pc_02 14 2002subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 14,2002
4:00 PM
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
II.Members Present:Bob Lowry
Judith Faust
Craig Berry
Fred Allen,Jr.
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Richard Downing
City Attorney:Steven Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the January 3,2002 MeetingoftheLittleRockPlanningCommission.The Minutes
were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 14,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V —Preliminary Plat
(S-992-M),West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road
B.LU02-01-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain
Planning District Single-family to Low Density Residential
on the west side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road
C.Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V Short-form PRD(Z-7126),West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road
D.2000 —2001 Ordinance Amendment Package
E.Coby Manufactured Home C.U.P.(Z-6293-A)
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
1.Reservoir Heights 2002 Short-form PRD (Z-2393-C)—locatedatthesoutheastcornerofReservoirHeightsRoadandReservoirRoad
2.LU02-08-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central CityPlanningDistrictforthewestsideofthe1300blockof
Marshall Street from Public Institutional to Multi-Family
2.1 Westside Jr.High Short-form PRD (Z-2559-D)—located on thewestsideofthe1300blockofMarshallStreet
3.Lewis Short-form PCD (Z-6611-A)—located at 508 Bond Street
4.Ficklin'Revised Short-form PD"R (Z-6981-A)—located onthesouthwestcornerofStacyLaneandGambleRoad
5.MTM Salon and Supplies Short-form PCD (Z-7129)—located at8201AsherAvenue
6.LU02-08-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City
Planning District located at 1201 West 10 Street fromSingleFamilytoOffice
Agenda,Page Two
II.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:(Cont.)
6.1 Lindsey Short-form PD-0 (Z-7142)—located at 1201 W.10Street
III.SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
7.Windriver Wildlife Office Park Revised Zoning Site Plan
Review (Z-4305-E)—located at 2300 Cottondale Lane
8.Greater Christ Temple Pentecostal Church Subdivision Site
Plan Review (S-1334)—located at 1200 Lewis Street
IV.OTHER MATTER:
9.Hyde Park Short-Form PRD Revocation (Z-6789)—located at
the northwest and southwest corners of Gamble Road and
Westglen Drive
10.Presentation of the Clinton Presidential Park
February 14,-'2002
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:8-992-M
NAME:Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V —Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately
0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown,Jr.McGetrick &McGetrick Engineers¹6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 East Markham Street Suite 202LittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.080 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:11 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:1.Variance to allow a 25-foot setback line adjacent to anarterialstreet.
2.Variance to allow a reduced lot depth to width ratio (Lots 3,
6,7,8,9 and 10).
3.Variance to allow lots with no public street frontage (Lots
2,3,4).
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 4.080-acre siteintoeleven(11)lots.The applicant is also proposing todevelopthelotswithmulti-family residential structures
containing 40 units as a part of a Planned Residential
Development,which is a separate item on this agenda (Item¹13.1 —Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V Short-Form PRDFileNo.E-7126).The lots will be accessed via an access
and utility easement off Pinnacle Valley Road.The
applicant proposes 88 parking spaces as a part of the PRD.
February 14,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-M
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow lotswithoutpublicstreetfrontage,a variance from thestandardlotwidthtodepthratiosandavariancetoallowa25-foot building set back adjacent to an arterial street.
The applicant is proposing an access and/or utilityeasementandcrossparkingeasementwithinthedevelopment.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is an undeveloped site with a scattering of trees.There is a creek adjacent to the west property line.A
newly developing single-family subdivision shuts the creek
on the opposite side to the west.A new single-familyresidenceisunderconstructiontothenorthofthesite
and single-family residences are located to the south ofthesite.Single-family residences on large lots are totheeastofthesite.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received numerous phone callsandlettersfromneighborsstatingoppositiontotheapplication.All property owners abutting the site and theRiverValleyPropertyOwnersAssociationwerenotifiedofthePublicHearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to
45 feet from centerline will be required.2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
the street including 5-foot sidewalks with planned the
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stozmwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to
2
February 14,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-992-M
Subdivision Committee meeting,or no later than 5 days
before Planning Commission hearing.8.A grading permit and development pezmit for special
flood hazard area is required prior to construction.9.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.10.Street names need to be approved by David Hathcock.Call
371-4808 for more information.11.This development involves issues related to street
lighting.The property owner may be responsible forinstallationofnewstreetlightsozmodification(if
required)of existing streetlights.Property owner must
contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott 8 340-4880)
to verify street lighting requirements for this project.12.Access /utility easement will need to be named and
approved by City for address assignment Lots 1 to 4.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements ifserviceisrequiredforproject.Contact Jim Boyd at376-2903 for details.
~Eot*:Eo t*'d.
No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Modifications of water facilities installed to servePinnacleValleySubdivisionPhase3willberequized.Anacreagechargeof$300 per acre applies in addition to
normal charges for water service to this area.Contact
Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Project is located on Express Bus Route ¹25 and has
no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
3
February 14,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-M
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 the PRD
were discussed simultaneously.Staff noted some additions,
which were needed on the preliminary plat (lot zoning
classifications,10 foot no access easement adjacent to
Pinnacle Valley Road).Staff requested Mr.McGetrick
provide a phasing plan for the development.
Staff also requested details for the roof treatment of the
buildings along with building heights for the PRD.Staff
requested a statement of the applicant's intentions with
regard for future selling or leasing of all or portions of
the PRD including land area and dwelling units.
Mr.Tad Borkowski,Public Works Staff,noted the dedication
of 45 feet of right-of-way would be required along Pinnacle
Valley Road and the roadway would be required to be builttoMasterStreetPlanstandards.
Staff also noted there were three variances to the
Subdivision Ordinance,which would need to be requested.
1).The ordinance requires building set backs adjacent to
an arterial street to be 35-feet.The applicant proposes a25-foot building set back.2).The lot depth to widthratiosforLots6,7,8,9 and 10 are above the minimum
standard set by the ordinance.3).The ordinance also
requires lots to have public street frontage.Lots 2,3
and 4 do not have public street frontage.
Mr.Bob Brown,Planning and Development Staff,noted the
proposed planned development would require a 6.7-foot
landscape strip on each side of the development adjacent to
the property lines.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat and the PRD to the full Commission forfinalaction.
4
February 14,'2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-M
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
applicant has platted a 10-foot no access easement along
Pinnacle Valley Road as requested.The applicant has also
indicated the driveway as cross parking and an access andutilityeasementforatotalof88parkingspaces.
The applicant is requesting three variances from the
Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant is requesting a
platted building line of 25-feet adjacent to Pinnacle
Valley Road.The Subdivision Ordinance requires a platted
building line of 35-feet adjacent to an arterial street.
The applicant is also requesting a lot depth to widthratiosvarianceforfiveoftheelevenlots.The
Subdivision Ordinance requires that no residential lot be
more than three (3)times as deep as it is wide.
The applicant also proposes a variance to allow three lots
without public street frontage (Lots 2 —4).The
Subdivision Ordinance requires all lots be adjacent to a
public street or an approved private drive.The applicantisproposingthelotsbeaccessedviaanaccessandutility
easement and a cross parking easement.
In as much as the preliminary plat is tied to the PRD andstaffisnotsupportiveofthePRDassubmitted,staff
cannot support the proposed preliminary plat.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was
present representing the application.There were numerous
objectors present.Staff presented the application in
conjunction with the Planned Residential Development Item ()13.1
Pinnacle Valley Short-Form PRD,File No.Z-7126.Staff
5
February 1~2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-M
recommended denial of the preliminary plat based on a denial
recommendation of the PRD.After a brief discussion the
Commission voted to defer the item for six weeks to the February
14,2002 Public Hearing.(See Item No.13.1 for a more detailed
minute record of this item.)
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 24,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,of McGetzick and McGetrick Engineers,was
present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that additional information was needed on the parking
layout and front yazd setback.
Public Works comments were also discussed.Staff stated the
comments were similar to the previous application;right-of-way
requirements would apply,street improvements adjacent to the
property and the naming of the access /utility easement for
city address assignment.
After a brief discussion the Committee detezmined there were no
outstanding issues associated with proposed preliminary plat.
The Committee then forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on
January 30,2002 noting the additional information requested bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The applicant labeled the
platted building lines adjacent to the 25-foot access andutilityeasement.The applicant has indicated the comments
raised by Public Works staff will be addressed at time of
building pezmit.
The applicant has revised the preliminary plat and reduced the
number of lots from 11 to 10.The applicant has maintained a
single-access point from Pinnacle Valley Road via a 60-foot
access and utility easement cul-de-sac.Lots 3,4,5 and 6 as
well as lots 8,9 and 10 will be accessed via a 25-foot access
and utility easement,which loops off the cul-de-sac.The
applicant has indicated a 10-foot no access easement adjacent to
Pinnacle Valley Road on all the lots with public street
frontage.
6
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-992-M
The applicant will require three variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance;a variance to allow lots without public streetfrontageforLots8,9 and 10;a variance to allow a reducedplattedbuildinglineadjacenttoanarterialstreet;a variance
from the maximum lot depth to width ratio for Lot 7.
The applicant proposes 10 duplex units to be constructed as apartofthePlannedDevelopmentwhichequatestoadensityof4.9 units pez acre.Please see Item ¹C of this agenda;File No.Z-7126 for more details concerning the Planned Residential
Development.
As was the previous application the proposed preliminary plat isdirectlytiedtothePlannedDevelopment.Staff is not
supportive of the proposed Planned Development;therefore,staffisnotsupportiveofthepreliminaryplat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering waspresentrepresentingtheapplication.There were numerousobjectorspresent.Staff presented the application inconjunctionwiththePlannedResidentialDevelopmentItem¹CPinnacleValleyPhaseV—Short-form PRD File No.Z-7126.Staff
recommended denial of the preliminary plat subject to denial ofthePRDsincethetwoweresodirectlytiedtogether.
After the discussion a motion was made to approve theapplicationasfiled.The vote failed 2 ayes,9 noes and
0 absent.(See item No.C foz a more detailed minute record ofthisitem.)
7
February 1~-'2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU02-01-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -River Mountain
Planning District
Location:West side of Pinnacle Valley Rd.approximately0.6 miles north of Cantrell Rd.
R~t:S'l F 'ly t Lo D 'ty R 'd t'
Source:Pat McGetrick,McGetrick &McGetrick
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from
Single Family to Low Density Residential.The Low Density
Residential accommodates a broad range of housing types
including single family attached,single family detached,
duplex,town homes,multi-family and patio or garden homes.Any
combination of these and possibly other housing types may fall
in this category provided that the density is between six (6)
and ten (10)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to
develop the property for town homes and garages.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is partially cleared land zoned R-2 Single Family
and is approximately 4.08 +acres in size.All of the
neighboring land is zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of
either vacant property or houses built on large lots.Ison
Creek lies to the west of the applicant's property.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Single Family to
Park/Open Space on Piggee Street at Pankey Park about a mile
southeast of the applicant's property.
On April 20,1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family
and Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial,Office,
Multi-Family and Park/Open Space northeast of Cantrell and Black
Roads about 1 mile east of the property in question.
The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the Future
Land Use plan.Most of the surrounding property is shown as
Single Family except for the strip of Park/Open Space shown
along Ison Creek.
February le,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-01-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial from Cantrell
Road to County Farm Road.A Class III Bikeway is shown on
Pinnacle Valley Road from Cantrell Road to County Farm Road.
Development of this property would be subject to half street
improvements according the standards foz a Minor Arterial
described in the Master Street Plan.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of July 2001
show that the applicant's property lies adjacent to an area
shown as a potential greenbelt.The Parks plan shows potential
greenbelts located along the banks of major streams in the city.
This amendment would also affect the future of the potential
greenbelt by introducing housing into this area.The strip of
Park/Open Space is intended to protect the stzeambed of Ison
Creek shown in this potential greenbelt.The boundaries of thestripofPark/Open Space generally follow the 100-year flood
plane line that winds through the western edge of the
applicant's property.This particular potential greenbelt is
shown to follow the general area shown as Park/Open Space and
the area shown within the floodplain.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This site is located in the area covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan,which is currently under review.The
Land Use Plan will be reviewed as part of that plan review.TheResidentialDevelopmentGoalrecommendsthepromotionofan
integrated community structure and design that provides a
unique,healthy,and safe urban living environment.This goalissupportedbythesingleobjectiveofdevelopingNeo-
Traditional neighborhoods in areas that have not yet developed.
The Residential Development Goal is supported by action
statements that recommend the construction of sidewalks in all
types of development,the installation of underground utilities
in all subdivisions,the installation of curb and gutter in
developing subdivisions,and the installation of street lightingatthetimenewsubdivisionsareopened.
2
February ls,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-01-01
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is a narrow piece of land situated in
between Ison Creek and Pinnacle Valley Road in area of low
intensity residential uses.This amendment would have twoeffectsonthesurroundingarea.The first effect would be the
introduction of a land use that is under supply in this area and
would allow for a greater variety of housing types to be built
along Pinnacle Valley Road.Currently,most of the residential
uses in this district are shown as either Single Family or
Multi-Family but not Low Density Residential.The Low Density
Residential located at the Southwest corner of Burnett Road issimilarinsizetotheareaunderreviewbythisapplication.
Two streets also access the development at Burnett Road.The
large Low Density Residential located about 1,000 feet of the
application area is land locked with no existing public access.
The second effect would be the development of property next to
Ison Creek,which is shown as a potential greenbelt.Most of
the large lot single-family development lies southeast of theapplicationareawiththebackyardsoftheseproperties
fronting Ison Creek while the houses face Pinnacle Valley Road.
Northwest of the applicants property the areas shown as Single
Family between pinnacle Valley Road and Ison Creek remain vacant
with a rural feel.The development in the area shown,as Low
Density Residential at the corner of Burnett Road and Pinnacle
Valley Road is located further away from the creek than the
neighboring property to the south.Increasing the density wouldincreasetheamountofimpervioussurfacesintheareaandincreaserunoffintothecreek.The applicant's property islocatedinthebottomofavalleynearIsonCreek.The property
on the east side of Pinnacle Valley Road slopes upward and away
from Pinnacle Valley Road,and Ison Creek.At this time most of
the property along Pinnacle Valley Road consists of natural
vegetation that would slow potential runoff into the creek.The
property is also constrained by the floodplain line that runsjustinsidetheapplicant's property.
All traffic generated by this development would be on Pinnacle
Valley Road which would aggravate the conditions at the Pinnacle
Valley Road /Cantrell Road intersection.Currently,the City'
plans call for a widened Pinnacle Valley Road to Minor Arterial
standards.In the future Pinnacle Valley Road will be improved
3
February 1 ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-01-01
to accommodate 18,000 vehicles per day.However,at this time
Pinnacle Valley Road is not build to standard and would not be
able to accommodate the traffic volume required of a Minor
Arterial street.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Birchwood Neighborhood Association,Beverly Hills Property
Owners Association,Colony West Homeowners Neighborhood
Association,Echo Valley Property Owners Association,Rainwood
Cove Property Owners Association,Santa Fe Heights Neighborhood
Association,Sturbridge Property Owners Association,Treasure
Hills Neighborhood Association,and Walnut Valley Neighborhood
Association.Staff has received one comment from an area
resident opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.See accompanying item 13.1 for additional
information.
Pat McGetrick,representing the applicant,requested a six-week
deferral on the item.
A motion was made to defer the item to the February 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting as presented.The deferral was
approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
The applicant requested a withdrawal of this item due to a
change in plans resulting in a decrease in the projected density
of the proposed development.
A motion was made to withdraw the item.The item was withdrawn
with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.
4
February 1&,2002
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-7126
NAME:Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V Short-Form PRD
LOCATION:West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown,Jr.McGetrick 6 McGetrick Engineers¹6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 East Markham StreetLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.080 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:11 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2
PROPOSED ZONING:PRD
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop this 4.080-acre site as
an 11 building,40-unit apartment community.The proposalincludestheplacementofseven(7)four-plex buildings andfour(4)tri-plex buildings for a total of 40 units.The
development will be accessed via a private access andutilityeasement.The development will provide cross
parking,through the preliminary plat,between lots.Theapplicantproposes88parkingspacesasapartofthePRD.
A preliminary plat has been filed in conjunction with thisapplicationandisaseparateitemonthisagenda(Item ¹1
February 1«,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V —Preliminary PlatFileNo.S-992-M).
As a part of the preliminary plat,the applicant is
requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance.Thevariancesrequestedaretoallowlotswithoutpublicstreetfrontage,a variance from the standard lot depth to widthratios.There is also a variance being requested to allowa25-foot building set back adjacent to an arterial street.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is an undeveloped site with a scattering of trees.There is a creek adjacent to the west property line.A
newly developing single-family subdivision shuts the creek
on the opposite side to the west.A new single-familyresidenceisunderconstructiontothenorthofthesite
and single-family residences are located to the south ofthesite.Single-family residences on large lots are totheeastofthesite.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received numerous phone calls
and lettezs from neighbors stating opposition to theapplication.All property owners within 200 feet of thesite,all residents within 300 feet of the site who could
be identified and the River Valley Property Owners
Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to
45 feet from centerline will be required.2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to
the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development.Required wozk may include guardrail.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval pzior to start of work.
