhood but Campus Place was not John Barrow. Mr.Booker stated the applicant had indicated a "Brodie Creek" neighborhood feel.He stated he had driven through Brodie Creek and the proposal was not the same.He stated Brodie Creek had green belts and the proposed Planned Development did not.He also stated the Brodie Creek development had been abandoned by the developers.He stated the proposal was a good proposal but not suited for an existing neighborhood. Commissioner Rector asked Mr.Booker what the reasons were for opposition. Mr.Booker stated the density,environmental concerns and the aesthetics.He stated the development was proposed to be a gated community and the remainder of the neighborhood was not gated. He stated the development was not neighborhood friendly.He stated the set backs were minimum which raised concerns for fire safety. Commissioner Rector stated he was on the Commission when St. John's Woods was presented and the neighborhood stated similar concerns. Commissioner Allen stated with the PRD there were some issues, which could be addressed.He stated with a straight R-2 development there would be no input from the neighborhood and the developer could build any type development they desired. Mr.Booker stated this was not a concern of the neighborhood.He stated economic incentives and the market would take care of the 9 January 17,&002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 concern of the developer building housing which were not similar to the existing housing stock. Mr.Charles Armstrong spoke in opposition to the application stating his concerns were environmental.He stated the area contained a great amount of pavement and run-off from the area would create environmental concerns.He stated there was a creek located within the development.He stated this development was not a Brodie Creek development because the application did not incorporate green spaces. Ms.Sandra Goins spoke in opposition of the application.She stated her concern was the type of housing that would be constructed. Commissioner Downing asked if she was aware the minimum square footage of the proposed homes was to be 1500 square feet and the selling price was $125,000 and up.Commissioner Downing asked Ms.Goins the average square footage of homes in the area. Ms.Goins stated she was aware of the proposed square footage. She stated the homes in the neighborhood were diverse.She stated on Vanderbilt Drive there were 14 homes,some larger and some smaller than her home.She stated,her home,was 2100 square feet. Ms.Pearlie Rattiff stated the proposed project was directly in her back yard.She stated her opposition was to density.Ms. Rattiff stated if the applicant were to build at the density currently allowable under R-2 she would not be opposed to the project. Mr.Brad Norris stated Campus Place and Kensington were brother and sister neighborhoods.He stated uniformity was important in a neighborhood.He stated the development should "look-like" what was currently developed in the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd questioned Mr.Norris if he was aware should the PRD fail the applicant could subdivide the property into 40— 45 lots and construct 800 square feet rental units. Mr.Norris stated he was not concerned because the market would drive the housing that would be constructed. 10 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Ms.Jacqueline Love-Ryan stated her opposition was to the number of homes.She stated more than 44 or what was currently allowed under R-2 zoning would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr.Pat McGetrick stated the application had met with all city requirements.He stated the applicant would place sidewalks along Romine Road and Lehigh Drive and on the interior of the subdivision.Mr.McGetrick stated the utilities would be underground.He stated the subdivision would meet the detention ordinance and meet the fire department requirements.He stated there would be only one entrance to the subdivision from Romine Road and an emergency fire entrance from Leigh Drive.Mr. McGetrick stated the drainage would be piped underground in two directions. Ms.Pam Brown-Courtney stated she had meet with the neighborhood as recommended by the Commission.She stated the neighborhood had not indicated a desire to work with her on the development. Ms.Courtney stated the homes in the area are 20 years old and her project would revitalize the area.She stated she to owned property in Kensington.Ms.Courtney stated she was not willing to change her application because of opposition.She stated the application was different and the neighborhood did not appear to welcome change. Ms.Debries spoke in opposition of the application.She stated the number of homes and the increased traffic were concerns.She stated the Brodie Creek design did include more green space than the proposed development. Mr.George Brown spoke in support of the application.He stated there were 50 persons attending the meeting which was held January 10,2002.He stated with the development the neighborhood would benefit.Mr.Brown stated the development would construct sidewalks on Lehigh and Romine and construct curb and gutter on Lehigh Drive.He stated the Subdivision would carry a Bill of Assurance and the utilities would be placed underground.He stated the proposed application would do noting but increase property values in the area. Commissioner Rector stated homogeneity in neighborhoods had driven the separation of community.He stated a community must have different sorts of places to live.Commissioner Rector stated two very old areas of the city,Heights and Hillcreast, had this diversity. 11 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7113 Commissioner Mizan stated the development was a good development for an area of land,which had set vacant for a number of years. Commissioner Nunnley stated he was opposed to the development based on the neighborhood concerns.He stated the Commission and the Board had empowered the neighborhoods by giving them a voice and it was important to listen to that voice.He stated the neighborhood was very clear that the development was not right for their neighborhood. Commissioner Berry stated diversity in housing types adds value to property and improves,over time,the segregation of housing. He stated the impact of the development would not be much more than a traditional single-family subdivision built on the site. Commissioner Allen stated the development was indeed a good development but not for the site which had been selected.He stated he would listen to and vote with the neighborhood. Commissioner Faust stated the development was a good residentialin-fill development.She stated the density difference between what could be constructed and what was proposed was to small to not allow this development. A motion was made to approve the Planned Residential Development as filed,to include all staff recommendations and comments.The vote carried with 6 eyes,4 noes and 1 absent. 12 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-3490-A NAME:Otter Creek Farms —Long-Fozm PD-C LOCATION:12800 Alexander Road DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR: Otter Creek Farms Laha Engineers,Inc. 16220 W.Baseline Road P.O.Box 190251 Little Rock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72219 AREA:23.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:I-2 ALLOWED USES:Light Industrial PROPOSED USE:Equestrian Riding Academy and Commercial Horse Stable VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: The applicant originally submitted two (2)applications for this property;a rezoning request from I-2 (Light Industrial District)to AF (Agriculture and Forestry District)and a conditional use permit for an equestrian riding academy and commercial horsestable.Based on concerns of the neighborhood,relating topossibleclear-cutting of the property,the applicant has revised the rezoning application to a PD-C and is requesting withdrawaloftheconditionalusepermitapplication.The PD-C will tie- down the use of the property,with a specific site development plan. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant,Otter Creek Farms,proposes to rezone the23.03 acre property at 12800 Alexander Road from "I-2"LightIndustrialDistrictto"PD-C"Planned Development— January 17,x002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A Commercial.The applicant proposes to operate an equestrian riding academy and commercial horse stable on the property. The development will include a barn,arena,natural hunter/jumper training and competition course,riding trails and gravel parking areas.The applicant notes that the property will be developed in two (2)phases as follows: Phase I:50'100'etal barn (not to exceed 45'n hei ht) new ent drive ravel arkin area ridin trails re air levee/fill ond Phase II:50'100'etal barn or covered arena (not to exceed 45'n hei ht) additional ravel arkin hunter/'um er com etition course The applicant notes that the hunter/jumper training and competition course and the riding trails will be designed to minimize environmental damage.The applicant also notes that the levee repair and pond fill will require that someoftheexistingtreegrowthberemovedinthisareaofthe property. The proposed equestrian facility will be open seven days per week,with the training course and riding trails being used during the day only.The arena and barn will include some night use.A dusk to dawn night-light will be installedclosetothebarnentrance.Motion detector lights will beinstalledaroundtheparkingareasandarenawhereneeded. The applicant has noted that there are no plans to hire employees at this time. The applicant also notes that the existing driveway from Alexander Road will be removed,with a new drive constructedtotheeast.The drive will be gravel,with the first 100feetbeingpavedasrequiredbyPublicWorkstoprevent gravel from being pulled onto Alexander Road. The proposed site plan shows a ground-mounted sign along the west side of the new entry drive.The proposed sign will be 50 square feet in area,with seven (7)foot tall brick column supports. No dumpsters will be located on the site.The applicant notes that metal trash cans with lids will be placed in all 2 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-3490-A public use areas with the trash removed weekly by the CityofLittleRock. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located along the north side of Alexander Road,approximately 1,300 feet west of Vimy Ridge Road,andiscurrentlyundevelopedandwooded.MoPac Railroad right- of-way and a nonconforming industrial use are located on the R-2 zoned property immediately north of the site.There are single family residences to the south,along the north sideofAlexanderRoad,with an industrial use (Wilbert Vault Co.—PD-I)and undeveloped R-2 zoned property across Alexander Road.There is a large undeveloped I-2 zoned tract immediately west of the site,with single family residencestothewest,along the north side of Alexander Road.A church (zoned R-2)and an industrial use (zoned I-2)are located immediately east,along the west side of Vimy Ridge Road. 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 Alexander Road and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the proposed rezoning. 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. With Buildin Permit: 2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned development. 3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Grading permit will be required on this development. 5.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 3 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:No Comments received. Entergy:No Comments received. ARKLA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:No Comments received. Water:No objection. Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code. Count Plannin :No Comments received. CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows "Single Family"and "Light Industrial"for this property.The applicant has applied for rezoning to "PD-C"for a riding academy and commercial horse stable.A land use plan amendment is not required at this time.This property and other properties will be brought to the Commission at a later date as part of the Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan Review process. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant'property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.It includes an action statement that desires the "widening and improving Alexander Road to a four lane Minor Arterial". The Recreation Goal states,"Provide sufficient and safe active and passive recreation areas to meet the needs of area residents."Lastly,in the Economic Development goal,it states "Attract more light industrial uses to the area." 4 January 17,F002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A Landsca e Issues: A total of at least eight percent of the parking areas must be landscaped and contain at least one tree for every twelve parking spaces. An approved landscape border to help hold in the gravel and protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic will be required where parking areas are proposed. Because of the existing dense trees and vegetation and separation from adjacent properties,additional screening is not required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape and three protection ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six inch caliper or larger. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20,2001) The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed on building heights,the number of employees,days and hours of operation,site lighting and the dumpster location.Staff also noted that a variance would be needed to allow the gravel driveways and parking.Staff noted that only one driveway would be allowed onto Alexander Road and that driveway would need to be paved for a distance of 100 feet from the street to prevent gravel being pulled onto the road. The applicant responded that the building height would not exceed the 45 feet allowed in AF and that there would be no dumpster on the site.The applicant stated the ridingtrailswouldbeday-use only and there would only be lighting in the area around the barn and arena.The applicant stated one of the driveways would be removed, leaving only one onto Alexander Road. Public Works Comments were discussed.The applicant was directed to meet with staff to discuss the possibility of anin-lieu contribution toward street improvements and a deferral of that requirement. 5 January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A The applicant stated it was her desire to keep the property as natural as possible.She stated there was not another facility like this in the state. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional information to staff on December 26,2001.The revised plan and additional information addresses the issues as raised bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.Information concerningsitelighting,employees,hours of operation,trash receptacles and fencing have been provided,as explained in paragraph A.of this report and/or shown on the attached site plan. As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting to construct a new gravel drive and gravel parking areas.The City's Zoning Ordinance typically requires that vehicular use areas be paved.However,with the type of use proposed (equestrian riding academy and commercial horse stable),staff feels that a gravel drive and parking areas are appropriate.Additionally,the Ordinance does not have a typical required minimum number of parking spaces for this specific type of use.Staff feels that the gravel parking areas as shown on the proposed site plan will be sufficient to serve the proposed use,which should prove to generate very minimal traffic. The applicant has noted that the required right-of-way for Alexander Road will be dedicated.The applicant is requesting to provide a 15 percent in-lieu contribution for the future Alexander Road street improvements.Public Works supports the 15 percent in-lieu contribution,and notes that a five (5)year deferral of the contribution will be acceptable. The applicant also notes that the landscape requirements,as found in paragraph I.of this report,will be complied with. Additional trees and shrubs will be planted to achieve the applicant'goal of a "beautiful recreational park".The applicant also notes that the equestrian facility will blend with the natural beauty of the property and "a park setting 6 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A will be created where families and friends can enjoy the sport of horseback riding." The Otter Creek Planning District recommends "Single Family" for a small portion of the property along Alexander Road and "Light Industrial"for the bulk of the site.Staff is not requiring a land use plan amendment at this time,as this property will be part of the Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan Review process,which will come to the Commission at a later date. Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.Staff feels that the proposed PD-C zoning will have no adverse impact on the nearby single family residences,and that the equestrian riding academy and commercial horse stable will prove to be an excellent holding use for this "Light Industrial" property as shown on the City's future land use plan,and a compatible use in this general area. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested PD-C zoning subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the conditions as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2.Staff supports a 15 percent in-lieu contribution for the future Alexander Road street improvements,with the contribution being deferred a maximum of five (5)years. 3.The first 100 feet of the new gravel driveway from Alexander Road must be paved to prevent gravel from being pulled onto the street. 4.The ground-mounted sign will have a maximum height of seven (7)feet (columns),with a maximum area of 50 square feet and a minimum setback of five (5)feet from any property line. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on January 15,2002 requesting that this application be withdrawn.There were no objectors present. 7 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3490-A TiiTith a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent,the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the withdrawal request being less than five working days prior to the hearing date. The Chairman placed this item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. 8 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:1A FILE NO.:Z-3490-B Name:Otter Creek Farms Conditional Use Permit Location:12800 Alexander Road Owner/A licant:Robin Breaux ~P1:A conditional use permit is requested to allow a riding academy and commercial stable to be developed on this site. The property is currently zoned I-2.A request has been filed asking that the property be rezoned to AF,Agriculture and Forestry. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant requests that the conditional use permit application be withdrawn,as the rezoning application (Item 1. on this agenda)has been amended to a PD-C which includes the specific proposed use and site development plan.Staff supports the withdrawal as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on December 27,2001 requesting that this application be withdrawn,as a result of amending the rezoning application to a PD-C.Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed this item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. January 17,.002 ITEM NO.:2 PILE NO.:Z-6923-A NAME:Coby Manufactured Home Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:17016 Crystal Valley Road OWNER/APPLICANT:Lawanda and Charles Coby PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for placement of a triple-wide (41' 56'),multi-sectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESZGN STANDARDS: 1.SITE LOCATION: The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City's zoning jurisdiction.The site is located on the east side of Crystal Valley Road,north of its intersection with Raines Road. 2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in a rural area characterized by a sparse mixture of residential and nonresidential uses on larger tracts.The residential uses consist of a broad range of housing types;including older mobile homes, single-wide and multi-sectional manufactured homes and site built homes.Auto repair businesses are located on an R-2 zoned property to the southwest and on a PCD zoned tract to the north.Once the existing,two-section home is removed, the proposed triple-wide manufactured home will be compatible with uses in the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and the Crystal Valley,Otter Creek and SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. 3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The site is accessed from Crystal Valley Road by an existing,gravel driveway.This will not change.There is January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6923-A adequate parking on the site to accommodate the required one space needed for the home. 4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS: More required for this single family use. 5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1.Crystal Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater:No Comments received. Entergy:No Comments received. ARKLA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:No Comments received. Water:No objection. Fire Department:Approved as submitted,outside city limits . Count Plannin :No Comments received. CATA:project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20,2001) The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and noted that the only issues were requiring removal of the existing,double-wide home and requiring that placement of the new home comply with ordinance siting standards.Public Works Staff commented that right-of-way dedication was required for Crystal Valley Road. 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6923-A The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS; The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for placement of a multi-sectional (triple-wide),41' 56',manufactured home on the R-2 zoned property located at 17016 Crystal Valley Road.The home has already been placed on the property.The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City's soning jurisdiction. On May 15,1997,the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit allowing the applicant to place a multi-sectional (double-wide)manufactured home on the property.An older, site-built home also existed on the property at that time.The applicant subsequently removed the site —built home,leaving only the manufactured home.She has now placed the new triple-wide manufactured home where the site-built home was located.She proposes to remove the previously approved double-wide home, leaving only the new triple-wide on the property. Staff is supportive of the request.Placement of the new home exceeds ordinance required setbacks and appears to comply with ordinance siting standards.The home is compatible with uses in the area and allowing its placement on this site should not have an adverse impact on surrounding pzoperties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following comments: 1.Previously approved double-wide manufactured home is to be removed within 30 days of approval. 2.Compliance with the following siting standards from Section 36-254(d)(5)is required. 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. 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6923-A 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 multi-sectional. h.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. 3.Compliance with Public Works Comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had not completed the required notices and had requested that the item be deferred to the February 14,2002 meeting.There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to February 14,2002.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 4 January 17,.002 ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6664-A NAME:J.A.Fair High School Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:13420 David 0 Dodd OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District/White-Daters PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for remodeling and expansion of the existing high school located on this R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.SITE LOCATION: The site is located adjacent to the city limits,south of Colonel Glenn Road and east of David 0 Dodd. 2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The school has existed as a part of this neighborhood for many years.Allowing these small additions will not affect the school'continued compatibility with the neighborhood. Removal of the portable classroom building in-lieu of the proposed addition should be seen as a positive action. All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. 3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The property is served by two driveways accessing the site from David 0 Dodd.276 parking spaces are located on site. A 52 room high school requires 312 on site parking spaces. No changes are proposed in the number of classrooms,the student enrollment or the existing parking and driveways. Staff supports a variance to allow the reduced parking asitcurrentlyexists. January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6664-A 4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Since the proposed building expansion is under ten percent of the existing buildings,no landscaping upgrade is required. 5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1.David 0 Dodd 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.Provide design of street confozming to "MSP"(Master 'treetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development,oz seek deferral of requirements. 