4.Stozmwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
2
February 1~,'2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-7126
Engineering.
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.A grading permit will be required on this development.
8.A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hasard area is required prior to construction.
9.Contact the ADPC&E 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 streetlights or modification (if
required)of existing streetlights.Property owner must
contact Traffic Engineezing (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.
E~t:Eo t *'.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Modification of water facilities installed to
serve Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase 3 will be
required.An acreage fee of $300 pez acre applies in
addition to normal charges for water service to this
area.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per city code.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Project site is located on Express Bus Route ()25
and has not effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
3
February ls,'2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This recgxest is located in the River Mountain PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this
property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential Development for eleven buildings of three and
four unit residential structures.The property is
currently zoned R-2,Single Family.A land use plan
amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda (Item ¹13 —File No.LU02-01-
01).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This site is located in the area covered by the River
Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan,which is currently under
review.The Land Use Plan will be reviewed as part of that
plan review.The current neighborhood plan contains aResidentialDevelopmentGoalthatrecommendstheconstructionofsidewalksinalltypesofdevelopment,installation of underground utilities in all subdivisions,installation of curb and gutter in developing subdivisions,
and the installation of street lighting at the time new
subdivisions are opened.
Landsca e Issues:
Landscape strips with a minimum width of 6.7 feet are
recpxired along each side of the parking areas for each lot.
A 6-foot high opaque screen is required along the southern
and western perimeters of the site.
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 the PRD were discussed
simultaneously.Staff noted some additions,which were
needed on the preliminary plat (lot soning classifications,10-foot no access easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley
4
February 1~,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
Road).Staff requested Mr.McGetrick provide a phasing
plan for the development.
Staff also requested details for the roof treatment of the
buildings along with building heights for the PRD.Staff
requested a statement of the applicant's intentions with
regard for future selling or leasing of all or portions of
the PRD including land area and dwelling units.
Mr.Tad Borkowski,Public Works Staff,noted the dedication
of 45 feet of right-of-way would be required along Pinnacle
Valley Road and the roadway would be required to be built
to Master Street Plan standards.
Staff also noted there were three variances to the
Subdivision Ordinance,which would need to be requested.1).The ordinance requires building set backs adjacent.to
an arterial street to be 35-feet.The applicant proposes a25-foot building set back.2).The lot depth to widthratiosforLots6,7,8,9 and 10 are above the maximum
standard set by the ordinance.3).The ordinance also
requires lots to have public street frontage.Lots 2,3
and 4 do not have public street frontage,which would
require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr.Bob Brown,Planning and Development Staff,noted the
proposed planned development would require a 6.7-foot
landscape strip on each lot line of the development
adjacent to the property lines.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat and the PRD to the full Commission forfinalaction.
H.ANALISIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting
most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The applicant has indicated two dumpsters on
the site with appropriate screening.The applicant hasalsoindicatedtherewillnotbeasignlocatedonthesite.The applicant indicated there will not be an on site
manager.The applicant has also provided a 10-foot no
ccess easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road.
5
February 1~,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
The applicant proposes the buildings to be two-story with a
maximum height of 25-feet with a 6:12 roof pitch.The
development will be constructed in three phases.The
estimated start of construction will be July 2002.
The landscaping submitted is insufficient to meet the
minimum requirements.The interior landscape strip must be
a minimum of 6.7 feet along each side of the parking areasforeachlot.The screening adjacent to the single-family
must be a minimum of 9-feet and an average of 14.6 feet.
There is a utility easement within and adjacent to the west
property line.Utility easements are not allowed to count
toward the screening requirement.With the current parking
proposed,the minimum of 9-feet appears to be impossible to
provide on the west side (cul-de-sac end)in two places.
On the south end of the site,a six-foot wood fence isbeingproposedadjacenttothesingle-family.Staff is not
supportive of the reduced landscaping on this site due totheproximitytosingle-family and the inability to meetthesufficientscreeningrequirements.
Through a cross parking easement the applicant is proposing
88 parking spaces as a part of the development.The
minimum required in a development of this type would be 60spaces.The proposed parking is more than adequate to meettheminimumrequirements.Therefore,the applicant couldredesigntheinteriorlandscapingtomeettheminimum
requirements on each of the lot lines.
The future land use plan for the site is currently single-
family,as is the area around the site.The Pinnacle
Valley Road area is currently developing as single-family.
There is a new house currently under construction to thenorthofthissite,on a 6+-acre tract.
The proposal is to have six of the seven buildings adjacenttoPinnacleValleyRoadbeplacedwiththeendofthebuildingdirectedtothestreet.From a design standpoint,this is a less than desirable situation for building
placement.This is compounded by the request to have thebuildingslocated10-feet closer to the street than theordinancestandarddictates.
Traffic is another major concern of staff.With the
development of this site into 40 residential units the
6
February 1»,-'2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
number of trips per day would dramatically increase as
compared to a development of lesser intensity such as patio
homes or zero lot line housing.A forty-unit development
would increase the hazards at the already dangerous
intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road.
Staff is not supportive of the application as filed.The
concerns of increased traffic,the non-confozmance to the
future land use plan and the appearance of the inability to
meet the minimum screening requirement cause staff to feel
the neighborhood would be better served by not allowing a
development of this intensity to take place.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was
present representing the application.There were numerous
objectors present.Staff presented the application in
conjunction with the preliminary plat (File No.S-992-M Pinnacle
Valley Preliminary Plat),with a recommendation of denial of the
PRD rezoning request.
Mr.McGetrick indicated there were a few comments he would liketomake.He stated the application was in an area bound byPinnacleValleyRoadandamajorcreektothewestofthesite.
He stated the area would be difficult to develop as single-
family and meet the minimum standards.Mr.McGetrick stated the
applicant was willing to improve Pinnacle Valley Road from therailroadtrackstotheedgeofthispropertyclosesttoCantrell
Road.
Mr.McGetrick requested a deferral to allow sufficient time'o
evaluate the options for development of the site.Mr.McGetrickstated'e would look at the density and try to reduce the
density to single-family density.
Commissioner Lowery made a motion for deferral of the item to
the February 14,2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.The
motion passed by a vote of 11 eyes,0 noes and 0 absent.
7
February 1~,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JANUARY 24,2002)
Mz.Pat McGetrick,of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was
present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that additional information was needed on the parking
layout and front yard setback.
Public Works comments were also discussed.Staff stated the
comments were similar to the previous application;right-of-way
requirements would apply,street improvements adjacent to the
property and the naming of the access /utility easement forcityaddressassignment.
Commissioner Berry asked how the city calculated traffic tripstogeneratetrafficcounts.Tad Borkowski,Public Works staff,stated the city uses 10 trips per day per household.
Commissioner Berry then requested information concerning currenttrafficcountsforPinnacleValleyRoad.
After a brief discussion the Committee determined there were nooutstandingissuesassociatedwithproposedPlannedDevelopment.
The Committee then forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff respondingtotheissuesraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommitteeon
January 30,2002.The revised plan indicated driveways and moreclearlyidentifiedthebuildinglinesadjacenttothe25-footaccesseasement.
The applicant has applied for single-story duplex structuzes tobelocatedon10lots.On the Future Land Use Plan,the site isdesignatedasSingle-family.This designation allows for up tosixunitsperacre.The applicant is proposing 4.9 units peracre,which is consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan.
The proposed development allows for green space and open areas,
which the previous application did not allow.With thereductioninthenumberofunitsproposedfrom40to20,this
would reduce the traffic concerns by an equivalent.Now insteadofanestimated400tripsperdaythesitewillgenerateanestimated200tripsperday.
8
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.}FILE NO.:Z-7126
As previously stated,the area is developing as single-family.
There are new single-family structures being constructed to the
north and west of the site as well as a large tract single-
family development to the east.Staff feels it is more
appropriate for the site to develop as single-family detached
housing to conform to the development pattern in the area.
Although,it is important to develop integrated housing types
throughout the city,it is also important to promote housing in
which homeowners feel their investment is protected.Staff
agrees the site is a small site,situated on the Ison Creek.
With this said,this does not mean the site cannot develop assingle-family detached housing.A development on reduced lotsizeswouldstillallowfordensitynotmuchlessthanwhatis
currently proposed (realizing there are issues related to
easements on the west property line).
Staff is not supportive of the application as filed.The
development,although,similar in density to single-family doesnotmeetwiththedesireddevelopmentpatterninthearea.Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering waspresentrepresentingtheapplication.There were numerousobjectorspresent.Staff presented the application inconjunctionwiththepreliminaryplatPinnacleValleyPhaseVPreliminaryPlatFileNo.S-992-M.Staff recommended denialofthePlannedDevelopmentsubjecttodenialofthePreliminaryPlatsincethetwoweresodirectlytiedtogether.
Mr.McGetrick stated after the last meeting he and the owner had
gone back and redesigned the project.The number of units had
decreased from 40 to 20.He stated,20 units was within thedensityofsingle-family and requested the Future Land Use Plan
amendment be withdrawn.He stated the land was a challenge to
develop due to the constraints of the creek and a 70-footutilityeasementforwaterandsewer.He stated the current
proposal allowed for the maximum use of the property.He stated
the applicant was willing to make boundary street improvementstoPinnacleValleyRoadandthemaximumuseofthepropertywas
an important issue to economically allow for the road
improvements.Mr.McGetrick stated the applicant was only
9
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
taking access to Pinnacle Valley Road at one point.He stated
due to the location of the floodway and the utility easements
the property would be difficult to develop as single-family.
Commissioner Berry asked the original density.Mr.McGetrickstatedtheoriginalapplicationcalledfor44unitsonthesite.
Mr.McGetrick stated the original proposal contained 11 lots and
the current application contained 10 lots.He stated the
current proposal translated to 4.9 units per acre.
Commissioner Floyd asked the floodplain elevation and the meanelevationforthesite.Mr.McGetrick stated the floodplainelevationwas264andthemeanelevationwas265to270
depending on where the measurement was taken on the site.
Commissioner Rector questioned the road improvements and thecostoftheseimprovements.
Mr.McGetrick stated the applicant would improve approximately
800 feet along Pinnacle Valley Road and the cost would be
$50,000 to $70,000.He stated the applicant would be requiredtodevelop18-foot from the centerline and place curb,gutter
and/or shoulders on the roadway.
Commissioner Rector asked if the development would be costprohibitedassingle-family.
Mr.McGetrick stated with the easement restrictions,the
floodway,the cost of the roadway,the density restrictions ofsingle-family and the configuration of the property all combined
would make the site difficult to develop as single-family.
Mr.Harry Willims spoke in opposition of the application.Hestatedheandhiswifeownedpropertyat5800PinnacleValley
Road directly south of the proposed site.Mr.Willims stated
the applicant was approved some time ago to develop a 40 unit
apartment development just north of this site on Pinnacle Valley
Road.He stated the development was not yet completed and theareahadnotfeltthetrueimpactofthedevelopment.He statedtherewereonlythreeofthe12buildingsconstructedor12ofthepotential40apartments.He stated the applicant still had
an additional 28 units to develop and not until completion oftheentireprojectcouldtheneighborhoodtrulygagethetraffic
impact.
10
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
Mz.Willims stated the area surrounding the site had developed
as single-family.He stated the area was developing as homes on
acreage facing the roadway.He stated with the current design
the roadway would look like an apartment corridor with six of
the 10 buildings abutting the roadway and the development to the
north having the side of the building facing the roadway.Mr.
Willims stated with the 40 multi-family units already in the
immediate area the area had enough multi-family for Pinnacle
Valley Road.
Mr.Willims stated there was a 30-foot access easement located
on the south corner of the property allowing access to his
property.He stated this was shown on the preliminary plat,
which was approved a few years ago but was not indicated on thisplat.He stated his property had the right of ingress andegressbutaplattedeasementwouldbeabettersolution.
Mr.Steven Giles,City Attorney's office,stated the previousplatwasapreliminaryplatandiftheplatwouldhavegoneforwardthentheeasementwouldhavebeenrecorded.The area
was never final platted so the easement was never recorded.
Mr.Giles advised Mr.Willims to get with the property owner andsecureaseparateaccesseasementandrecordthedocumentwiththeCountyCourthouse.
Ms.Rosanna H.Loket spoke in opposition of the application.
She stated she was President of the River Valley Property OwnersAssociation,which was located in the County but monitored
zoning activities within the City,which affected their area.
She stated the proposed development was located on their drive
home so the request would be considered in their area.
Ms.Loket stated she was present to object to the application onbehalfofthePropertyOwnersAssociation.
Ms.Loket stated Pinnacle Valley Road was the gateway to three
pazks and two marinas;the Maumelle State Park,the PinnacleStateParkandtheTwinRiversCityPark.She stated the
Maumelle State Park had released traffic counts previously,
which estimated 50,000 persons per year visit the park.Shestatedthetrafficflowsintheareachangewiththeseasons.
Ms.Loket stated the area was indeed getting a traffic light atPinnacleValleyRoadandCantzellRoad,which would assistmotoristexitingPinnacleValleyRoad,and make the intersectionlessdangerous.She stated the opposition to the application
was to the general traffic management in the area.
11
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
Ms.Loket stated the approval of the application would "fly in
the face"of the Vision Little Rock process.She cited three
goals:Encourage the Utilization of City Parks,Make Little Rock
a Greener City and To Strengthen Neighborhood Based Planning.
Ms.Loket stated the issue was a capital issue.She stated the
widening of Pinnacle Valley Road piecemeal was not an idea
situation.She stated people tend to speed on the roadway which
in turn leads to them "slipping off"and clipping electrical
poles.Ms.Loket stated the additional development would tax
the already constrained police and fire departments.
Ms.Loket stated the Planning Commission approved a soccer field
and horse arena a few years earlier approximately 300 feet north
of the site.She stated the proposed development contradicted
the direction the development pattern was heading with the
previous approvals.
Mr.Jim Greenfield spoke in opposition to the application.He
stated he lived across the street from the proposed development
and he felt the development was growing in the wrong direction.
He stated the need for apartments at this time was not
necessary.He stated the proposed development would be
demeaning to property values in the area.He stated resale of
property would be more difficult with less buyers willing to
purchase next to apartments.Mr.Greenfield stated he moved to
the area for privacy and the beauty of the roadway.He stated
most of the homes along Pinnacle Valley Road faced the roadway.
He stated the proposed application was not facing the units to
the roadway but putting the backs to the roadway.
Mr.Greenfield questioned the beauty of the backside of any
building.
Mr.Wingfield Martin spoke in opposition of the proposed
development.He stated he lived on County Farm Road and
traveled Pinnacle Valley Road daily.He handed to the
Commission a Plate of the Corp of Engineers Study,which
included the proposed site.He stated the areas highlighted
were 260 contours,the elevation of the site.Mr.Martin stated
the area was subject to frequent flooding.
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Martin what the highest and best
use of the proposed property would be with the demand of the
City for street improvements.He asked if density would become
an issue to help pay for the improvements and the development
12
February 1-,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
cost.
Mr.Martin stated not all property had to be developed.
Mr.Martin stated the proposed development did not follow the
parks plan.He stated the roadway construction would be a
concern.He stated the County paid to widen the road from the
railroad tracks to Two Rivers Park but the City did not have the
funds to widen the road from the railroad tracts to Cantrell
Road.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the
easements and the floodplain were in place when the applicant
bought the property.He stated it was not up to the taxpayers
and the city to help the applicant work through the constraints
of the property.
Commissioner Berry asked if staff would support the applicationifitweresingle-family.Mr.Lawson stated staff would support
a single-family development for the site.Commissioner Berry
questioned if the floodplain issue was really the issue.
Mr.Lawson stated the applicant had indicated the property could
not be developed as single-family.Mr.Lawson stated the
applicant had indicated the only way economically to develop the
property was with a higher density.Mr.Lawson stated Mr.Brown
had built single-family in the area and his own home adjoiningthissite.Mr.Lawson stated it would appear single-family
would work for the site since it has worked everywhere else.
Mr.McGetrick stated the property in question was not in the
floodplain.He stated 40 to 60 acres would not be developed
which was located in the floodway.He stated the applicant owns
2200 feet along Pinnacle Valley Road and this area along with
the area adjacent to the railroad tracks were the only two areas
in which the applicant proposed to develop.
Commissioner Berry asked for traffic counts on Pinnacle Valley
Road.Mr.Steve Beck,Public Works Staff,stated current counts
were 2530 per day.He stated projected traffic counts in 20
years would be 6871 per day.He stated the roadway did not
currently handle the traffic loads and with the projectedtrafficontheroadway,regardless of what happens to the site,
the roadway cannot handle the traffic flows.
Commissioner Rahman asked how many single-family homes could be
placed on the site.Mr.Lawson stated it would be difficult to
13
February 1.,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7126
say.He stated there were a number of factors,which go into
dividing a piece of land.He stated normally there would be 3to5unitsperacreinasingle-family subdivision.Mr.Lawson
stated,past experience had shown,a duplex development would be
twice as many as a single-family development.
Commissioner Berry questioned the staff write-up concerning the
statement of the undersupply of this housing in the area.Mr.
Lawson stated staff must have felt there was a demand for duplex
housing in west Little Rock or they would not have made the
statement.Mr.Lawson stated the issue was not the duplex
housing type,the issue was the development.He stated Mr.
Brown first approached the city with this site combined with thesite,which was approved adjacent to the railroad tracts.He
stated Mr.Brown determined it was in his best interest to file
the applications separately.Mz.Lawson stated the issue before
the Commission was does the development fit the site and with
the constraints will the development work.Mr.Lawson stated
Mr.Brown had taken an area,which was thought would never
develop and developed the area as single-family.He stated
single-family had worked to the north and west of the site up tothispoint.Mr.Lawson asked why would single-family not workforthissiteifsingle-family had worked on the adjoiningsites.
Commissioner Berry stated if the site did not have the boundarystreetrequirementsitwouldbemorefeasibletodevelopassingle-family.He stated with the city requirements and thelimitationsofthesitethedevelopercouldnotaffordto
develop the site as single-family.
Mr.Lawson stated the applicant would make the street
improvements to the site but the area across Pinnacle Valley
Road was developing on 5-acre tracts.He stated the street
improvements would not be put in place across the street until
the city widened the road.Mr.Lawson stated from a trafficcirculationstandpointitisnotgoodtohavetheroadway
widened in segments and not all the way through.
A motion was made to approve the Planned Development as filed bytheapplicant.The motion failed 2 ayes,9 noes and 0 absent.
14
February .2002
ITEM NO.:D
~SR':S tt'of P&1''fo doPt o f th
2000-2001 Zoning Ordinance Amendments
~Rt:fhtth Pl 'go 'o 'f
interested parties,report from the Plans Committee
and set a date for the public hearing to adopt the
2000-2001 Zoning Ordinance Amendment package.
~S'o:fh o gh t 1 t 1999 od '2900,th Pl '
Staff began compiling a list of issues for the
Planning Commission to consider as part of the
2000-2001 Ordinance Amendment Package.In late 2000,
the Commission accepted the list and forwarded it to
the Plans Committee for review.The Plans Committee
reviewed the various issues at several meetings inlate2000,into 2001.During the course of the many
work sessions,the Committee and staff agreed todeletethreeoftheissues.One issue,day care
family home Special Use Permit,was brought forwardtotheCommissionanddealtwithseparately.
The remaining items aze brought to the full
Commission with the endorsement of the Plans
Committee.An attached discussion outline brieflyidentifieseachchangewithintheordinancetext.
The Ordinance Amendment contact list of 50+
persons/organizations has been advised of this date
and asked to submit comments.Any comments received
by staff will be forwarded to the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 3,2002)
Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff presented the Amendment.
package.He informed the Commission that staff had received
only one comment as a result of mailing the ordinance amendment
package to the contact list.He stated the League of Women
Voters of Pulaski County had voiced support for the proposed
amendments.
Commissioner Lowry spoke on behalf of the Plans Committee.He
voiced support for the amendment package.
There was a brief discussion of the proposed amendments.
February 1-.,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
A motion was made to set the date for public hearing and
adoption of the Ordinance Amendment package as February 14,
2002.The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,presented the Amendment
Package.There were no other persons present to speak eitherfororagainsttheamendments.A second notice had been sent to
the contact list of persons.Mr.Carney informed the Commission
that only one informational request had been received.There
was no discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda
and approved by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
2
February '2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
2000 —2001 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DISCUSSION OUTLINE
Subsection (a)Creates a definition for "truck or trailer
rental or leasing (no service,sales or
repair)"not now provided within the Ordinance.
Subsection (b)Inserts the above use in "C-3"as a conditional
use.
Subsection (c)Inserts the above use in "C-4"as a use by
right.
Subsection (d)Removes the current ordinance language limiting
the size of accessory dwellings in the
residential zones to 700 square feet and
replaces it with language stating that the area
of an accessory dwelling is not to exceed that
of the principal dwelling.
Subsection (e)Corrects a textual error;changing "Chapter 35"
to "Chapter 36".
Subsection (f)Specifies the Ordinance distinction between
broadcast towers and Wireless Communication
Facilities,noting the location of specific WCF
regulations within the code.
Subsection ()Establishes new parking standards foz nursery,
kindergarten,day-care,elementary,middle
schools and high schools.
Subsection (h)Adds a new subsection under the conditional use
development standards and review guidelines
requiring broader notification for any proposed
"mega chuzch"to be located on residentially
zoned property.
Subsection (i)Inserts wording that will clearly give the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors
authority to impose conditions and restrictions
upon the use permitted by a conditional use
permit as well as upon the premises benefited
by the conditional use permit.
3
February '002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
Subsections ('l)Correct an error made when the fence standards
were amended in 2000 by adding allowable fence
heights in the residential,office,commercial
and industrial districts.
The remaining items are updates and clarifications of the
wording and requirements within the Wireless Communication
Facility (WCF)ordinances.
Subsection (m)Amends the definition of "equipment facility"
to include "cable ice bridge".
Subsection (n)Amends the definition of "height"by excluding
the lightning rod and light/beacon.
Subsection (o)Amends the definition of "support structure"to
include roof top mounted towers and to state
that lattice or guy-wire supported towers are
permitted only if approved by the Planning
Commission through the tower use permit
process.
Subsection ()Clarifies where the associated equipment for an
attached WCF must be located in relation to
property lines.
Subsection ()More clearly defines the required setback for
the support structure and equipment facility
when they are located on a property that shuts
residential property.
Subsection (r)Requires that each tower be capable of
supporting three antenna arrays,not two.
Subsection (s)Adds a requirement that the WCF be constructed
to accommodate two additional antenna arrays
and their associated equipment.
Subsection (t)Adds a statement clarifying the submission
requirements for a WCF application.
Subsection (u)Requires the submission of a completed
application before staff is responsible to meet
the five-day deadline for rendering a decision
on a WCF application.
4
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
Subsection (v)Amends the submission requirements for a tower
use permit application to include a survey.
Subsection (w)Also amends the submission requirements for
tower use permit to include a survey.
Subsection (x)Requires that the landscape strip be within the
WCF lease area.
between trees within the landscape strip,clarifies and increases the spacing of shrubs
and establishes a minimum mature height for the
shrubs.
5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF VARIOUS
PROCEDURES i DEFINIT IONS i LAND USE REGULAT IONS
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS,it has been determined by the Little Rock Planning
Commission that an annual review of this chapter is appropriate;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has determined severalmodificationsareappropriateatthistime.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE C I TY OF L ITTLE ROCK i ARKANSAS
SECTION 1.That various provisions of Chapter 36.be
amended as follows:
Subsection (a).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-3.be amendedtoprovidefortheinsertionofanewdefinitiontoreadasfollows:
Truck or trailer rental or leasing (no service,sales or repair)means a facility limited to anofficespace,with display of trucks or trailers
which for a fee are rented or leased.This useshallnotpermittheinstallationofhitchesorothertowingapparatus.
Subsection (b).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-301.(c)(2)beamendedtoprovidefortheinsertionofanewconditionalusetobeitemy.and the serial restructuring of items y.and z.accordingly.The new use to read:
y.Truck or trailer rental or leasing (no service,sales orrepair)
Subsection (c).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-302.(c)(1)beamendedtoprovidefortheinsertionofanewpermittedusetobeitemyy.and the serial restructuring of items yy.throughaaa.accordingly.The new use to read:
yy.Truck or trailer rental or leasing (no service,salesorrepair)
Subsection (d).That Chapter 36 .,Section 36-252 .(2)bedeletedinitsentiretyandreplacedwithnewtexttoreadasfollows:
(2)In no instance shall the floor area of the accessory
dwelling exceed that of the principal dwelling.
Subsection (e).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-253.(b)(2)gbeamendedtocorrectatexturalerrorandtoreadasfollows:
g.Signs in compliance with Chapter 36,Article Z.
Subsection (f).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-201.(a)be
amended to provide for the addition of new text and to read asfollows:
(a)Definition.In this section "tower"means any mast,brace or other structure used for the support of amateurradio,radio,television or broadcast media,specifically
exempting wireless communication facilities which are
covered in Article XII of this Chapter.
Subsection (g).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-502.(b)(2)f.
be deleted in its entirety and replaced with new text to read asfollows:
f.Schools and Educational institutions.
1.Nursery,kindergarten and day care centers,1.0
space per administrator,teacher and employee onthelargestshiftplus1.0 space per facilityvehicleplus1.0 space per 10.0 persons oflicensedcapacity.
2.Elementary (grades 1-5),1.0 space per classroom
plus 1.0 space for each teacher,employee and
administrator on the largest shift.Stacking
space for drop-off and pick-up shall be required
on site.Stacking space shall be adequate to
accommodate private vehicles and school buses.
3.Middle (grades 1-8),1.0 space pez classroom plus1.0 space for each teacher,employee and
administrator on the largest shift.Stacking spacefordrop-off and pick-up shall be required onsite.Stacking space shall be adequate to
accommodate private vehicles and school buses.
4.High (grades 9-12),6.0 spaces per classroom plus1.0 space for each teacher,employee and
administrator on the largest shift.Stacking
space shall be adequate to accommodate privatevehiclesandschoolbuses.
5.College,university,business college or tradeschool,1.0 space for each three hundred (300)
square feet of gross floor area,or one (1)space
per four (4)students,whichever is greater.
2
6.Dance school/studio,one (1)space per employee
plus on-site loading and unloading spaces to be
required at the rate of one (1)for each five (5)
students,based on the maximum number of studentsatanyonetime.Loading and unloading spaces may
be provided in a drive through lane with stackedstallsasmaybeapprovedbythepublicworks
department.
Subsection (h).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-107.be
amended to provide for the addition of a new subsection (14)to
read as follows:
(14)Due to their scale of development and their impact on
nearby residential properties,churches and other religiousinstitutionswithaseatingcapacityofgreaterthan500
persons in the sanctuary or main activity area,that aze
proposed to be located on residentially zoned propertyshallbesubjecttothefollowingadditionalrequirements:
a.Before a conditional use permit for such churchesorreligiousinstitutionscanbegrantedthe
applicant shall clearly establish the following;
l.All owners of property located within 500feetofthepropertylineoftheproposedfacilityhavereceivednoticebycertified
mail of the exact location of the property
and its intended use.The notice shall alsoincludethedate,time and location of a
public hearing to be conducted by the
applicant prior to the hearing before the
Planning Commission.This public hearingshallbeheldnolaterthan15daysprior tothehearingbeforethePlanningCommission.
2.This required notice is to be sent within 7
days of filing an application for aconditionalusepermitandproofof suchnoticeistobefiledwithstaff.
b.These requirements are in addition to any other
provisions required for a conditional use permit
under this code.
Subsection (i).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-106.(b)be
amended to provide for the insertion of new text and to read asfollows:
(b)The planning commission may impose conditions andrestrictionsupontheusepezmittedbyorthepremisesbenefitedbytheconditionalusepermitasmaybenecessarytoreduceorminimizetheinjuriouseffectsoftheconditionaluse.The conditional use must ensure
3
compatibility with the surrounding property to better carryoutthegeneralintentofthischapter.
Subsection (j).That Chapter 36 .,Section 36-516 .(e)(1)a.be amended to provide for the addition of new text and to read
as follows:
a.Between a required building setback line and a streetright-of-way,the maximum height shall be four (4)feet.Other fences may be erected to a maximum heightofsix(6)feet.
Subsection (k).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-516.(e)(2)a.be amended to provide for the addition of new text and to readasfollows:
a.Between a required building setback line and a streetright-of-way,the maximum height shall be six (6)feet.Other fences may be erected to a maximum heightofeight(8)feet.
Subsection (1).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-516.(e)(3)a.be amended to provide for the addition of new text and to readasfollows:
a.Between a required building setback line and a streetright-of-way,the maximum height shall be nine (9)feet.Other fences may be erected to a maximum heightofnine(9)feet.
Subsection (m).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-590.be
amended to provide for the insertion of new text within thedefinitionof"equipment facility"to then read as follows:
Equipment facility means any structure used to containancillaryequipmentforaWCFthatincludescabinets,shelters,cable ice bridge,a build out of an existingstructure,pedestals,and other similar structures.
Subsection (n).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-590.be
amended to provide for the addition of new text within thedefinitionof"height"to then read as follows:
Height.When referring to a WCF,height shall mean thedistancemeasuredfromgroundleveltothehighestpoint ontheWCF,including the antenna array;excluding thelightningzodandanyrequiredlightorbeacon.
Subsection (o).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-590.be
amended to provide for the deletion and addition of text withinthedefinitionof"support structure"to then read as follows:
Support structure means a structure designed andconstructedspecificallytosupportanantennaarray,and
may include a monopole,rooftop or ground-mounted tower and
other similar structures.Self supporting (lattice)or
guy-wire supported towers shall be permitted as supportstructuresonlyifapprovedbythePlanningCommission
through a tower use permit.Any device used to fasten anattachedWCFtoanexistingbuildingorstructureshallbe
excluded from the definition of and regulations applicabletosupportstructures.
Subsection (p).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-593.(b)(1)be
amended to pzovide for the insertion of a new sentence and toreadasfollows:
(1)Attached WCF.Antenna arrays for attached WCF are
exempt from the setback provisions of the zone in
which they are located.Equipment not placed withinorontheattachmentstructuremustmeetsetback
requirements for the underlying zone.An attached WCFantennaarraymayextenduptothirty(30)incheshorizontallybeyondtheedgeoftheattachmentstructuresolongastheantennaarraydoesnot
encroach upon an adjoining parcel.
Subsection (q).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-593.(b)(3)bedeletedinitsentiretyandreplacedwithnewtexttoreadasfollows:
(3)WCF with support stzuctures abutting residential
property.In the case of a WCF with support structure
which is to be placed on property which shuts aresidentialpropertyonanyside,the supportstructureshallbesetbackadistanceatleast theheightofthesupportstructure.That setback will be
measured from the face of the base of the supportstructuretothepropertylineoftheabuttingresidentialproperty.The equipment facility shall
meet as a minimum the setback requirements of the
underlying zone.
Subsection (r).That Chapter 36 .,Section 36-593 .(h)be
amended to provide for the insertion of additional text and toreadasfollows:
(b)Structural integrity.WCF with support structuresshallbeconstructedtotheElectronicIndustries
Association/Telecommunications Industries Association
(EIA/TIA)222 Revision P Standard entitled "Structural
Standards for Steel Antennas Towers and Antenna SupportingStructures"(oz equivalent),as it may be updated oz
amended.WCP with support structure shall be capable ofsupportingatleasttwo(2)additional antenna arrays.
Subsection (s).That Chapter 36 .,Section 36-593 .(i)be
amended to provide for the addition of new text and to then readasfollows:
5
(i)Collocation agreement.All applicants for WCF with
support structures are required to execute a statement
upon filing the application agreeing to allowcollocationofotherWCFproviders.The host WCFshallbeconstructedtoaccommodatetwoadditional
antenna arrays and their equipment facilities.
Subsection (t).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-595.(a)(1)beamendedtoprovidefortheadditionofnewtextandtothenreadasfollows:
(1)Review of WCF under this section shall be conducted bythedepartmentofplanninganddevelopmentuponfilingaWCFapplication.The submission requirements shallbeasdirectedbythe"instructions for filing"outline provided to the applicant.
Subsection (u).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-595.(a)(3)beamendedtoprovidefortheinsertionofnewtextandtothenreadasfollows:
(3)Timing of decision.The department of planning anddevelopmentshallrenderadecisionontheWCFapplicationbywrittenresponsetotheapplicantwithinfive(5)business days after receipt of thecompletedapplication,except that an extension may beagreeduponbytheapplicant.
Subsection (v).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-595.(b)(2)a.be amended to provide for the insertion of additional text andtothenreadasfollows:
a.Application contents.Each applicant requesting a TUPunderthisarticleshallsubmitapropertysurveyandascaledsiteplancontainingascaledelevationview
and other supporting drawings,calculations and otherdocumentationshowingthelocationanddimensionsoftheWCFandallimprovementsassociatedtherewith,including information concerning specifications,antenna locations,equipment facility and shelters,landscaping,parking,access,fencing,and if relevantasdeterminedbystaff,topography,adjacent uses andexistingvegetation.
Subsection (w).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-595.(b)(3).be amended to provide for the insertion of additional text andtothenreadasfollows:
(3)Submission requirements.Application for a TUP shallbesubmittedtothedepartmentofplanningand
development on forms provided by staff.Theapplicationshallbeaccompaniedbyaproperty survey
and a scaled site plan containing the informationdescribedabove,together with the appropriate feedescribedinsection23-3.The site plan shall be
6
filed for review by the planning commission not later
than the filing date set by calendar.
Subsection (x).That Chapter 36 .,Section 36-593 .(c)(1)a.
be amended to provide for the insertion of new text and to then
read as follows:
a.All WCF subject to this section shall contain a
permanent six (6)foot landscape strip parallel withallsidesoftheprimaryuseareaandoutsideofthe
opaque fence,but within the lease area,except for a
space for ingress and egress to the primary use area.