3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as requized by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater:No Comments received. Entergy:No Comments received. ARKLA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:No Comments received. Water:Due to the nature of the processes used in this facility,installation of an approved reduced pressure xone backflow preventer assembly will be required on the domestic water service.This device shall be installed prior to any outlet.Contact Carroll Keatts,Central Arkansas Water'Cross Connection Program Administrator at 992-2431,if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6664-A Fire Department:Approved as submitted. Count Plannin :No Comments received. CATA:No Comments received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20,2001) Joe White and Doug Eaton were present representing the application.Staff noted that additional information was needed on building height,signage,fencing,dumpster location and the bus drop-off/pick-up area.Staff also asked if the portable classroom building would be removed after the expansion.The applicant responded that the portable building would be removed. He noted that one parking lot had not been included in calculating the available on-site parking.He stated the new number would be provided to staff along with a response to the other issues raised. Public Works Comments were presented and discussed at length. Mr.Eaton stated the right-of-way would be dedicated but it would be a hardship to do full improvements to David 0 Dodd since there was so much frontage.It was noted that a full right-of-way dedication of 90 feet would be required for portions of David 0 Dodd since the school site extends across the road.The applicant was directed to meet with staff to discuss the issue of street improvements. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: J.A.Fair High School is located on the R-2 zoned,47+acre tract at 13420 David 0 Dodd Road.The site contains a 120,000 square foot school building,athletic fields,276 parking spaces and a portable classroom building.The building contains 50 classrooms.The Little Rock School District proposes to remodel the school;including the addition of 2 laboratories,2 classrooms,bathroom facilities near the athletic fields and an expansion of the band room.The total expansions come to 10,800 square feet.Once the classrooms are constructed,the portable 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6664-A classroom building will be removed from the site.The height of the additions will match the existing structure (20').No other changes are proposed to the site.The lab,classroom and band room additions are located within alcoves of the existing building.The restroom facility will be located between the football and baseball fields.None of the additions will impact adjacent properties. The 52 room high school requires 312 on-site parking spaces. The existing 276 spaces have proven to be sufficient to meet the school'needs.Since no changes are proposed to the number of classrooms or the school's enrollment,staff supports *variance to allow the existing parking numbers. On December 26,2001,the applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter addressing those issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant submitted engineering drawings showing the full right-of-way requirement was dedicated in 1991,in preparation for the David O Dodd/Bowman Road extension project.The revised plan shows existing signage,building height,fencing,dumpster location and bus drop-off/pick-up area. The school district is requesting permission to utilize a 15% in-lieu contribution toward the required improvements to David 0 Dodd.Staff is supportive of the request,due to the small percentage of building expansion being proposed (less than 10%) and the extremely large amount of frontage onto David 0 Dodd (1,300'+). To staff'knowledge,there are no other outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the comments outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the existing on-site parking;276 spaces. Staff recommends approval of the request to utilize a 15%in- lieu contribution toward required improvements to David 0 Dodd. January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6664-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Joe White and Doug Eaton were present representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the comments outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. Staff also recommended approval of the parking variance and the request to utilize a 15%in-lieu contribution toward street improvements. Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,reiterated his support of the 15%in-lieu.He stated there was some confusion over what the 15%was to be based upon.He asked that the issue be clarified. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles commented that the Fair High School project was two projects in one;the first being a renovation of the existing building and the second being an expansion of the building.He noted that the requirement for a C.U.P.was generated by the expansion,not the remodeling.Mr. Giles stated the 15%should apply to the cost of that portion of the project that is causing an increased burden on the street infrastructure;i.e.a larger building would possibly mean increased student population. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to approve the application,including all staff recommendations and conditions.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 5 January 17,a02 ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-7112 NAME:Neison Accessory Dwelling Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:2405 South Oak Street OWNER/APPLICANT:Wayne Neison PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for use of an accessory building as an accessory dwelling.The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of S.Oak Street, 5 lots north of West 25 Street. 2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in a predominantly single family neighborhood.Although all of the surrounding properties are zoned R-3,not all contain occupied single family residences.Many of the residential structures are vacant and either boarded-up or standing open.A large church occupies several lots directly behind (east)this property. A school is located one block east of the site.This existing accessory building has,according to the applicant,been occupied as an accessory dwelling in the past. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Midway,Stephens Faith,Hope and Love Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. 3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed single family residence and accessory dwelling require one parking space each.A portion of the existing accessory building contains a two-car garage,taking access off of the paved alley.The two garage spaces will be January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7112 available for the tenants of the house and the accessory building,meeting the ordinance requirement. 4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No Comments. 5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. 6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater:No Comments received. Entergy:No Comments received. ARKIA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Water:No objection. Fire Department:Approved as submitted. Count Plannin :No Comments. CATA:Project site is located close to Bus Route ()16 but has no effect bus radius,turnout and route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20,2001) The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed regarding on-site parking,whether the utilities are to be separated and how much of the accessory structure is to be used as the accessory dwelling. Staff stated they would meet with the applicant to obtain answers to those issues. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7112 STAFF ANALYSIS: The R-3 zoned lot at 2405 S.Oak Street is occupied by a one- story,frame residential structure and a detached,cinderblock accessory structure.The house is currently vacant and is being repaired by the applicant.The 20'40'ccessory building, located at the rear of the lot,is divided roughly in half;the south half is a two-car garage and the north half has in the past been used as an accessory dwelling.The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the north half of the accessory structure,approximately 400 square feet,to be remodeled so that it can again be utilized as an accessory dwelling.He is requesting approval of separate meters to serve each structure. The area of the proposed accessory dwelling is within that allowed by the Ordinance.The two-car garage,which takes access off of the paved alley,provides the two required on-site parking spaces.The applicant proposes to rent both the house and the accessory dwelling.The R-3 district does not require that the property owner occupy either dwelling. Staff is interested in seeing this property rehabilitated and occupied.In so much as there appears to be some history of use of the accessory structure as an accessory dwelling,staff is willing to support this application.Since both dwellings are to be rental,it seems reasonable to allow the separate meters. The applicant did meet with staff subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting and provided answers to those questions raised at the meeting.The staff analysis reflects that information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow the accessory dwelling.Staff recommends approval of the request to split the utilities. 