Subsection (y).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-593.(c)(1)d.be deleted in its entirety and replaced with new language to
then read as follows:
d.The landscape strip on each side of the primary useareashallbeplantedwithtwo(2)trees of a 2"
caliper with a minimum spacing of 15 feet which will
grow to a minimum twenty (20)feet in height atmaturity.Each landscape strip shall also be plantedwithevergreenshrubsofthirty(30)inches height atplanting,with a maximum spacing of 48 inches oncenterandwhichwillgrowtoaminimumheightof 60inchesatmaturity.
SECTION 2.Severability.In the event any title,section,
paragraph,item,sentence,clause,phrase,or word of this ordinanceisdeclaredoradjudgedtobeinvalidorunconstitutional,suchdeclarationoradjudicationshallnotaffecttheremainingportionsoftheordinancewhichshallremaininfullforceandeffectasiftheportionsodeclaredoradjudgedinvalidorunconstitutionalwasnotoriginallyapartoftheordinance.
SECTION 3.Repealer.All laws,ordinances,resolutions,or parts of the same,that are inconsistent with the provisionsofthisordinanceareherebyrepealedtotheextentofsuchinconsistency.
SECTION 4.That this ordinance shall take effect thirty(30)days from and after its passage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
7
February 1 2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE 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 DESIGN 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 ofitsintersectionwithRainesRoad.
2.COMPATIBILITI WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a rural area characterized by a
sparse mixture of residential and nonresidential uses onlargertracts.The residential uses consist of a broad
range of housing types;including older mobile homes,
single-wide and multi-sectional manufactured homes andsitebuilthomes.Auto repair businesses are located on
an R-2 zoned property to the southwest and on a PCD zonedtracttothenorth.Once the existing,two-section homeisremoved,the proposed triple-wide manufactured homewillbecompatiblewithusesinthearea.
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.Thereisadequateparkingonthesitetoaccommodatethe
required one space needed for the home.
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6923-A
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 citylimits.
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 WorksStaffcommentedthatright-of-way dedication was required for
Crystal Valley Road.
The Committee determined that there were no other issues and
forwarded the item to the full Commission.
2
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6923-A
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 propertylocatedat17016CrystalValleyRoad.The home has already
been placed on the property.The property is located outsideofthecitylimitsbutwithintheCity'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 properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use
permit subject to compliance with the following comments:
1.Previously approved douhle-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)oz
fourteen (14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with
the neighborhood.e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacentstructures.
3
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6923-A
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 1 7 ~2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectozspresent.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant hadnotcompletedtherequirednoticesandhadrequestedthatthe
item be deferred to the February 14,2002 meeting.There was
no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved fordeferraltoFebruary14,2002.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes
and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14 ~2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
The required notification had been completed.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
4
February 2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
NAME:Reservoir Heights 2002 Short-form PRD
LOCATION:At the southeast corner of Reservoir Heights Drive
and Reservoir Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Graham Smith White-Daters and Associates
11215 Cocono Valley Drive 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.72 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:17 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-12
PROPOSED ZONING:PRD
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Multi-family 12 units per acre
PROPOSED USE:16 units as zero lot line housing and three
buildings (16 units)as condominiums —11.76 units per acre
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Lots without public street frontage.
2.An increase in the maximum lot depth to width ratio for Lots1,2,3,6,7,8,10,11,12 and 13.
3.A variance from the minimum lot dimension requirement for
Lots 6 and 13.
4.Waiver of sidewalk improvements to Reservoir Road.
5.Waiver of in-lieu contribution for half-street improvements.
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-2393-C
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.14,156,dated November 17,1981,rezoned the
property from 0-3 to MF-12.The project was to develop in four
phases as a condominium development.Ten Condominium
Buildings,called Reservoir Heights Condominiums,were
constructed as a part of the original development.The
remainder of the area did not develop and remains vacant.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct sixteen zero lot linepatiohomestobesoldtoindividualpropertyowners.
There will be fourteen units located on the interiorcircleofthecomplexandtwounitslocatedonthesouthsideofthecomplex.Each of the units will have two
bedrooms,two baths and a two-car garage.The proposedunitswillbeone-story and approximately 1,150 squarefeet.
The applicant is also proposing the placement of three
multi-family buildings to be constructed as townhouse
condominiums.Two of the buildings will be three story
and house six units and the third building will be twostoryandhousefourunits.These properties will be forindividualsale.All these units will have exteriorsurfaceparkingadjacenttothebuilding.
Properties will be accessed via a common access easement.
Lot lines will be established as a part of the Planned
Development with each property owner owning to the centeroftheaccesseasement.The applicant is requesting three
variances from the Subdivision Ordinance;lots without
public street frontage,a variance from the minimum lot
dimension requirement and an increased depth to widthratio.The applicant is proposing final platting in one
phase with development of the units on a market drivenbasis.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the sidewalk
placement along Reservoir Road and a waiver of the
required in-lieu contribution for half-street
improvements.
2
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and tree covered.The area on theinteriorofthesiteisrelativelyflatwhiletheareaon
the exterior of the development is extremely steep.Thestreetiscurrentlyinplacealongwithasecondexitfrom
the interior to Reservoir Road.The Presbyterian Village
Planned Residential Development is located to the east of
the site and a nursing home is located to the southeast of
the site.Ashley Square borders the southern perimetez as
well.To the west of the site the Town Park Condominium
Development and the Town Park Apartment Complex are
located along with McDezmott School to the northwest.
These buildings are indicated on the following zoning map.Directly north of the site are Barrington Hills Apartment
Homes.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls
requesting infozmation concerning the rezoning request.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,allresidentswithin300feetofthesitewhocouldbeidentifiedandtheSturbridgeNeighborhoodAssociation
were notified of the public hearing.The Reservoir
Heights Condominium Association is well aware of the
proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Reservoir Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.(Surveyor'
confirmation noted.)
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
3
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-2393-C
5.Construct sidewalk with upturned wall along Reservoir
Road.
6.Pay in-lieu contribution for half-street widening alongapplicablefrontageofReservoirRoad.7.Reservoir Heights Drive is considered a private street.8.Close driveway providing access from road south of
property,or confirm access rights.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer on site.CapacityContributionAnalysisrequired.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for details.
~Et *:No t '.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Consideration of access to the existing public
water main by all units is a concern that needs to beaddressed.Additional easements may be needed to allowforthisaccess.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 fordetails.
Fire De artment:Contact Marie Dugan at Central
Arkansas Water to see if 6"main will carry 4-fire
hydrants.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is located near Bus Route ¹8 and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the West Little Rock PlanningDistrict.The Future Land Use Plan indicates Multi-familyforthesite.The applicant has applied for a PlannedResidentialDevelopmentconsistingof16-units of zero lotlinehousingunitsandthreemulti-family condominium
4
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
buildings containing a total of 16-units (a total of 32-units
on the site).Since the Future Land Use Plan indicates
Multi-family for the site and the applicant proposes a
density consistent with the Multi-family land use category a
Land Use Plan amendment is not necessary for this
application.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The application lies in an area covered by the Reservoir
Neighborhood Action Plan.Although,this issues is notdirectlyaddressedintheActionPlantheLandUseGoal
most directly addresses the proposal with two statements:
Discourage the conversion of owner occupied propertiesintorentalpropertiesandPreventproblemsofaging
neighborhoods that threaten stability.The constructionofnewowneroccupiedunitsintheareawillassistwith
the fulfillment of each of these action statements.
Landsca e Issues:
A portion of the proposed street buffer along Reservoir
Road drops 5-feet below the minimum width allowed at any
given point of 18-feet;the average width requirement
being 36-feet.
Though the plan is a little unclear,it appears that thereisinsufficientinteriorlandscapingofthevehicularuse
area to meet the 8%required by the Landscape Ordinance.
An irrigation system to water landscaped area is required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be
necessary to submit an approved Landscape Plan stamped
with the seal of a registered landscape architect.
The City beautiful Commission recommends preserving as
many existing trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.
Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6-inch
caliper or larger.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
5
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present
representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that additional information was needed on thesiteplanareasofexistingparkingandallproposed
building locations.Staff also noted the proposed
application would require variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance;to allow lots without public street frontage,a
variance from the minimum lot dimensions requirement and a
variance from the maximum lot depth to width ratio.
Public Works comments were presented.Staff requested the
applicant close the access to the south of the property or
confirm access rights.Staff also noted comments from
Central Arkansas Water and the Fire Department.StaffstatedinconversationswithCentralArkansasWaterthey
had indicated the water line adjacent to Reservoir Heights
Drive was indeed an 8-inch line and not a 6-inch as shown
on the site plan.Staff suggested the applicant verify
the line size with Central Arkansas Water and take
appropriate action.
The Committee determined there were no more issuesassociatedwiththeproposedrezoningrequest.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commissionforfinalaction.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted to staff,on January 30,2002,a
revised site plan,which addressed most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
revised site plan indicates building setbacks,existing
and proposed parking areas and the corrected building
heights in the general notes.In addition to the sixteen
zero lot line housing units the proposal includes three
multi-family condominium buildings.Two of the buildings
are proposed to be three story with six units each and the
other building will be two story with four units.This
proposal is similar to the existing development in the
area and the same development plan which was approved in
the original proposal in 1981.These three building sites
6
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
do not lend themselves to the development of zero lot line
housing and would be better served by the development ofstructuressimilartotheproposal.
The applicant has indicated there will not be anadditionaldumpsteronthesite.The applicant stated the
dumpster currently located on the site,servicing theReservoirHeightsCondominiumAssociation,will beutilizedingarbagecollection.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the zero lot line
housing into individual lots.Although the lots willfrontontoReservoirHeightsDrive,the roadway is aprivatedrive.The applicant has requested a variance
from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow lots without
public street frontage.The private drive statusnecessitatesthisrequest.The lots will be platted tothecenterlineoftheroadway.The Reservoir Heights
Drive has been indicated on the site plan as an access /service and utility easement.Provision through the BillofAssurancewillprovidespecificlanguagetogovernthis
requirement.Staff is supportive of the requested
variance to allow lots without public street frontage
within the development.
The applicant has also requested a variance from the
maximum depth to width ratio.The Subdivision Ordinance
requires lots not be any more than three times as deep as
they are wide.Nine of the sixteen lots exceed the
maximum requirement.Staff is supportive of the requestedvariancetoallowlotdepthtowidthratioexceeding,that
permitted by the Code.
The applicant has also requested a variance fzom theSubdivisionOrdinancetoallowLots6and13tohaveareducedminimumdimension.The Subdivision Ordinance
requires zero lot line residential lots to be a minimum of35-feet in width.Staff is supportive of the requestedvariance.
The applicant has requested a waiver of sidewalk
improvements to Reservoir Road.The applicant has also
7
February 1~,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
requested a waiver of the in-lieu contribution for half-
street improvements to Reservoir Road.Staff is not
supportive of these requested waivers.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed but not of
the requested waivers for sidewalk placement and in-lieu
contribution for half-street improvements.The Future
Land Use Plan for the site is shown as multi-family and
the site is currently zoned MF-12,Multi-family District.
The density proposed and the density allowed under the
current zoning is similar.The development would allow
for more diverse housing types within the immediate area.
The applicant will be required to submit to staff a plat
creating a zero lot line development with dimensions of
all buildings,accessory structures and other improvements
depicted.The platted buildings lines shall be shown on
all sides of each lot for purposes of delineating the
maximum buildable areas of each lot and specifying the
zero lot line yard.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning for
Reservoir Heights 2002 Short-form PRD subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,
E,F and G of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow lots
without street frontage,to allow 9 of the 16 lots to
exceed the maximum depth to width ratio and to allow lots
6 and 13 to have a reduced lot dimension.
Staff is not supportive of the waiver request for the
placement of sidewalks along Reservoir Road or the waiver
request for the in-lieu contribution for half-street
improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Graham Smith,the applicant,was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff informed
8
February 1~,2002ary
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2393-C
the commission the applicant had submitted a letter requesting
the item be deferred to the February 28,2002 Planning and
Zoning hearing.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
9
February 2662
ITEM NO.:2 FXX E NO.:LU02-08-01
Name:Land.Use Plan Amendment.—Centxal City
Planning District
Location".Areas genexally bounded.by X-630 on the noxth,
Max'tin Luthex'ing Dxive on the east,,Daisy Gatson
Bates Dxive on the South and Summit Stxeet,on the
west..
R~t:8'l P '17,M'OPE 'Co ',M'U
Public Xnstitutional,and Public Xnstitutional to
Public Institutional,and Multi-Family
Sauxce".Todd Rice,Fxxst Seeuxity Vanadis Capital
PROPOSAL /RE VEST:
Land Use Plan amendments in the Central City Planning District.
Axes 1:Mixed Use to Public Xnstitutiona3.;Area 2:Public
Xnsti.tutianal to Multi-Fami3y;Axes 3;Mixed Office Commercial
to Public Institutional,"Axes.4:Mixed Office Cammexeia3.to
Mul.ti-Family;Axea 5".Single Family and Mixed Office Commercial
to Public Institutional;Axes 6:Mixed Gff'ice Commercial to
Pub3.ie Institutional.
The ariginal application axes is located in the 1390 Block of
Marshal.1 Stxeet.The app3.ication was expanded to xeeognize
existing land use and ownership patterns in the area.The
expansion includes pxapexties owned hy the Arkansas Children'
Hospital and the Housing Authoxity.
The Public Institutional category includes pub3.ic and quasi-
public facilities,which provide a,variety af sex'vices to the
community such as schools,libraxies,fixe stations,churches,utility substations,andI haspitals.
The Multi-Family category accommodates residential deve3.opment.
of ten (10)to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.The
app3.icant.wishes to deve3.ap the px'operty for apaxtment housing.
The applicant."s pxoperty is located in Area 2 in the 1300 block
af Maxshsll Stx'eet,.
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO,:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Area 1:This proposed change is located in the 1600 block of
Daisy Gatson Bates Drive on the north side of the street.This
area is zoned C-3 General Commercial,0-3 General Office,and
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial.Most of this property is vacant
with the exception of a building located at the northeast
corner of Daisy Gatson Bates Drive and Marshall Street.The
property to the north consists of a parking lot zoned 0-2
Office and Institutional.The houses east of this property are
zoned 0-3 General Office while the office located to the southislocatedinaPlannedOfficeDevelopment.The reminder of
the property to the south is developed with houses zoned R-3
Single Family.The neighboring property to the west is the
original application area (Area 2)and is the site to the
vacant Westside Junior High School that is on land zoned for a
Planned Office Development.
Area 2:This proposed change is located in the 1300 block of
Marshall Street on the west side of the street.This area is
zoned Planned Office Development and is the campus of the
vacant Westside Junior High School.The office building to the
north is on land zoned 0-2.The block to the east is split
into two parts with the north half paved for a parking lot on
land zoned 0-2 while the south half consists of Area 1,whichiszonedC-3,0-3,and C-1.Most of the property on the south
half of the block to the east is vacant with the exception of a
building located at the northeast corner of Daisy Gatson Bates
Drive and Marshall Street.The block to the south is divided
by an alley with duplexes zoned R-4 Two Family located east of
the alley,and houses zoned R-3 Single Family west of the
Alley.The property to the west is split between vacant lands
zoned R-4 and R-5 Urban Residence.
Area 3:This proposed change is located in the 1100 block of
Battery Street on the east side of the street.This area is
zoned 0-2 and is a parking lot for the Children's Hospital.
The property to the north is the site of the Jesse Powell
Towers apartments (located in Area 4)and is zoned 0-2.Theofficebuildingstotheeastarelocatedonlandzoned0-2.
The property to the south consists of a mix of vacant property,
houses,and a grocery store converted into an office building
2
February I 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
on land zoned C-3.The land to the west consists of small
offices sitting on land zoned C-4 Open Display Commercial and
C-3.
Area 4:This proposed change is located in the 1000 block of
Battery Street on the east side of the street.This area is
zoned 0-2 and is the location of the Jesse Powell Towers
apartments.The main building of the Arkansas Children'
Hospital occupies the land to the north and is zoned 0-2.The
property to the east consists of hospital related buildings on
land zoned 0-3 and 0-2.The parking lot to the south (Area 3)is zoned 0-2.The land to the west is occupied by small office
buildings on land zoned C-3,I-2 Light Industrial,and 0-3.
Area 5:This proposed change is located along the east side of
Schiller Street from I-630 to W.13 Street and on the south
side of Maryland Street from Schiller Street to Battery Street.
This area is zoned R-4,R-5,R-3,0-2,I-2,and C-3 and
consists of scattered housing and a large number of vacantlots.The I-630 Freeway occupies the neighboring property to
the north and is not zoned.The land to the east consists of a
broad mixture of the hospital,various office buildings,
residences,parking lots,and vacant property zoned 0-3,0-2,
O-l Quiet Office,C-3 and R-4.The land to the south is zoned
R-4 with a Conditional Use Permit for a church.The land to
the west consists of residences,and vacant property zoned R-4,
R-3,and PRD Planned Residential Development.