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7112 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) The applicant was present.There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 4 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7128 NAME:Campbell Adult Day-Care Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:1304 S.Taylor Street OWNER/APPLICANT:James and Sharon Campbell PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow this existing residential structure to be converted into an adult day-care center with a maximum enrollment of 15 persons. The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.SITE LOCATION: The site is located on the west side of S.Taylor Street; 1 'c blocks south of West 12 Street. 2.COMPATIBILITI WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located mid-block in a neighborhood occupied almost exclusively by single-family homes.All properties for several blocks east,west and south of the site are occupied by single family residences.The single family uses extend for one block north of the site.Beyond that,along 12 Street and extending to the north,the uses are non-residential.The proposed use is a day-care center,not a day-care family home where the primary use remains residential.Regardless of the relatively small scale of this proposed business,staff does not believe it is compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 200 feet who could be identified and the Oak Forest and War Memorial Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. 3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The proposed day-care center is to have 6 employees and a maximum enrollment of 15 clients,requiring 7 on-site January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7128 parking spaces.The site is currently served by a 16'ide concrete driveway.The applicant proposes to widen the driveway to 25',providing room for 4 vehicles to be parked on site.The vehicles will be in two rows,one car behind the other.The applicant will approach one of the businesses in the area,along 12 Street,to determine ifitispossibletoleasetheadditional3spaces.The proposed parking arrangement requires 2 variances;one for reduced number of on-site parking spaces and one to allow the stacked parking design.Staff does not support either variance. 4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The landscape strip north of the proposed parking area must be increased in width to at least 6.7 feet. A 6-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. 5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1.Redesign parking to eliminate head-in parking to S. Taylor. 2.S.Taylor is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater:No Comments received. Entergy:No Comments received. ARKLA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:No Comments received. 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7128 Water:No objection. Fire Department:Approved as submitted. Count Plannin :No Comments. CATA:Project site is located close to Bus Routes ¹3 and ¹9 but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20 y 200 1 ) The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed on proposed signage, fencing and site lighting.It was also noted that the proposed parking design was not acceptable and a variance would be needed for reduced parking.Public Works Comments were presented. The applicant stated there would be no ground-mounted sign and only a 1'1'ameplate sign on the building.She stated the privacy fence would be 6'n height and the only site lighting would be security lighting. The issue of on site parking was discussed at length.It was explained to the applicant that required parking was determined by the number of employees and clients.It was suggested that the applicant could reduce those numbers and could possibly arrange to have the employees park off site;at a nonresidential site along 12 Street. The Committee voiced their desire to have the property retain its single-family residential character.The applicant stated that was also her desire.The applicant was directed to prepare a revised site plan and to have a response to the parking issue. The Committee then forwarded the issue to the full Commission. 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7128 STAFF ANALYSIS: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of the residential structure located on the R-3 zoned property at 1304 South Taylor Street as an adult day-care center.The proposed day-care center is to have 6 employees and a maximum enrollment of 15 clients.No one will live at the residence.Only three changes are proposed for the site.The wood deck on the rear of the house is to be replaced with a sunroom,the rear yard is to be enclosed with a 6'all privacy fence and the driveway is to be widened from 16'o 25'.The applicant proposes to provide 4 of the required 7 on site parking spaces on the widened driveway,stacking 1 vehicle behind another.The applicant is attempting to arrange off-site parking for the remaining 3 required spaces.Days and hours of operation are proposed to be7:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m.on weekends.There will be no ground-mounted sign; only a 1 square foot wall sign on the house. Although the proposed day-care center is relatively small in scale,staff does have two primary concerns that lead to staff's non-support for the application. First,the proposal is to convert the residence into a day-care center,not a day-care family home that retains as its primary use,a single family residence.The property is located mid- block in a neighborhood that,from all appearances,is solely single family.Staff believes the proposed use would be better located at the fringe of the neighborhood,in an area of mixed uses or where it could serve as a transition from intensive non- residential uses to residential uses.Staff is concerned that placing this use at this location could negatively impact adjacent residential properties. Second,the site is unable to accommodate the required 7 on-site parking spaces needed for the day-care operation.Limited on- street parking is available in the area.No parking is permitted on the east side of Taylor Street,a narrow residential street.Staff is concerned that the substandard parking design proposed by the applicant,combined with the limited parking available on the street,could lead to a situation that impacts the residents of the neighborhood. 4 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7128 On December 26,2001,the applicant did submit responses to issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNINQ COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17 '002) The applicant was present.There was one objector present. Staff informed the Commission that 3 to 4 telephone calls had been received from neighborhood residents in opposition to the item.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Joseph Busby,of 1223 S.Filmore,spoke in opposition to the item.He stated neighborhood residents had worked hard to improve the neighborhood and as a result,property values were increasing;the proposed day care center had too many people; traffic in the area would increase as a result of the business; and there were no homes for sale on Taylor Street,which showed the stability of the neighborhood.Mr.Busby presented a petition signed by several neighborhood results opposed to the daycare. The applicant,Sharon Campbell,stated she would prefer to have 5 to 10 clients,not 15.She stated property values in the area were declining and she felt her proposed use would provide a stabilizing effect.Ms.Campbell stated she was not changing the structure of the home.She presented a letter of agreement with American Home Patient for rental of 5 parking spaces at West 12 and Taylor Streets.The lease was until December 31, 2002,at which time it would need to be renegotiated. In response to a question from Commissioner Allen,Ms.Campbell stated the house would revert to single-family use if the day care center ceased operation or relocated. In response to a question from Commissioner Berry,Ms.Campbell stated she would amend her application to no more than 10 clients.Commissioner Berry asked if staff would support the amended application.