Area 6:This area is located on the east side of Marshall
Street from I-630 to W.10 Street and on the north side of W.
10 Street from Marshall Street to the northeast corner of W.
10 Street and Bishop Street.This area is zoned 0-2,C-3,R-4,
and 0-3.This area contains a mixture of buildings and parkinglotsservingthehospital.The I-630 Freeway occupies the
neighboring property to the north and is not zoned.The land
to the east consists of offices and commercial structures on
land zoned 0-3 and C-3.An office building occupies property
to the south that is zoned R-4 Two Family.The land to the
west is the site of the hospital located on land zoned 0-2.
3
February I ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On September 19,2000 a change took place from Service TradesDistricttoPark/Open Space,Public Institutional,and Mixed
Use in the 1100 block of Cantrell Road about a one-half mile
north of the study area.
On March 7,2000 multiple changes took place to Mixed Use Urban
north of I-630 and west of I-30 starting less than one quarter
of a mile northeast of the amendment area.
On November 16,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Mixed Use at 3023 W.7 Street about three-quarters of a mile
west of Area 5.
On June 15,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Mixed Use and Public Institutional in the 2200 block of Wright
Avenue about two-thirds of a mile southwest of Area 2.
On April 20,1999 a change was made from Multi-Family to Low
Density Residential on Arch Street and Gaines Street from W.
13 Street to W.15 Street about 1 mile east of Area 1 and
Area 2.
Area 1:This property is shown as Mixed Use on the Future Land
Use Plan while the proposed change is to Public Institutional.
The land to the north is shown as Public Institutional while to
the northeast it is shown as Mixed Office Commercial.The landtotheeastisshownasMixedUsewhilethelandtothesouthisshownasSingleFamily.The land to west is Area 2,whichisshownasPublicInstitutional.
Area 2:This is the original application and is shown as PublicInstitutionalontheFutureLandUsePlan.The applicant
applied for a change to Multi-Family.The blocks to the north
are shown as Public Institutional.The property to the east is
shown as Public Institutional and Mixed Use.The Mixed Use to
the east is located in Area 1.The land to the south and westisshownasSingleFamily.
Area 3:This block is shown as Mixed Office Commercial on the
Future Land Use Plan and the proposed change is to Public
Institutional.The property to the north is shown as Mixed
Office Commercial and is included in Area 4.The property to
the east is shown as Public Institutional.The properties to
the south are shown as Public Institutional and Mixed Office
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
Commercial.The land to the west is shown as Mixed Office
Commercial.
Area 4:This land is shown as Mixed Office Commercial on the
Future Land Use Plan while the proposed change is to Multi-
Family.The blocks to the north and east are shown as Public
Institutional.The block to the south is shown as Mixed Office
Commercial and is included in Area 3.The blocks to the west
are shown as Mixed Office Commercial,with the block to the
northwest included in Area 5.
Area 5:This area is shown as Single Family and Mixed Office
Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan.The proposed change is
to Public Institutional.The Land to the nozth of Area 5 is
shown as Public Institutional.The land to the east is divided
between the property to the north shown as Public Institutional
and the property to the south shown as Mixed Office Commercial
(areas 3 and 4).The property south of Area 5 is shown as
Public Institutional.Most of the property to the west is
shown as Single Family with a small area of Public
Institutional shown at the southwest corner of W.10""and
Schiller Streets.
Area 6:These properties are shown as Mixed Office Commercial
on the Future Land Use plan and the proposed change is to
Public Institutional.The property to the north is the I-630
Freeway.Most of the land to the east is shown as Mixed Office
Commercial with a small portion shown as Public Institutional
at the northwest corner of W.10 Street and Dr.Martin Luther
King Jr.Drive.All of the land to the south and west is shown
as Public Institutional.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
I-630 is shown as a Freeway/Expressway on the Master Street
Plan.The collectors in the area are:Daisy Gatson Bates Drive
from Woodrow to Cumberland;W.12 from Woodrow Street to
Cumberland Street;and Battery Street from I-630 to Daisy
Gatson Bates Drive.These are built to standard.These streets
serve as a two-lane traffic connection linking the study area
to arterials located outside the study area.A Class II
Bikeway is shown on Daisy Gatson Bates Drive from Jones Street
to Dr.Martin Luther King Jz.Drive.The Class II Bikeway on
5
February '002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
Daisy Gatson Bates Drive is located next to Area 1 and Area 2.
Development of properties in Area 1,oz Area 2,should notaffectaClassIIBikewaysinceaClassIIBikewaydoesnot
require additional right-of-way oz paving.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows
two parks located within eight blocks of the study area.9StreetPark,located at 9 and Pulaski Streets (adjacent to the
Martin Luther King School),is shown as a mini-park under fiveacres.A playground and two basketball pads are provides on
the park grounds.The park sits two blocks east of Area 6.
Centennial Park,located in the 1500 block of Wolfe Street,is
shown as a mini-park under five acres providing two basketball
pads,and a tennis court.This park sits two blocks south of
Area 2.
Since the proposed changes in Areas 1,and 3 through 6 reflectexistinguses,the parks shown would not be affected.The
proposed change to Multi-Family in Area 2 would bring moreresidentstotheareathatwouldbewithinwalkingdistance of
Centennial Park.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
Area 2 is located inside the Central High School HistoricDistrict.Overall,the intention of design guidelines is forthepreservationofastructure'architecture;guidelines are
viewed as broadly as possible in order to enable the property
owner to maintain the property and retain architectural
elements.The remaining areas covered by this application arelocatedoutsidethedistrict.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The properties under review are not located in an area covered
by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
Area 1:Mixed Use to Public Institutional:This property is
owned by the Children's Hospital and is shown on their Master
6
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
Plan as open space which may be used to provide a buffer
between the businesses located at the intersection of the Daisy
Gatson Bates Drive /Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.Drive and the
residential uses to the south and west.Although the
hospital's Master Plan shows the future development of the
property as open space area,a change to Public Institutional
would allow for changes to that plan and allow the development
of property for uses related to the medical community.
Area 2:Public Institutional to Multi-Family:This property is
the site of the West Side Junior High School and is the
original application area.This change will diversify the
types residential uses available in the neighborhood.It will
also provide a transition between the non-residential uses to
the north and east from the less intense Single Family uses to
the south and west.A change to Multi-family will also
influence the future development should the nature the current
development plans change.
Area 3:Mixed Office Commercial to Public Institutional:This
change will recognize an existing use.This area,owned by the
Children's Hospital,is a parking lot slated for the future
development of academic and research buildings directly related
to the hospital.Although this change will allow the
development of large-scale non-residential facilities,a changetoPublicInstitutionalshouldlimitfuturedevelopmenttouses
that are related to uses falling within the criteria of the
Public Institutional category.
Area 4:Mixed Office Commercial to Multi-Family:the Housing
Authority owns this property and the change will recognize the
existing Multi-Family residential tower.This change will
diversify the types residential uses available in the
neighborhood.
Area 5:Single Family to Public Institutional:This area is the
largest area covering a little over five city blocks and is
mostly owned by the Children's Hospital.The hospital's Master
Plan shows future development of the northern portion of the
area as consisting of offices buildings organized around a
central parking area adjacent to the main medical facilities of
the hospital.The central portion of the area is reserved by
the hospital Master Plan as a transition zone between the
medical buildings on the north side of the campus and the
7
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
research and academic uses located on the south side of the
campus.The southern portion of this study area is designated
by the hospital for future development of academic and researchfacilitiesaswellasabuffer.
Area 6:Mixed Office Commercial to Public Institutional:This
change will recognize existing uses and establish Bishop street
as the boundary of the Public uses associated with the hospital
and the Mixed Office Commercial uses located to the east.This
area is shown by the hospital Master Plan as an area that will
be developed for high-density offices adjacent to the medicalfacilitieslocatedatthenorthendofthecampus.The
northern boundary of the Children's hospital campus is located
next to a freeway,which would invite intense large-scale
regional development.Such a location is likely to attract a
multitude of different types of large-scale developments.A
change to Public Institutional at this location would allow forlargescalePublicInstitutionalusestodevelopnearamajorregionaltransportationcorridor.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,Central High
Neighborhood Association,East of /Broadway Neighborhood
Association,Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,MLK
Neighborhood Association,South End Neighborhood Association,
South End Neighborhood Developers,and Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received three comments from area residents that wereneutral.Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,which coversthissite,is neutral to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes all the changes aze appropziate.The changes in
Areas 1,3,4,5,and 6 recognize existing uses,existing
ownezship and/or proposed development plans from the hospital.
The change in area 2 will buffer the non-residential uses tothenorthandeastfromtheresidentialusestothesouthandwest.
8
February 1.,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked if the housing located in the
area recommended for removal from the amendment was viable.
Brian Minyard,City Staff,stated that the recommended changesintheapplicationwerebasedinpartonareviewofthe
Arkansas Children's Hospital Master Plan and that the owner ofthehousesinquestiondidnotwanttohavehispropertyincludedintheamendmentarea.
Commissioner Fred Allen asked for the name of the owner.Brian
Minyard stated that the name of the owner was Mz.Morris Parker
and added that he was invited to attend the meeting.
Mr.Parker spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that hedidnotwanthispropertyincludedintheareaproposedfora
change to Public Institutional.
Commissioner Norm Floyd explained to Mr.Parker that this
application was foz a Land Use Plan Amendment and that approvalofthisitemwouldnotchangethezoningofMr.Parker's
property.Mr.Parker replied that he did not want his propertytobeshownasPublicInstitutional.
Commissioner Richard Downing asked where Mr.Pazkez's property
was located.Mr.Parker stated that his property is located at900,910,916,and 920 Summit Street.
Staff recommended approval of the removal of the propertylocatedintheeasthalfoftheblockboundedby9~,10~,
Summit and Schiller Streets as requested by the property owner
and that the property remain Single-Family on the Future Land
Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented includingstaffrecommendations.The item,including staff
recommendations,was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,
1 absent,and 1 recuse.
9
February '.2002
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:Z-2559-D
NAME:Westside Junior High Short-form PRD
LOCATION:On the west side of the 1300 block of Marshall
Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
First Security Vanadis Capital Richburg-Rickett Consulting
221 West Second Street,Ste.312 Engineers
Little Rock,AR 72201 10 Shackleford Plaza,
Ste.100
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:2.05 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:POD
PROPOSED ZONING:PRD
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In February 1996,the City Board of Directors approved a Short-
form POD for the former Westside Junior High School.Phase I
included "single-room occupancy"for Volunteers of America.
Phase II was office lease space primarily for public and
nonprofit agencies.Phase III was approved as a Fitness Center
and Community Auditorium.
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-2559-D
In June of 1997,the Board of Directors approved a revision to
the POD (Ordinance No.17,506)to delete the residential aspectoftheprojectandincreasethesquarefootageofofficespace
within the development.
Since the POD is more than three years old and no action has
taken place,the POD needs to be revoked.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop the Historic Westside
Junior High School as 45 multi-family residential units.
The proposed development consists of 12 one bedroom units
and 33 two bedroom units.All the units will be handicapaccessibleunder"universal design"specifications.The
development proposes 73 parking spaces along the north and
south sides of the building.
Westside Junior High School is currently listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.Funding for the
development will come from the Arkansas Development
Finance Authority in the form of low-to-moderate housingtaxcreditsaswellastheutilizationofHistoric
Preservation Tax Credits from the Federal Government.
Westside Loft development will be modeled after other
multi-family adaptive redevelopment projects in Little
Rock such as;Kramer School Artists Cooperative,Block 2LoftsandEastsideLofts(formally Eastside High School).
The applicant also proposes to replat the area as a partofthePlannedDevelopment.Proposed Lot 1 will include
the area of the Existing School Building and all the areas
indicated as parking.The proposed Lot 2 property lines
will be adjacent to the parking areas on the Wolfe Street
side for the north and south lines and the rear of the
auditorium and cafeteria building for the east propertyline.The street will act as the west property line.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a three story structure which was once
used as the Westside Junior High School.Children'
2
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2559-D
Hospital facilities are located to the north and east of
the site.Phoenix Counseling Group is located adjacent to
the northwest corner and single-family and duplex units
are located south of the site.The block to the west of
the site is currently vacant.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several
informational calls from the neighborhood.All property
owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within
300 feet of the site and the Downtown,Central High and
Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
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.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNZNG:
Wastewater:Sewer available on site located under
existing building.Contact Little Rock Wastewater
Utility at 376-2903 for details.
E~t*:Epp d &tt d
.'RKLA:
No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Central Arkansas Water requests that no
additional trees be placed in the right-of-way on the
north and east side of the building because of existing
water facilities in those areas.Contact Marie Dugan at
992-2438 for details.
3
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2559-D
Fire De artment:If the building is required to be
sprinkled an additional fire hydrant maybe requested forFireDepartmentCode.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is near Bus Route ¹3 and ¹11 and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Central City PlanningDistrict.The Future Land Use Plan indicates PublicInstitutionalforthesite.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Residential Development to convert the WestsideJuniorHighSchoolinto45multi-family residential units.
A Land Use Plan amendment for a change from PublicInstitutionaltoMulti-family is a separate item on this
agenda (Item No.2 —File No.LU02-08-01).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The application lies in an area not covered by a City ofLittleRockrecognizedNeighborhoodActionPlan.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed parking lot at the corner of Daisy L.GastonBatesStreetandWolfeStreetdoesnotallowforthe
minimum interior landscaping requirement of 334 squarefeet.This takes under consideration the reduction
allowed within the designated "mature area"of the city.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
Todd Rice of the Vanadis Group was present representing
the application.Staff introduced the item and noted that
additional information was needed on proposed signage,site lighting and dumpster location.It was also noted
4
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2559-D
the applicant should verify if the parking along West 13Streetwouldneedafranchisepermit.Public Works
comments were addressed and noted the items would be
required at the time of building permit.
Staff questioned if the auditorium would be converted intoresidentialunitsaswell.Mr.Rice stated,the
auditorium would not be converted into residential units,
and the intention was to plat the area in which the
auditorium was situated,into a separate lot.Mr.Ricestatedtheareaoftheauditoriumwouldnotbeapartof
the project and would be held for a future renovationproject.Mr.Rice stated the pool located in the basementofthebuildingwouldnotberehabbed.
The applicant was directed to prepare a revised site plan
and prepare a response to staff's questions.The
Committee then forwarded the proposed PRD to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
January 29,2002 addressing most of the issues raised bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The applicantindicatedtherewouldbeacomplexidentificationsignlocatedonthesoutheastcorneroftheproperty.The
applicant also indicated the sign would be within the
signage requirement of multi-family zones,(oneidentificationsignpercomplexnottoexceed24squarefeetinarea).
The applicant is proposing 73 parking spaces as a part of
the development.Typical ordinance parking requirement
would be 1.5 parking spaces per unit or 67 parking spaces.
The proposed parking is adequate to meet the typical
minimum requirement.Public Works staff has determined afranchisepermitadjacenttoWest13Streetwillberequired.The applicant has indicated an application will
be filed with Public Works should the rezoning request be
granted.
The applicant has indicated one dumpster will serve the
development.The dumpster location has been identified on
5
February I 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-2559-D
the site plan with the proper screening noted.
The applicant has indicated lot lines on the site plan
denoting Phase I as one lot and Phase II as the secondlot.Phase I will be developed as multi-family
residential units in the near future.Phase II will be"moth-balled"until such a time that funding is available
to rehab the building into a community facility.The
applicant is to submit to staff,three copies of a finalplatforreviewandfinalplattingactivities,prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
The parking lot landscaping adjacent to Daisy L.Gaston
Bates Street and Wolfe Street,with the reduction
consideration allowed within the designated "mature area"
and the transfer allowance,now meets the minimum interioz
landscaping requirement.The applicant has indicatedtreeswillbeplantedaroundthesite,in addition to
shrubbery,which "counts more"toward fulfilling the
landscaping ordinance requirement.
The applicant has indicated all Public Works comments will
be addressed at the time of the issuance of the building
permit.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed.StafffeelsthattheproposedPHDzoningwillhavenoadverse
impact on the nearby single-family residences,and that
the redevelopment of Westside Junior High School will have
a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood.The
applicant has committed to protect the historic integrityofthestructurewhichstafffeelsisanassettothe
community.The development of residential units,
although,more intense than the surrounding area,fits
with the area to the west and south of the site which is
currently residential.The development of the Westside
Junior High School into residential units will act as a
buffer from the large institutional uses to the north,
Arkansas Children's Hospital and the single-family
residences to the south.The applicant has stated the
project will be developed in two phases and the auditorium
and cafeteria will be "moth-balled"until such a time
funds are available for redevelopment of the facilitiesforneighborhoodactivities.This too would be an asset
6
February 1~,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2559-D
to the nearby neighborhoods allowing a community facility
for neighborhood events.Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,
there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed PRD rezoning for the Westside Junior High School.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PRD rezoning
subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,
E and F of this report.
2.Obtain franchising approval from the City for the
parking spaces on West 13 Street.3.Submit three (3)copies of the final plat for review bystaff.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Todd Rice of the Vandais Group was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff stated
there was one letter of support from the Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Association.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on
the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
vote passed by 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
7
February ."2002
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6611-A
NAME:Lewis Short-form PCD
LOCATION:508 Bond Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Danny R.Lewis Robert Bickerstaff,Inc.
913 Selma Street 1809 W.35 Street
Little Rock,AR 72202 N.Little Rock,AR 72118
AREA:0.454 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:I-2,CUP
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Catering business
PROPOSED USE:Beauty Shop /Expansion of Catering Business
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Continued deferral of sidewalk
improvements to Bond Street.
BACKGROUND:
On January 21,1999 the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 508 Bond
Street to be used by the applicant as a catering business.As
a part of the approval,the Commission approved a variance,for
a reduced front and rear yard setback of 37 and 15 feet
respectively.The applicant was also granted a deferral
request,by the Board of Directors,for the placement of
sidewalks on Bond Street by Ordinance No.17,943 for a five-
year period of time.
February 3 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6611-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to close his existing cateringbusinessandleasethe600squarefootbuildingtoaprospectivetenanttobeusedasabeautyshop.In 18 to
24 months,the applicant proposes to construct a 600
square foot addition to the existing structure,remove the
beauty shop from the premise and re-enter the catering
business with a sit-down restaurant.
The sit-down restaurant will have a seating capacity of 15inconjunctionwiththecatering.The applicant proposestheadditionof9parkingspacesasapartofthefuture
development.Presently there are three parking spaceslocatedonthesite,which would give a total of 12
parking spaces when the development is complete.
The applicant is requesting a continued deferral of
sidewalk improvements to Bond Street.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is zoned Z-2,Light Industrial and contains asinglebuildingusedasacateringbusiness.The area tothenorthiszonedI3butisvacant.West of the siteareduplexunitsalongEastCapitolAvenueandPepperStreetonI-2,Light Industrial zoned property.To the
south of the site there is a tire shop and car body shop.East of the site,on Bond Street,is single-family and
duplex units located on R-4,Two-family zoned property.Other uses in the area include a liquor distributioncenter,a club,a church and a Little Rock School District
maintenance center.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,allresidentswithin300feetofthesite,who could beidentified,and the East Little Rock and Hanger Hill
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.As of this writing,staff has not received any
comment from the neighborhood.
2
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6611-A
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.East Capitol is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per CityOrdinance.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement.tothesestreetsincluding5-foot sidewalks with Planned
Development.New curb line to 15.5 feet from centerline.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available in 5 and 6 "Streets.
Location of Sewer Service unknown.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for details.
E~t*:AEE o d 8 'tt d.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Due to the nature of the processes used in thisfacility,installation of an approved backflow preventez
assembly will be required on the domestic water service.
Contact Carroll Keatts,Central Arkansas Water's Cross
Connection Program Administrator at 992-2438.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹12 and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
3
February '2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6611-A
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the I-30 Planning District.The
Future Land Use Plan indicates Industrial for the site andthepropertyiszonedI-2,Light Industrial.This azea isincludedinamuchlargeareawhichapendingreviewoftheFutureLandUsePlanisanticipated.This area will be
reviewed with the larger area to detezmine any amendments
necessary to the Future Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The application lies in an area,which is not covered by arecognizedCityofLittleRockNeighborhoodActionPlan.
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
Mr.Danny Lewis was present representing the application.Staff presented the item and noted additional items which
were needed on the site plan,dumpster location,signage,
days and hours of operation.Public Works comments werepresentedindicatingtheapplicantwouldberequiredtoconstructsidewalksalongEastCapitolAvenueatthetimeofbuildingpermit.
Mr.Lewis stated there would be three employees on thesiteandthehoursofoperationwouldbefrom11amto 7
pm.He stated there would be a wall-mounted sign located
on the building adjacent to West Capitol Avenue and heindicatedtheareawouldbethemaximumareaallowable
under the ordinance foz commercial wall signs.
Mr.Lewis was directed to submit a revised site plan tostaffindicatingalltheadditionalinformationrequested.
4
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6611-A
The Committee determined there were no outstanding issuesassociatedwiththeproposedrezoning.The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for finalaction.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and additional
information to staff on January 28,2002.The revised
plan and additional information addresses the issues asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.
Infozmation concerning site lighting,employees,hours ofoperation,trash dumpster location and screening wereprovided.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation tobeMondaythroughSaturdayfrom11amto7pm.He statedtherewouldbethreeemployeesforthebusiness.Theapplicantlocatedthedumpsteronthesiteplanandindicatedthescreeningwouldbeaccordingtoordinancestandards;at least 2-feet above the height of the
dumpster not to exceed 8-feet.The applicant stated anyadditionalsitelightingwouldbelowlevelanddirected
away from residentially zoned property.
The applicant proposes a 2-foot by 6-foot wall mounted
sign (12 square feet).This is well within typicalordinancestandardforsignagepermittedincommercial
zoning (not to exceed 10 percent in aggregate sign areafortheoccupancy's fagade area).
Currently,there are three parking spaces located on thesite.The typical ordinance requirement for a beauty
shop,600 square feet in area,would be three (one space
per 200 square feet of gross floor area).The applicant
proposes 12 parking spaces as a part of the future
development.Typical ordinance parking requirements are
one per 100 square feet of gross floor area for arestaurant.The proposed gross square footage of therestaurantis1200squarefeet,which equates to 12
parking spaces necessary to serve the business.
The building setbacks conform to typical C-1 zoning
requirements,the zoning designation in which both a
5
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6611-A
restaurant and beauty shop are allowable uses and a
catering business is allowable as a conditional use.The
property located to the west of the site is zoned I-2,
Light Industrial,which will not require buffers adjacent
to the parking area.The applicant proposes to place
landscaping from the north line of the parking area to thestreetandontheeastpropertylineinasimilarfashion.
Landscaping will also be placed on the south line of the
parking area to the south property line then east to the
edge of the dumpster.As indicated in the landscaping
comments the proposed buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
The applicant has a deferral of street improvements to
Bond Street from a previous application,which is set to
expire 2004.The applicant is requesting a continueddeferralofstreetimprovementstoBondStreet;sidewalk
improvements,until such a time the addition to the
building is constructed.At that time the street
improvements will be made to West Capitol Avenue and the
sidewalk on Bond Street will be installed.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.The City'
Future Land Use Plan for the area indicates Industrial for
the site and the area to the north,south and west.
Properties to the east,across Bond Street,are shown as
commercial with a portion shown as multi-family.With
proper screening in this area the residents will be
protected from any potential negative impacts.Otherwise,
to staff'knowledge,there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed PCD.The proposed rezoning
request for Lewis Short-form PCD should have no adverse
impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends of the request for the continued deferral
of the placement of a sidewalk on Bond Street.
6
February 1.,-2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6611-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Danny Lewis 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 in the "staff recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on
the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
vote passed by 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
7
February 2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6981-A
NAME:Ficklin Short-form Revised PD-R
LOCATION:West side of Gamble Road,approximately 600 feet
south of West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Steve Ficklin White-Dater and Associates
13914 St.Michael Street 24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.43 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-R
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Residential
PROPOSED USE:Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission first reviewed this application at
their March 8,2001 Public Hearing.The request was for
placement of an eight-unit condominium development on a singlelot.The individual units were to be sold under a horizontal
property regime and the entirety of the property to remain a
single ownership,governed by a property owner's association.
The development was to include two four-unit condominium
buildings (two stories each),with a single access point from
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6981-A
Gamble Road.Each unit would have a single car garage,with a
two-car driveway leading to each unit.
The proposed site plan included a ground-mounted sign along the
north side of the driveway.The sign was to conform to city
standard for multi-family zoning (maximum height —6 feet,
maximum area —24 square feet).
As a part of the application the applicant indicated there
would not be a dumpster located on the site,and the project
would utilize city garbage collection.The site plan also
noted two mail kiosks,which would serve the units.The
Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
application as filed by a vote of 7 ayes,1 nay,1 abstention,
and 2 absent.
The Board of Directors reviewed the application at their April
17,2001 Board of Directors meeting and approve the rezoning
request with Ordinance No.18,459.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this one lot into twolotsthrougharevisiontothecurrentPlannedDevelopment.
All items listed above in the Background will remain as
previously approved.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and grass-covered.There are
a few existing trees on the site.There is an
office/commercial building to the north,with anotherofficebuildingfurthernorthacrossStacyLane.There
are single-family residences to the south,with one
single-family residence and the Bale Chevrolet detail shopacrossGambleRoadtotheeast.There are additional
single-family residences to the southeast and a church to
the northeast.There is a similar condominium development
to the west,with a large apartment complex (Shadow Lakes
Apartments)further to west across Farris Street.
2
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6981-A
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment
from the neighborhood.Property owners within 200 feet of
the site,residents within 300 feet of the site,who could
be identified and the Parkway Place and Gibralter
Heights/Pointe West Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Gamble Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks 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.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
6.Enlarge driveway width to 20 feet.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,Capacity Contribution
Analysis required.Contact Little Rock Wastewater
Utility at 376-2903 for details.
~Et:W'll 0 '0't 0 tt p p ty
as platted.Not enough code clearance for easement and
building.Contact Entergy at 954-5165 for details.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
3
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6981-A
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size
and location of the water meter(s).The Little Rock
Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)
will be required.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 fordetails.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is near Bus Route ¹5 and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F,ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Ellis Mountain PlanningDistrict.A Future Land Use Plan amendment was granted at
the time of the zoning change to PD-R.Therefore,since
the Plan currently indicates Multi-family for the site,
and the proposed development consists of units per acre
consistent with multi-family development,a Future Land
Use Plan amendment is not necessary.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The application lies in an area which is covered by the
Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.An Action Statement
in the Residential Development goals states "require citystafftoensureamixofsingle-family and multi-family in
newly development areas,allowing the multi-family to act
as a buffer between single-family and office".Properties
to the north and east are zoned 0-3 or are functioning as
non-residential uses,which would appear to meet theintentofthisActionStatement,by providing a buffer to
the single-family to the south.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
Buildin Codes:No comment.
4
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO,:2-6981-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Deters and Associates,was present
representing the application.Staff presented the item
and stated the Commission had previously reviewed thissiteattheMarchof2001PublicHearing.Staff stated
the purpose of the revised application was to subdivide
one lot into two lots.Staff also noted all the
previously approved items,signage,dumpster,building
layout and driveway location would remain the same.
Staff requested the applicant submit a statement
indicating the time frame for construction of the
driveway.Staff also requested the applicant indicate on
the site plan the driveway as an access and utility
easement.Public Works Comments were presented and a
request was made to increase the driveway width to 20-feet
adjacent to Gamble Road.
Staff noted the comments from Central Arkansas Water and
Entergy.Staff suggested Mr.White contact these agenciestoresolveanyconcerns.
The Committee determined there were no other outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedrevisiontothePD-R.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff
addressing most of the issues raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The applicant has stated theprojectwillbedevelopedintwophasesandhasindicated
the entire width of the driveway will be constructed with
the first phase of the development.The revised site planindicatesthedrivewayasanaccessandutilityeasement.
The driveway width has been shown at 20 feet near theintersectionwithGambleRoad.The applicant has also
indicated the street improvements to Gamble Road would beconstructedatthetimeofthedevelopment.
5
February 1-.—2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6981-A
Staff is supportive of the proposed revision to the PD-R.
The request is in conformance with the City's Future Land
Use Plan and the limitations put into place during the
original rezoning still apply.These limitations are
outlined in the Background Section of this report.The
purpose of the revision is to place lot lines within the
development making a one lot development with two
buildings a two lot development with one building located
on each lot.Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are
no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
rezoning.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the
PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White Deters and Associates 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 in the"staff recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on
the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
vote passed by 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
6
February '.2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7129
NAME:MTM Salon and Supplies Short-form PCD
LOCATION:8201 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mia Moore Ollen Dee Wilson
9600 Southboro Drive 2325 WillowLittleRock,AR 72209 North Little Rock,AR 72115
AREA:0.321 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
(One Zoning Lot)
CURRENT ZONING:R-2
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED USE:Beauty Shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Deferral of Master Street Plan improvements to MarlboroughStreet.
2.Deferral of hard surface parking area.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone this property located at
8201 Asher Avenue to PCD to allow a beauty shop to operateinanexistingsingle-family structure.The applicant
proposes a full service salon complete with hair styling,
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
barbering,nail care and hair and nail care supplies.
The'pplicantisproposingtheplacementofeightparking
spaces in the rear of the structure and the existing
parking pad in the front of the structure,as the
designated handicap parking space,with Marlborough Street
providing access.The applicant proposes no exterior
changes to the structure and minimum interior changes.
The applicant's desire to maintain the single-familycharacterofthestructure.The applicant is also
requesting single-family residential as an alternate use,
should the beauty shop ever vacate the site.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family brick and
frame structure with a single-car garage.There is an
unimproved alley to the south.The uses across Asher
Avenue are single-family and the Mid-South Education and
Training Center.A vacant 0-3 zoned structure is locateddirectlywestofthesiteandtwosingle-family residencesarelocatedfurtherwest.The current use to the east of
the site is City of Little Rock Fire Station No.14 with a
large vacant lot directly behind the station.East of thefirestationisalargechurch.There is a single-family
subdivision to the south.
The improvements to Asher Avenue will take in a largeportionofthe"front yard"area of the structure as well
as the "front-yard"areas of many of the structure along
Asher Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,allresidentswithin300feetofthesitewhocouldbeidentifiedandtheJohnBarrowandWestwoodNeighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.As ofthiswritingstaffhasnotreceivedanycommentfromthe
neighborhood.
2
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Marlborough Street is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks 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.Remove two existing driveways in the front.
6.Proposed driveway apron to be concrete and conform to
City ordinances.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer is available,not adversely affected.
~Et*:Apt o d &'ttd.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Due to the nature of the processes used in thisfacility,installation of an approved backflow preventer
assembly will be required on the domestic water service.
Contact Carroll Keatts,Central Arkansas Water's Cross
Connection Program Administrator at 992-2438 fordetails.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is on Bus Route ¹14 and has no effect on busradius,turnout and route.
3
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Boyle Park PlanningDistrictandisshownasMixedUseontheFutureLandUse
Plan.The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial
Development for a beauty shop.The Mixed Use category is
intended to provide a mixture of residential,office and
commercial uses.A Planned Zoning District is required if
the use is entirely office,commercial oz a mixture of anyofthethreeuses.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Development,therefore,meeting the intent of the
Mixed Use category.
Cit Reco nised Nei hbozhood Action Plan:
The application lies in an area covered by the WestwoodsectionofthePecanLake,Westwood,Stagecoach-Dodd
Neighborhood Action Plan.The Zoning and Land Use Goalcontainsanobjectiveofprotectingtheresidential
integrity of the neighborhood by maintaining adequate
separation or sufficient buffering between residential andnon-residential uses.The objective includes action
statements encouraging the limiting of commercialactivitiestoAsherAvenuewhileopposingtheconversionofsingle-family homes into non-residential uses —except
those houses along Asher Avenue.
Landsca e Issues:
A 9-foot wide on-site landscape street buffer is requiredeastoftheproposedparkingareabyboththezoningand
landscaping ordinances.Additionally,a 9-foot wide
landscape strip is required west of the proposed parkingareabythelandscapeordinance.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
Ms.Mia Moore was present representing the application.Staff noted additional information which was needed on the
4
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
site plan,dumpster location,site lighting,days and
hours of operation.Staff also indicated the need to
redesign the parking area in the rear and to eliminate the
apron of the existing driveway onto to Asher Avenue.
Public Works comments were also presented.Ms.Mooze
stated she would request a deferral of street improvements
to Marlborough Street.She also stated she would request
a deferral of the hard surface parking area for 5-years.
Staff stated Ms.Moore would need to eliminate access to
Asher Avenue from the existing driveway.
The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed rezoning request.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and letter
addressing most of the issues as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated the
day and hours of operation will be Monday through Sunday
from 8 am to 8 pm.The applicant has stated there will be
five chairs in the salon with one employee at the onset
and the potential of seven total employees.The applicant
has indicted there will not be a dumpster located on thesiteandshewillutilizetheCityofLittleRockgarbagecollectionservices.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the hard surface
parking area.She has requested a three to five-year
deferral to allow the business to become operational and
produce a revenue flow prior to the construction of the
hard surface parking area.The applicant has indicated
should the business relocate or become non-operational her
desire is to allow the structure to become single-family
once again.The applicant stated with the deferral of the
hard surface parking area the removal of the gravel
parking area would lend itself more amenable to converting
the structure into residential.Staff feels the parking
should be put in place at the on-set of the project and is
not supportive of the deferral of the hard surface parking
azea.
5
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
The applicant has indicated the dedication of right-of-way
will be done as requested by Public Works staff.The
applicant has however,requested a deferral of street
improvements to Marlborough Street.The applicant hasstatedalthough,the street improvements would increase
the roadway width from Asher Avenue,the street
improvements would end mid-block and has requested adeferraluntilsuchtimeasthestreetimprovementsare
constructed on the property adjacent to the development on
the south.Staff feels the development,non-residentialactivity,will increase traffic on the section of
Marlborough Street in the area of the project and not the
remainder of the roadway.This section of MarlboroughStreetisashortblock.Ideally,the entire roadway
would be widened to the intersection of Vinewood.The
remainder of the roadway is adjacent to a single-family
residence,which does not take access from MarlboroughStreet.Staff is not supportive of the requesteddefezral.