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,responded that it helped to reduce the number of 5 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7128 clients but parking would still be an issue.Ms.Campbell reminded the Commission that she had arranged off-site parking and she would reduce the number of employees since the number of clients had been reduced.Ms.Campbell stated she would have four employees. Commissioner Floyd commented that he could not support the proposed business. Commissioner Rahman asked Ms.Campbell if the house was currently heing rented.Ms.Campbell responded that it was and had been for the past 4 years.Commissioner Rahman asked why the day care was proposed since the house has continually been rented and occupied.Ms.Campbell responded that she had experienced problems with some of the renters. A motion was made to approve the application,as amended. Commissioner Floyd commented that,although he did not support this application,he did support adult day care. The vote was 2 ayes,8 noes and 1 absent. The applicant was urged to pursue locating the day care elsewhere. 6 January 17,J02 ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-7130 NAME:Martin Luthei King Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:3012 M.L.King,Jr.Drive OWNER/APPLICANT:City of Little Rock/Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of this existing residential structure as a neighborhood heritage enrichment center.The property is zonedR-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1.S1TE LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of M.L.King,Jr. Drive,4 lots south of West 30 "Street. 2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located on the west side of M.L.King, south of 30 Street.This site was in the path of the 1999 tornado.Although many homes in the area have been repaired or rebuilt,the neighborhood is still characterized by many vacant lots and damaged residences. The homes located either side of this property were destroyed by the tornado.The two blocks directly east of this site are occupied by a large parking lot and the Ish Instructional Resource Center.A church and an office building are located one block north of the site.This small,neighborhood oriented,"resource center"should be compatible with the neighborhood. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of thesite,all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the M.L.King and South End Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request. Zanuazy 17,2002 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:E-7130 3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: This,1,260+square foot use requires 4 parking spaces. None are proposed.Many of the Enrichment Center's functions are oriented to neighborhood residents and it is anticipated that many will walk to the center.There is adequate on-street parking available on both sides of M.L. King and a large,undezused,Little Rock School District parking lot is located directly across M.L.King.Staff supports a variance to allow this use to have no on-site parking. 4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No landscape issues. 5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought.up to the current ADA standards. 2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to occupancy. 3.Show parking for visitors and employees 6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS; Wastewater:No Comments received Entergy:No Comments received. ARKLA:No Comments received. Southwestern Bell:No Comments received. Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding reestablishment of water service to this pzopezty Fire Department:Approved as submitted. Count Plannin :No Comments. CATA:Pro3ect site is located on Bus Route Ill but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. 2 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7130 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(DECEMBER 20,2001) Jesse Garrett,association president,and Mr.Kwendeche, architect,were present representing the application.Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed on signage,the number of employees (paid and volunteer) and days and hours of operation.Staff also noted a variance was needed for reduced on-site parking.Public Works Comments were presented.The applicant was directed to prepare a response to staff's questions. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Martin Luther King Association,in partnership with the CityofLittleRockDepartmentofHousingandNeighborhoodPrograms,is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the conversionoftheresidentialstructurelocatedontheR-3 zoned propertyat3012M.L.King,Jr.Drive into a Neighborhood Heritage Enrichment Center.The property is owned by the City of Little Rock.The Enrichment Center will be operated on a volunteerbasisbytheNeighborhoodAssociation. The function of the Enrichment Center is similar,in some ways,to an alert center or a neighborhood resource center.The center will provide a location for teaching life skills andafterschoolandweekendtutoring.A portion of the facility will be used for the display of historical exhibits,focusing on the achievements of members of Little Rock's African American community;including Drs.Robinson,Jackson,Townsend,Ish,O.B.White,William Thrasher and Mr.and Mrs.L.C.Bates. Exhibits will also highlight the United Friends Hospital, colleges,churches and 9 Street.Ultimately,the association hopes to develop a community garden and to add a gardening tool lending library and gardening classes to its repertoire. It is the goal of the association to keep the property residential in character.Consequently,only small changes will be made to the site.The existing,concrete driveway will be removed.A new,concrete sidewalk and a handicap ramp will beinstalled.No signage will be placed on the building.A small 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7130 (2'"X 3')ground-mounted sign will be erected in a landscaped bed in the front yard.Days and hours of operation are to be Monday through Saturday,8:00 a.m.—9.00 p.m.(summer hours may vary).Two or three volunteers will staff the facility. No on-site parking is proposed.This use requires 4 parking spaces.There is adequate on-street parking available as well as an underused Little Rock School District parking lot directly across the street.It is thought that many users of the facility will be neighborhood residents who will walk to the facility. The property is located in the path of the 1999 tornado.Many of the structures in the area around this site were heavily damaged or destroyed.This structure was heavily damaged. Staff sees the proposed use as compatible with the neighborhood. Keeping the residential nature of the site in tact helps assure that compatibility and enhances the possibility of the property reverting to residential use at some point in the future. On December 26,2001,the applicant submitted responses to the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.Those responses are reflected in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the comments outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. Staff recommends approval of the parking variance to allow no on-site parking. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) The applicant was present.There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, including a parking variance. 4 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7130 The applicant offered no additional comments. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 5 January 17,J02 ITEM NO.:7 F1LE NO.:LU02-03-01 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —West Little Rock District Location:Lee Avenue to Markham,McKinley to University R~t:Co *o'd Off o 'to M'U Source:Staff,Neighborhood Plan PROPOSAL /REQUEST: The request is to amend the Land Use Plan in West Little Rock Planning District to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides for a mixture of residential,office and commercial uses to occur.While there is not a desire to request changing the existing uses,there is a desire to allow for changes consistent with the ULI Report "A Redevelopment Plan for Midtown."Allow for a traditional Mixed Use Development to occur. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The requested area is the location of a commercial shopping mall, mid-rise office building and mid-rise apartment building as well as several smaller commercial,office and apartment developments. The southern approximately two-thirds (25.6+acres)is zoned C-3 General Commercial and contains the mall.Most of the northern one-third (11+acres)is zoned 0-3 General Office with an office tower,apartment tower and several office and apartment buildings.Less than half an acre is zoned R-6 Urban High Rise and contains an apartment complex.To the north and west is Single Family (R-2)zoning with a high school to the north and single family homes to the west.South of the site is General Commercial (C-3)with a mid-rise apartment,office building and commercial uses.To the east is a variety of zoning:office (0-3),residential (R-3),and a small amount of Commercial (PCD and C-3).The current uses are medical offices,single family homes and two commercial developments (a small strip center and a restaurant). FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECEMENT AMENDMENTS: On June 20,2000,an area west of McKinley and north of Markham (consisting of 3 lots fronting McKinley)was changed from Single Family to Suburban Office,across the street from the site under review. January 17,c002 ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-03-01 On March 16,1999,several changes were made east of University Avenue from Markham to "H"Street.Changes were from Multifamily to Mixed Use and Office south of Lee Avenue,with Office to Multifamily or Single Family changes north of Lee Avenue.These changes are all within four blocks of the site under review. The area under review is shown for Commercial (southern 2/3)and Office (northern 1/3)on the Land Use Plan.To the north is a large Public Institutional area with Single Family shown to the west.South of the site is a large area shown for Commercial. The Land Use Plan shows Office and Mixed Use to the east across and along University Avenue,with Multifamily and Single Family beyond that. MASTER STREET PLAN: University Avenue is shown as a Principal Arterial and Markham is classified as a Minor Arterial.University Avenue has a reduced right-of-way to 100 feet but is not built to the six-lane standard.Markham has a reduced right-of-way and design standard which matches the current road.All other streets are shown as local roads in the Plan.The Plan does not show any Bikeways or Bike Paths for this area. PARKS: The City'Parks Master Plan is built on an "8-Block"principal. That is,there should be a park or open space within 8 blocks. For most of this site,War Memorial golf course provides this requirement.The Public and Private Schools around the site are also opportunities for this park-open space.However if there is a major redevelopment of the area,it would be good to include some open space/recreational area. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: This site is within the Midtown Neighborhoods Plan area.This plan has been to the Planning Commission and has been placed on the Board of Directozs'genda.The Plan recommends that the Land Use Plan be changed in this area to Mixed Use.This is part of the Commercial Development Goal.Any redevelopment should "include restaurants,lifestyle retail,entertainment and multifamily housing."The Plan asks that owner-occupied condos be included with a price range consistent with existing 2 January 17,x002 ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-03-01 residential.It further asks that appropriate scale and footprint be used and that new development embrace the residential character of the community and architectural rhythm. ANALYSIS: The area included in this amendment contains one of two mails which has made the heart of the University/Markham business area. This has been the prime retail area within Little Rock for several years.As "high value"homes have been built west of I- 430,increasingly major retail has looked to locate there rather than in this area.Some of the corridor,south of the site,is beginning to show some decline.As a result of this and a major zoning change immediately to the east of this area,the city brought in outside "experts"from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to look at the overall area and suggest the best future for the area.This report suggests that if the mall were to fail,it should be replaced by office-hotel development with multifamily along the west.The development should be done with a more urban design and include pedestrian elements.The Neighborhood Plan Committee agrees (and maybe more strongly believes)that this area should and can be maintained.However the alternative developed in the ULI Plan for the overall area is attractive to the group.They therefore,recommend the City'Land Use Plan be modified to allow it to occur. The mall actually makes up about two-thirds of the site and the remaining areas are already a mix of Office and Multifamily. Nhile they do not always work together to form a cohesive unit, the use pattern is consistent with the recommendation. Currently,the area is a strong,working,group of developments. The only question is whether the area will be able to continue to be vital.It is important to note that no one wishes to suggest that anything be done which would adversely affect the general area.If the existing development continues to be a positive impact on the surrounding area,then no use change is suggested. Both the ULI Group and the Neighborhood Plan Committee wish to remove any barricades to the possible redevelopment if it is needed. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Andover Square Residences,Evergreen Neighborhood Association, Leawood Neighborhood Association,Meriwether Neighborhood 3 January 17,s002 ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-03-01 Association,Normandy Shannon Property Owners Association,South Normandy Property Owners Association,Hillcrest Residents Association. From notices sent to property owners,surrounding residents and the groups named above,approximately a half dozen informational calls have been received by staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes it is appropriate and advisable to modify the plan to make possible the recommendations of the ULI panel,if needed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) The item was placed on Consent Agenda for approval.Staff informed the Commission,that since the writing of the agenda one property owner had come forward opposed to the Land Use Plan Change.By a vote of 10 for 0 against the amendment was approved. 4 January 17,302 ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:LU02-15-01 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs —West Planning District Location:East side of Chicot Road from Vega Drive to Mabelvale Cutoff Rd. R~t:S'l 1 'ly t SS b Off Source:City Staff Staff recommends placing this item on the consent agenda for deferral to the February 28,2002 Planning Commission Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the February 28,2002 agenda.A motion was made to approve the deferral and passed with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. January 17,J02 ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7131 NAME:Polo Club in Chenal Valley Long-Form PRD LOCATION:South and west side of Chenal Valley Drive, approximately 1300-feet North of Rahling Road. DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Consolidated Residential,LLC White Daters,6 Assoc. 8621 E.21'treet North,Suite 180 ¹24 Rahling Circle Wichita,KS 67206 Little Rock,AR 72223 AREA:9.60 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:MF-24 PROPOSED ZONING:PRD CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Multi-family,24 units per acre PROPOSED USE:Multi-family,8.33 units per acre VAR1ANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposed the development of this 9.60-acre site with 10 buildings of multi-family residential.The development is proposed to be upper-end,low-density rental residences tailored to empty nesters,families waiting for homes to be constructed and business people living away from home for an extended period of time.A total of 80 units are proposed for this development.Each of the units will have a single car attached garage.There are also 12 garage spaces proposed which will be detached from the structures. In addition,the applicant proposes 79 outside parking January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 spaces for a total of 171 parking spaces.The development will be surrounded with a 6-foot security fence and a single gated access from Chenal Valley Drive.The applicant has indicated the fence adjacent to Chenal Valley Drive will be a fence with wooden panels an/brick columns. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded and undeveloped as are the areas to the north,south and west.The area to the east was recently approved as a Planned Residential Development for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Village and the developer has started the site work.Other uses in the area along Chenal Valley Drive include Ashbury Apartments to the south, near Rahling Road,and a City of Little Rock Fire Station to the northwest,near Chenal Parkway.Single-family residences are located to the north of the site,on LaMarche Drive (the LaMarche Subdivision). C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing.As of the writing staff has received numerous informational calls concerning the proposed rezoning request.There is not city recognized neighborhood associations in the area.However,the LaMarche homeowners are well aware of the project. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Move the driveway entrance to the south on Chenal Valley Drive to align with the drive of the Teacher Retirement Community. 2.Move the gate of the driveway into the development to align with the proposed parking (3-spaces)to allow for the stacking of automobiles at the gate.Eliminate the parking *t the driveway on the south side. 3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to current ADA standards. 4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the right-of-way prior to occupancy. 5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 2 January 17,4002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8.A grading permit will be required on this development. 9.Contact the ADPCSE for approval prior to start of work. 10.This development involves issues related to street lighting.The property owner may be responsible for installation of new street lights or modification (if required)of existing street lights.Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott at 340- 4880)to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 11.Reduce driveway width to 36 feet overall with 6-foot island. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. ~Et i No o t '. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Water:An acreage charge of $2500 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area (9.60 acres $2500 =$24,000.00)On site fire protection will be 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.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire De artment:Gates must maintain a full 15-foot opening.Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact the Fire Marshall for details. Count Plannin :No comment received. CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. 3 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi-family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for an apartment community containing 80 units all with attached garages.The property is currently zoned MF-24, Multi-family.A Land Use Plan amendment is not required. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landsca e Issues: 1.Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2.Because of cuts and fills planned for this site,it will be necessary to provide cross-sections of the grade changes. 3.An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 4.Prior to building permit being issued,it will be necessary to submit an approved landscape plan with the stamp of the seal of a registered landscape architect. 5.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or larger. Buildin Codes:No comment received. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(December 20,2001) Mr.Joe White was present,representing the applicant. Staff briefly described the proposed PRD request.Staff noted that some additional information was needed (distance 4 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 between buildings,dumpster location,signage details,roof treatment and roof pitch).Mr.White noted that the additional information would be provided as requested. Staff also indicated the existing driveway would not allow for the stacking of automobiles.Staff requested Mr.White examine increasing the depth of the driveway since the entrance was gated and operated on a call button,which could at times require a car to wait before entering.Staff also indicated the sight distance for the proposed driveway location was not adequate and the spacing distance between driveways (this driveway and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Development)did not meet the minimum requirement.Mr. White stated he would verify the sight distance and possibly move the driveway to the north.He stated,with the topography,to move the dziveway to the south would not work.Staff also noted the driveway width was to be reduced to 36-feet.Mr.White stated he would work with Public Works to address this concern.With the center island,the effect is not the same as with a standard driveway of this width. The landscape requirements were also discussed.lt was noted the proposed site plan conformed to the zoning and buffer and landscape ordinance requirements.Cross sections were requested for the site due to the planned cuts andfills. Staff suggested Mr.White contact the fire department and Central Arkansas Water to obtain details concerning comments received from each agency. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PRD to the full Commission for resolution. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the concerns raised by staff.The applicant has indicated a dumpster,with required screening,will be located on the site near the front entrance.The applicant has also indicated the handicap parking spaces (6 proposed) on the site plan.The applicant has indicated the building heights will not exceed 35-feet,which is the typical maximum building height in the MF-24 soning district.The 5 January 17,2002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 building setbacks and building separation exceed the typical minimum requirements for MF-24 zoned property.The applicant has addressed the landscaping issues which were previously raised. The fencing heights on the side and rear property lines are typical for residential zoning districts.The proposed fence height on the front property line (adjacent to the street right-of-way)is 6-feet.In accordance with the zoning ordinance the maximum fence height between the building setback and the street right-of-way is 4-feet. Staff is supportive of allowing a 6-foot fence adjacent to the street right-of-way since the fence will be wood and brick design. The applicant proposes a sign to be placed at the entrance to the community.The applicant has requested the sign be largest allowable under the zoning ordinance.The maximum sign area typically allowed in multi-family is 24 square feet,not to exceed 6-feet in height.The sign may only denote the name and address of the complex.Staff is comfortable with the request for signage on the site based on those criteria. The applicant is proposing 171 parking spaces.Eighty of these spaces will be attached garage spaces and twelve will be detached garage spaces.The applicant is proposing 79 surface parking spaces.The typical requirement for a development of this size would be 120 spaces.The number proposed more than adequately meets the normal requirements. The driveway has been moved to the north to allow for an increased sight distance and meet the minimum driveway separation.Public Works has verified the sight distance and is supportive of the new driveway location. Staff is supportive of the application as filed.The density of the proposed development is significantly less than is currently allowed under its zoning of MF-24.The applicant is proposing 8.33 units per acre as opposed to the allowable 24 units per acre.The applicant has satisfied all the concerns of staff.Otherwise,to staff'knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this proposed PRD.The proposed request for the Polo Club Long- Form PRD should have no adverse impact on the general area. 6 January 17,z002 ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7131 I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 17,2002) Mr.Joe White,White-Deters and Associations was present representing the application.There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above in the"staff recommendation"above. There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE,7 DA ~CQRMN ~~k&GVL*P MEMBER '7 ALLEN,FRED,JR.V 0 O BERRY,CRAIG V y e DOWNING,RICHARD V e e o FAUST,JUDITH v v e FLOYD,NORM v ~ LOWRY,BOB v'0 e MUSE,ROHN A k- NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.v ~a a RAHMAN,MIZAN v v V RECTOR,BILL v o STEBBINS,ROBERT v v ~ MEMBER ALLEN,FRED,JR, BERRY,CRAIG DOWNING,RICHARD FAUST,JUDITH FLOYD,NORM LOWRY,BOB MUSE,ROHN NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR. RAHMAN,MI ZAN RECTOR,BILL STEBBINS,ROBERT Meeting Adjourned ~~V P.M. v AYE +NAYE ~ABSENT A6 ABSTAIN ~RECUSE January 17,2002 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Date ~+A g2- ec etary Ch i an