The applicant proposes a one-foot by five-foot sign to belocatedadjacenttotheAsherAvenueright-of-way.The
sign is well within the typical ordinance sign requirementforcommercialzones(not to exceed two square feet in
sign area for each liner foot of main street frontage).
The property has 100 linear feet of street frontageadjacenttoAsherAvenue.
The revised site plan indicates eight parking spaces in
the rear of the structure and one space,a handicap
parking space,in the front of the structure.The
applicant has indicated,on the site plan,the blocking ofthedriveway,which extends to Asher Avenue,to not allowtraffictobackdirectlyontoAsherAvenuefromthesite.
Access to the handicap parking space will be from
Marlborough Street.The parking is sufficient to meet thetypicalparkingozdinancerequirement.The applicantestimatesthestructuretobe1300squarefeetinarea.
Typical ordinance parking requirements for a beauty shopofthissizewouldbesix(one space per 200 square feetofgrossfloorarea).
6
February .,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
Staff is not supportive of the parking lot design.Thecurrentlayoutshowsautomobilesenteringthesiteand
pulling straight into parking spaces.Staff feels this
could create an adverse impact on the single-familyresidentslocatedtothewestbytheautomobileheadlamps
shining onto their property and when cars are leaving thesiteanuisancecouldbecreatedforthesingle-family
located to the south.A redesign of the parking area withallthespacespullingintotherearofthestructure
could minimize the impacts and result in the same numberofparkingspaces.
The City's Future Land Use Plan for this area of Asher
Avenue is shown as Mixed.The category provides for a
mixture of residential,office and commercial uses tooccurinadevelopingorredevelopingarea.The categoryrequiresaPlannedDevelopmentapplicationiftheuseistobeentirelyofficeorcommercialoramixtureofresidential,office and commercial.The applicant has metthisrequirementbyapplyingfozaPlannedCommercial
Development foz the site.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed.The
applicant has met the intent of the Future Land Use Plandesignationforthesite.The applicant's intent to keepthezesidentialnatureofthesiteintacthelpsassure
compatibility and enhances the possibility of the propertyrevertingtoresidentialusesatsomepointinthefuture.
Other than staff's concerns related to the requestedstreetimprovementandpavingdeferzals,there are nooutstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedrezoningrequestforMTMSalonsandSuppliesShort-form PCD.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning requestsubjecttocompliancewiththeconditionsoutlinedin
paragraphs E,E and F of this report.
Staff is not supportive of the request for deferral of thestreetimprovementtoMarlboroughStreetorthepaving
requirement for the parking area.
7
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Ms.Mia Moore,the applicant,was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff
introduced the item with a recommendation of approval for the
use of the property and a recommendation of denial for the
requested deferrals.Staff stated the applicant had requested
a deferral of the street improvements to Marlborough Street and
a deferral of the hard surface parking area.Staff stated
these additions were normally required of applicants at the
time of PZD approval and recommended denial of the requesteddeferrals.
Ms.Mia Moore stated she was a small business owner and had
requested the deferrals because of the financial hardship
opening the business and making the required improvements wouldcreate.She stated in her application she had requested to be
allowed a seven-chair operation,but in the beginning the only
employee would be herself.Ms.Moore stated the cost estimates
she had received for the hard surface parking area ranged from
$4,600 to $15,000 depending on the surface treatment.Shestatedthecostofthestreetimprovements,the 15%in-lieu,
would be $1000 or more.Ms.Moore stated the estimated cost ofstart-up of her business was $12,000 not including the cityrequirements.She stated she was purchasing the structure on
a lease purchase from the owner.She stated with all the cost
combined this would make it difficult at best to open hezbusiness.
Ms.Moore stated she was willing to follow the recommendationofstaffwithregardtoorientationoftheparkingarea.Shestatedshewouldrequestherengineertoredesigntheparking
area as requested by staff.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated
there were two issues associated with the development.One of
the hard surface parking area and the second the street
improvements to Marlborough Street.He stated it was possibletoallowtwolengthsoftimeforthecompletionofthesetwo
items.He suggested the Commission allow a one-year deferralforthehardsurfaceparkingareaandathree-year deferral for
the street improvements.
8
February 1 ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
Commissioner Nunnley stated the applicant was placing her
business in a commercial area;an area in which the Commission
had previously indicated to applicants as desirable locations
to place commercial type uses.He stated it appeared the
Commission was placing an undue hardship on the applicant by
requiring the improvements prior to her knowing if hez business
would be a success.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the street classification of
Marlborough Street.He stated with the widening of Asher
Avenue a large portion of the front yard area would be
eliminated.He asked with the turnout and radius of the
intersection what portion would the applicant be required to
construct.
Mr.Steve Beck,Public Works Department,stated MarlboroughStreetwasclassifiedasacommercialstreetwith60-foot
right-of-way.He stated with the widening of Asher Avenue a
large portion of the front yard area would be lost.Mr.Beck
stated staff had suggested the applicant work with the Highway
Department to determine the improvements she would be requiredtomakewithregardtotheintersection.He stated staff had
requested the applicant close the driveway entrance to Ashez
Avenue from the interior of the property and to only allow the
handicap parking space in the front of the structure with
access from Marlborough Street.
Commissioner Faust asked Ms.Moore if a one-year deferral of
the hard surface parking area and a three year deferral of thestreetimprovementswouldassistherandallowthebusinessto
get up and running prior to expending the funds for these
improvements.
Ms.Moore stated the deferrals would be of assistance.Shestatedinthesetimeperiodsshewouldbeallowedtobecome
operational and determine if the business would be a success.
A motion was made to approve the Planned Commercial Development
as filed.The motion carried 8 ayes,1 noe and 2 absent.
A motion was made for the approval of a three-year deferral ofstreetimprovementstoMarlboroughStreet.The motion carried
9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
9
February 1 ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7129
A motion was made for the approval of a one-year deferral of
the hard surface parking area.The motion carried 8 eyes,
1 noe and 2 absent.
10
February .,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:LU02-08-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City
Planning District
Location:1201 W.10th St.
R~t:S'l F 'ly to
Dff'ource:
Marceliers Hewett,Hewett Law Firm
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District
from Single Family to Office.The Office category represents
services provided directly to consumers (e.g.,legal,
financial,medical)as well as general offices,which support
more basic economic activities.The applicant wishes to
develop the property for a bail bonds office.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-4 Two Family and is
approximately .16+acres in size.The property to the north
and east is zoned 0-3 General Office with a church located to
the north and a youth/counseling center located to the east.
The property to the south and west is zoned R-4 Two Family andisoccupiedbyanassortmentofduplexesandhouses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Low Density Residential
to Public Instituti.onal at the Terry Mansion located about 1
mile east of the applicant's property.
On September 19,2000 a change took place from Service TradesDistricttoPark/Open Space,Public Institutional,and Mixed
Use at 1100 Cantrell Road about 8 of a mile northwest of the
property in question.
On March 7,2000 multiple changes took place resulting in
changes to Mixed Use Urban north of I-630 and west of I-30
starting about 850 feet north of the site in question.
On June 15,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Mixed Use and Public Institutional in the 2200 block of Wright
Avenue about 1 mile southwest of the application area.
February,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-02
On April 20,1999 a change took place from Commercial,Low
Density Residential,Public Institutional to Mixed Use at Scott
Street from W.16 Street to 1-630 about 8 of a mile east of
the study area.
On April 20,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Commercial at Scott Street from W.17 "Street to W.19 Street
about 9/10 of a mile southeast of the property under review.
On April 20,1999 a change took place from Multi-Family to Low
Density Residential on Gaines Street between W.13 Street and
W.15 Street about 8 of a mile southeast of the area under
review.
The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the
Future Land Use Plan.The property to the north is shown as
Single Family and Public Institutional.The northeast corner
of the Cross Street /W.10 Street Intersection is shown as
Commercial.The property across the street to the east is
shown as Public Institutional and Single Family.The property
to the south and west is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
W.10~Street and Cross Street are both classified as Standard
Residential Streets and built to that standard.Approval of
this amendment will call for improving at least one of thestreetstotheLocalCommercialStreetstandard.There are no
bikeways affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows
9 "Street Park,located at W.9 and Pulaski Streets (adjacent
to the Martin Luther King School),as a mini-park under five
acres.This park provides a playground and two basketball
pads.This park sits one block west of the property under
review and serves the goal of providing park facilities within
eight blocks of all Little Rock residents.Approval of this
amendment would place non-residential uses closer to 9 Street
Park and isolate it from the nearby residential areas it is
intended to serve.
2
February .'2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-02
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
The applicant's property is not located in a Historic District.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant'property lies in the area covered by the
Downtown Neighborhoods Plan for the Future Neighborhood ActionPlan.The Housing Goal lists two objectives recommending therehabilitationofderelictstructuresandreusingblightedpropertiestoincreasehomeownershipinthestudyarea.The
plan also contains an objective under the housing goal of
promoting downtown living.
ANALYSIS:
The application area is located in a fragile neighborhood thatissurroundedbynon-residential uses on all four sides.Two
types of Public Institutional uses are located in the
neighborhood.The first type of Public Institutional usesconsistsoftheArkansasChildren's Hospital and the MartinLutherKingSchoollocatedtothenorthwestoftheneighborhood
and serves the region and city.The second type of PublicInstitutionalusesconsistsofthechurch,located to the north
and east of the application area,is of a smaller scale well
matched to serve the neighborhood.Commercial uses are locatedinthenortheastcorneroftheneighborhoodandconsistofbuildingseparatedfromtheneighborhoodbyparkinglots.ThenorthedgeoftheneighborhoodistheI-630 freeway.South of
W.10 Street,the neighborhood has remained a residential areainspiteofthelossofhousingunits.The east and west edgesoftheneighborhoodprovideforusesservinglargerareasoftheregioninsteadoftheneighborhood.A change to Office atthislocationwouldintroduceatypeofusethatwouldbemoreappropriatelylocatedtoeithertheeastorthewest.A changetoOfficealsoplacesnon-residential uses near the heart oftheneighborhoodandinvitesfurthernon-residential
development into the neighborhood and causing further isolationoftheresidentsinthearea.
3
February ',2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.-6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-02
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,Central High
Neighborhood Association,East of Broadway Neighborhood
Association,Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,MLK
Neighborhood Association,South End Neighborhood Association,
South End Neighborhood Developers,and Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents.Capitol
Hill Neighborhood Association,which covers this site,is
neutral to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to
Office would introduce non-residential uses into the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief pzesentation to the
commission.Donna James made a presentation of item 6.1 so the
discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 6.See
item 6.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short-form
Planned Development-Office.
Carl Lindsey,representing the property owners,spoke on behalf
of the applicant and described the nature of the business that
would take place on the property.
Rite Carpenter White,representing Mt.Zion Baptist Church,
spoke in opposition to the application.Ms.White stated that
the proposed business would be detrimental to the church.
Rose Cooke spoke in opposition to the application and described
how she felt the proposed business would affect the church's
ministry to the elderly and youth.
Earnest Fingers,also representing Mt.Zion Baptist Church,
spoke in opposition to the application and expressed a desize
to maintain the property for residential uses.
4
February t,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU02-08-02
Commissioner Bob Lowry initiated a discussion to find out if
the members of the church opposed the land use plan amendment,
zoning,or proposed business.The discussion concluded when
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning,stated that the church
opposed all non-residential uses on the applicant's property.
A discussion took place about possible methods that could be
used to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
During this discussion,Commissioner Fred Allen asked if the
church was willing to work on a compromise with the property
owners.Ellen Carpenter,speaking on behalf of the church
membership,stated that the church was not interested in a
compromise on this issue.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item
was denied with a vote of 0 ayes,11 noes,and 0 absent.
5
February '.2002
ITEM NO.:6.1 FILE NO.:Z-7142
NAME:Lindsey Short-form PD-0
LOCATION:1201 West 10 Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Marceliers Hewett Laha Engineers
1919 West 10 Street P.O.Box 190251LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72219
AREA:.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-4,two-family
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office,Bail Bonds
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is in the process of establishing a Bail
Bonding Business and as a part of their plan,they wouldliketousethefamilypropertylocatedat1201West10Streetasthecentraloffice.The applicant has stated
the bail bonding business is conducted off-site and verylittletrafficisanticipatedonthesite.The applicant
proposes some renovations and improvements to the
property,but does not intend to change the character of
the site with the exception of the addition of three
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
parking spaces,a privacy fence to buffer the parking
spaces and a small 24"x 24"wall mounted sign along the
front of the house facing West 10 Street.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single story single-family
structure with residential structures located to the south
and west of the site.The Mt.Zion Church is located
across West 10 Street along with a large surface parkinglotandtheCulturalArtsCenterislocatedacrossSouth
Cross Street.For the most part the area south of West
10 Street consists of residential uses in the form ofsingle-family or duplex structures.There are severalstructures"boarded-up"on South Pulaski Street between
West 10 and West 11 Streets as is one side of a duplex
on West 11 Street,east of South Cross Street.Other
uses in the area include the Martin Luther King Elementary
School,the 9 Street City Park,two office uses located
in converted residential structures located to the
northeast and a commercial use (Bromley Parts and Service)located along South Ringo Street one block to the east.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,allresidentswithin300feetofthesitewhocouldbeidentifiedandtheDowntownNeighborhoodAssociationwerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing staff
has received two informational phone calls from the
neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Redesign parking lot to meet City ordinances,to prevent
backing out into street.
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
2
February .'002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.Increased width recommended.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer is available,not adversely affected.
E~t :App d R 'tt d.
ARELA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is on Bus Route ¹14 and has no effect on busradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Central City PlanningDistrictandisshownontheFutureLandUsePlanasSingle-Family.A Future Land Use Plan amendment is
required (a change from Single-Family to Office)and is aseparateitemonthisagenda(Item No.6 File No.LU02-08-
02).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The proposed application lies in the area covered by the
Downtown Neighborhood's Plan for the Future Neighborhood
Action Plan.The Plan contains several statements under
the housing goal for promotion of downtown living andincreasinghomeownershipandoccupancy.
3
February ,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
Landsca e Issues:
A minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape buffer is required
north,south and west of the proposed parking area by both
the zoning and landscape ordinances.This requirementwillhavetobetakenintoconsiderationwiththeredesignoftheparkingarea.
A 6-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence withitsfacesidedirectedoutwardorevergreensshrubs,are
required to help screen this property from the residential
properties to the south and west.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff presented the item and noted additional information
which was needed on the site plan,dumpster location,additional site lighting,fencing materials.Staff alsostatedthepresentdesignoftheparkingareawouldnotallowforpropermaneuveringandshouldberedesigned.Public Works comments were also presented and staffindicatedtheseitemswouldberequiredatthetimeofissuanceofthebuildingpermit.
After a brief discussion the Committee determined there
were no outstanding issues associated with the proposedrezoning.The Committee then forwarded the issue to thefullCommissionforfinalaction.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
January 31,2002 addressing most of the issues raised bystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The applicantindicatedtherewouldnotbeadumpsterlocatedonthesite.The applicant also indicated any additional sitelightingwouldbelowlevelanddirectedawayfromresidentiallyzonedproperty.
4
February 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
The applicant revised the parking area to minimize the
concerns of turning movements within the parking area.
The applicant proposes four parking spaces in the rear of
the structure,one of which will need to be eliminated duetothelimitedturningmovement.With the elimination of
one space,leaving three spaces,the proposed parking is
well within typical ordinance parking requirement for astructurethissize.(The structure is approximately 1000
square feet —typical ordinance parking requirement for anofficeuseis1pezspaceper400squarefeetor2spaces.)
The applicant is proposing a six-foot wooden fenceadjacenttothesouthpropertyline,running from the back
edge of the house to the property line then turning north
on the west property line and running north to the edge oftheparkinglot.The applicant then proposes a four-foot
wooden fence to the street right-of-way.The proposalalsoincludestheplacementofevergreenshrubsonthenorth,south and west property line.This proposal forscreeningisadequatetomeetthebufferingrequirement.
The applicant will be required to direct the face side
outward.
The applicant proposes the day and hours of operation to
be Monday through Saturday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.Theapplicantproposesthemaximumnumberofemployeestobefourwithonlytwoemployeespresentatthesiteonmostoccasions.
Staff is not supportive of the application.Staff feels
the development would intrude into a relatively fragile
neighborhood.The area contains a large number of vacantlotsandboardeduphouses.Although the area to the
north of the site is non-residential,the site is achurch.This use has historically been considered a
neighborhood activity.The church has acquired a halfblocktotheeastofthesanctuaryandplacedaparkinglotonthesite.With the construction of the parking lot
the congregation is no longer parking within the
neighborhood thus minimizing the negative impact even
5
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
more.There are other office uses in the area,which are
on the portion of West 10 Street,which was abandoned bythe1-630 interchange construction.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
Mr.Carl Lindsey was present representing the application.
There were several objectors present.Staff presented the
application with a recommendation of denial.
Mr.Carl Lindsey stated he was representing the Lindsey family
and the request for a usage change for the property located at
1201 West 10 Street.He stated having lived in the area for
15 years he was concerned about the future of the neighborhood.
Mr.Lindsey stated the proposed use would enhance the
neighborhood.He stated the application included landscaping
and screening which would resemble residential.He stated the
business would be a low volume traffic generator since most ofthebusinessactivitywouldtakeplaceoffsite.He stated thelocationwastohousefilesandbeacentrallocationtowork
from.Mz.Lindsey stated the business would have a sign.HestatedStateLawrequiredbailbondingcompaniestoplacea
sign on the exterior of the structure.Mr.Lindsey stated theofficehourswouldbefrom8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through
Saturday.
Mr.Lindsey stated he had spoken to the most of the neighbors
within the 200-foot required notification area and most had
general information questions.He stated the Commission had
received three letters of support for the project from
neighbors adjoining the property.Mr.Lindsey stated he had
spoken to the Pastor of the Mt.Zion Church and requested
support and also had offered to meet with the members toexplaintheproject.
Mr.Lindsey stated the Pastor had indicated the concern of the
church members was not the Lindsey business but the rezoning of
the property to allow a non-residential use and what could be
6
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
located on the site in the future.Mr.Lindsey stated he was
willing to not allow any use on the property other than his
family business in the future and take what ever action
necessary to confirm this commitment.
Commissioner Floyd questioned if another bail bonding business
could located on the site if the Lindsey's moved their
operation.
Mr.Steven Giles,City Attorney's Office,stated as long as the
new tenants did not alter the structure they could in fact move
in and open for business.
Mr.Dan Favors spoke in support of the application.He stated
he was a partner in the business and the desire was to enhance
the neighborhood.He stated with enterprise zones,urban
renewal projects,revitalization efforts in every city in this
country a redevelopment effort by investors should be a welcomesite.He stated he agreed with staff's comment that the area
was a fragile neighborhood.He stated the area was teetering
on urban decay and complete aberration.He stated there were
several boarded up homes in the area,which were otherwise
known as crack houses.He stated his company was looking to
invest in downtown Little Rock.He stated the business would
employ family members,who also wanted to see the arearevitalized.Mr.Favors stated the business would be held to a
higher standard than other single-family in the area.
Mr.Flavor stated the business was making an investment in the
area with labor,capital and to provide an outreach.He stated
the business would work with the youth in the area to provide
education on how the criminal justice system worked.
Commissioner Allen questioned if the applicant was willing to
only use the facility for an office use only and not allowclientstovisitthesite.
Mr.Flavor stated this was the intent.He stated State Law
requires a bail bonding business to have a physical location to
house all files.He stated with the nature of the business
most if not all of the activity would take place off site andatareajails.
7
February I 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
Ms.Rita Carpenter-White spoke in opposition to the project.
She stated she was an area resident and a life-long member of
the Mt.Zion Church.She stated Mt.Zion was over 100 years
old and had been at its present location for over 80 years.
Ms.White stated Mt.Zion had been a viable part of the
community.She stated the Dr.Martin Luther King Elementary
School was one block from the site and a city park was in the
immediate area.She stated she felt a bail bonding business
would create an atmosphere detrimental to the church and churchactivities.Ms.White stated Mt.Zion Church was active in
youth programs as well as senior citizen activities.Shestatedthechurchmembershipshouldnothavetolookovertheir
shoulders or be afraid to worship because of a business in the
neighborhood.She stated the bail bonding business was not
appropriate for the area.She requested the Commission not
allow such an element into the neighborhood,which was not
sanctioned by the Mt.Zion Church.
Ms.Ellen Carpenter spoke in opposition to the application.
She stated she too was a life long member of Mt.Zion Church.
Ms.Carpenter read to the Commission a letter issued by the
Church stating opposition of the rezoning request.She stated
the church had grown over the previous 100 years.She stated
the Church buildings now encompass a 'c block area.She stated
the connotation of a bail bonding business would not create
"good vibes"for the area,Ms.Carpenter requested the
Commission deny the request and keep things the way they were
currently,residential.
Ms.Rose Cook spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Ms.Cook stated she had been a member of Mt.Zion Church for52-years.She stated the food pantry was located on the corner
across from the site.She stated the proposed business wouldcreateanegativeconnotationonChurchactivities.Ms.CookstatedtheChurchfrequentlyheldactivities(Monday through
Saturday)on the site and many of the activities took place in
the Church parking lot (if weather permitted).She stated the
business would be located directly across the street from the
Church parking lot.Ms.Cook requested the Commission deny the
request for rezoning and maintain the residential integrity ofthearea.
8
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
Mr.Earnest Fingers spoke in opposition to the proposed
rezoning request.Mr.Fingers stated he was the Chairman of
the Trustee Board of the Mt.Zion Baptist Church.He stated
the Church wanted to keep property values at the currentlevels.He stated the Church had concern that once a bonding
company left what might located on the site.Mr.Fingers
requested the Commission deny the request for rezoning and keep
the area residential.
Mr.Thomas Baskins spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning
request.He stated he was a member of the Church and was
instrumental in helping the Church with placement on the
National Register of Historic Places.He stated he wasnotifiedasapartofthe200-foot required notification
process.He stated upon receipt of the notice he immediately
took the notice to the Trustee Board.He stated the Trustee
Board voted to not support the proposed rezoning request.TheletterandvotewerethentakentotheChurchCouncil,which
voted to also oppose the proposed rezoning request.
Commissioner Lowry questioned if the concern was the proposed
business or the proposed future business which could locate on
the site if the property were rezoned.
Mr.Baskins stated both.He stated the proposed business couldcreatenegativeconnotationsforarearesidentsbutifthe
business were to leave and a new business locate on the site
the Church could not be sure of what type neighbor the new
business would be.
Commissioner Nunnley asked what the position of the Church was
with regard to a bail bonding business.
Mr.Baskins stated when the Church voted they were unaware thebusinesswasabailbondingbusiness.He stated the Church
opposed any non-residential use on the site.
Mr.Lindsey stated a letter was sent to the Church several
months ago.He stated he had spoken to the Pastor and
requested a meeting to answer questions and concerns of Church
Members.He stated he was not sure why the letter did not gettotheTrustees.Mr.Lindsey stated the Pastor had indicated
the concern was not the business but what may locate on the
9
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7142
site in the future if the bail bonding business were to move.
Mr.Lindsey stated the request before the Commission was a
request for a usage change.He stated if the bail bonding
business were to move the owners would not allow another
business to locate on the site.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated if
a new applicant came in with a request to locate on the site
the applicant would recommend a usage change based on the
previous use.The new applicant would not say this was aresidentialuseandwewanttousethisasanoffice.The
applicant would say this was an office use and I would like to
use the site for another type office use.
Commissioner Berry stated the Commission had approved Planned
Developments and Conditional Use Permits in the heart of
neighborhoods before.He stated the Commission had the job of
looking at the area and determining what the area would be usedfor.Commissioner Berry stated the role of the Commission wastodetermineifanareawasgoodforresidentialusesorfornon-residential uses.He stated the role of the Commission wastodetermineifareaswereviablehousingforthefuture.
Commissioner Berry stated he drove the area and in his opinionthestructurewasnotviablehousingforthefuture.He stated
quiet office use was not uncommon in residential neighborhoods
throughout the city.
Commissioner Nunnley stated preservation of neighborhoods was
important.He stated if the residential character of a
neighborhood was changed the neighborhood was changed as well.
Commissioner Nunnley stated Philander Smith College and Mt.
Zion Church were trying to preserve the neighborhood and bringtheareaback.
A motion was made to approve the Planned Development for anoffice.The motion failed 3 ayes,8 noes and 0 absent.
10
February .'002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4305-E
NAME:Windriver Wildlife Office Park Revised Zoning Site Plan
Review
LOCATION:2300 Cottondale Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Windriver LLC White-Dater and Associates
2300 Cottondale Lane 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:0-2
PROPOSED ZONING:0-2
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office with additional parking
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Continued deferral of sidewalk
improvements.
BACKGROUND:
The 2.5 acre tract (Tract F-2B,Riverdale Addition)contains a
sump and a portion of the levee,adjacent to the Arkansas
River.There is also a pump house on the property.A large
amount of the stormwater from the Riverdale Area drains into
the sump and is pumped into the river.
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4305-E
The property is zoned 0-2 which requires a zoning site plan
review prior to development.In July of 1998,the Planning
Commission reviewed and approved,with conditions,a proposedsiteplanforthedevelopmentat2300CottondaleLane.There
was to be under the building parking (20 spaces)and threestoriesofofficespace.There were 57 surface parking spaces
proposed.This has been constructed.
The applicant requested a variance to allow a reduced side yardsetbackalongthewestpropertylineandavariancefora
reduced setback from the floodway line.The applicant also
requested a five-year deferral of sidewalk improvements to
Cottondale Lane,which was approved by the Board of Directors
with Ordinance No.18,358.
At the July 2,1998 City Beautiful Commission meeting,the
Commission approved a 4-foot landscape buffer along the westsidepropertylineanda4-foot landscape buffer along thestreetsidepropertyline.
As a part of the recommendation presented by staff one of the
conditions placed on the applicant was should the site plansignificantlychange(for example,shifting the drive and/or
parking further into the sump area)the site plan was to be
brought back before the Commission.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to modify the previously
approved Windriver Building Site Plan.The applicant
proposes the addition of nine surface parking spaces.The
additional spaces will require only two percent of thesiteandarenecessarytoaccommodateanew9,000 squarefoottenant,who will occupy a majority of the building's
remaining vacant space.
With the addition of nine surface parking spaces therewillbeatotalof86spacesonthesite.There are
currently 77 parking spaces on the site,20 of which are
beneath the building and 57 surface parking spaces.The
proposed parking ratio will be one space per 383 squarefeetofgrossspace.The applicant proposes to remove aportionoftheinteriorlandscapinginfrontofthe
building to add the additional spaces.The site contains
2
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4305-E
a "Natural Area"(a sump),which encompasses approximately
25 percent of the site.
The Board of Directors granted the applicant a deferralfortheplacementofasidewalkalongCottondaleLaneon
September 19,2000.The applicant is requesting thisdeferralbecontinuedforthefiveyears,which was
granted by Ordinance No.18,358.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an office building,surface parking infrontofthebuildingandalargedrainageretentionpond,
a sump.The site contains minimum interior landscaping,four feet along the north property line and four feet
adjacent to the street right-of-way.There is an office
building to the north of site and further north is theAlltelCampus.Property to the south is also developed
with office buildings.The area to the east is the
Arkansas River.The property located to the west of thesiteiscurrentlyvacantandzoned0-2.Other uses in theareaincludeamixofofficeandmixedofficewarehouse
uses located along Jessie and Water Works Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received one informational
phone call concerning the project.All property owners
within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feetofthesitewhocouldbeidentifiedandtheHillcrest
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public
Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide letter from Levee District allowing encroachment
on storm water detention pond.
2.Construct sidewalk on Cottondale Lane.3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4305-E
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer is available,not adversely affected.
E~t :App d &'tt d.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site on Bus Route ¹21 and has no effect on busradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site lies in an area,which is not currently covered
by a City recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:
The interior landscaping left still meets the interior
landscaping requirement of the Landscape Ordinance with
the reduction allowed within the designated "mature area".If this site were not within the designated "mature area"it would fall 118 square feet short of the normal
requirement of 8%.This calculation does not include the
sump area as interior landscaping.
Previously,this site was granted a width variance of thestreetlandscapingbufferbythePlanningCommissionand
perimeter landscaping width requirements by the City
4
February '002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-4305-E
Beautiful Commission.When these variances were granted,
the interior landscaping proposed for deletion was shown
on the plans submitted.
With the current proposal,the applicant is offering to
plant 14 additional trees along the perimeter of the sumparea.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
There was no one present representing the application.Staff presented the item to the Committee with nodiscussion.Staff stated they would wozk with the
applicant to address the additional information needed onthesiteplan.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The proposed project,with the removal of the landscapingbufferonthesouthedgeofthesump,will still meet the
minimum landscaping requirement of the Landscape
Ordinance.With the current proposal,the applicant is
proposing to plant 14 additional trees along the perimeterofthesumparea.Public Works staff has requested the
applicant contact the Levee District and request
permission to encroach on the storm water detention pond
with these plantings.
The proposed parking would add 9 spaces to the existing 77
spaces on the site.The building is 34,000 square feet
and is occupied primarily by office uses.The building
currently leases space to the Brave New Restaurant but the
square footage of floor area is considered an auxiliary
use since the square footage occupied by the restaurant is
10%of the total.Therefore,the typical parking
requirement would be considered at the rate for office
parking,(85%of the parking requirement for buildings
over 30,000 square feet of one space per 400 square feet).
5
February 1.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4305-E
The typical parking requirement for a building this size
would be 72 parking spaces.Since the applicant is
proposing 86 total spaces,this would be more than
adequate to meet the potential parking demand.
Staff is not supportive of the requested deferral of
sidewalk improvements along Cottondale Lane.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed,if the
applicant receives permission from the Levee District to
encroach into the sump area and place the additional
trees.The applicant was granted a reduction in
landscaping requirements at the time of the original
application under the assumption the area designated to be
removed from landscaping,to place the additional parking
spaces,was to remain as "green space".With the addition
of the 14 trees on the site this should mitigate theeffectofthelossofthecurrentlandscapestrip.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning site plan
review subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
in Paragraphs E,E,F and H of this report.
Staff is not supportive of the application should the
applicant fail to receive approval from the Levee District
to encroach on the storm water detention pond with the
plantings.
Staff is not supportive of the request for a continued
deferral of sidewalk improvements to Cottondale Lane.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff
recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on
the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
vote passed by 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
6
February 2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:S-1334
NAME:Greater Christ Temple Pentecostal Church SubdivisionSitePlanReview
LOCATION:1200 Lewis Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Greater Christ Temple Bartlett Architecture
Pentecostal Church 6427 Miller Road
1200 Lewis Street Alexander,AR 72002LittleRock,AR 72204
AREA:2.9 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
PROPOSED ZONING:C-3
CURRENT ALLOWED USES:Church
PROPOSED USE:Church with Family Life Center
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Variance for the side yard andrearyardsetbacksforthegaragebuilding.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to add a Family Life Center andreplaceanexistinggaragebuildinglocatedonthechurch
property at 1200 Lewis Street.The proposed building will
include a basketball court,fellowship area,classrooms,
kitchen and platform area.The proposal includes theadditionof50off-street parking spaces and low ambient
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1334
lighting directed away from residential areas.The new
Family Life Center will be approximately 14,000 squarefeetwhilethenewgaragewillbesimilarinsizetotheexistinggaragelocatedadjacenttoWest12"Street (40 x
48).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently zoned C-3 as is the area to the
west of the site.The site contains an existing churchfacilityandagarageadjacenttoWest12Street.Other
properties in the area along West 12 Street contain a mixofresidentialandnon-residential uses.To the northeastofthesite,there is a Harvest Foods,Auto Zone and
beauty shop.Areas to the east,south and southwest are
zoned R-3 and contain single-family residences.AbigailStreet,which is barricaded between West 12 "Street and
West 13 Street and has been abandoned,runs through the
western portion of the property.This area will beincludedintheproposedparkingarea.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.All property owners within 200 feet of thesite,all residents within 300 feet of the site who could
be identified and the Forest Hill,Hope,Stephens Area
Faith and the Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.W.12 Street is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 35feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatallcorners.
3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk thatisdamagedinthepublicright-of-way prior to
occupancy.
2
February l 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1334
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6.Grading permit will be required on this development.7.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this
property.
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded toTrafficEngineering.
9.Remove all existing radiuses on 12 and 13 "Streets
and restore curb and gutter.Abandon Abigail right-of-
way and easement rights of utilities as required.10.Provide right-of-way and turn around foz alley in block2.Abandon alley within property boundaries.11.Turn around must accommodate Waste Management trucks.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer is available on the site located under
existing building.Contact Little Rock WastewaterUtilityat376-2903 for details.
~Et *:App*o d d 'tt d.All y *ght o't -yh-
not been abandoned.Contact Entergy at 354-5165 fordetails.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Water facilities relocation will be done by the
developer at its expense to Central Arkansas Waterspecifications.A contract with Central Arkansas Water
and an easement for relocated facilities will be
required.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin :No comment received.
CATA:Site is on Bus Route ¹3 and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
3
February .2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1334
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The proposed project lies in an area covered by the Oak
Forest Neighborhood Action Plan.Under the Economic
Development Goal the plan states a desire create a healthy
economic climate that encourages investment,reinvestment
and diversity of employment opportunities.Although the
Action Statements primarily deal with commercial typeestablishmentstheconstructionofthenewFamilyLife
Center by the Church could be seen as an act to promote
investment into the area.
Landsca e Issues:
Six percent of the interior of the new vehicular use area
(688 square feet)must be landscaped with interiorislands.The plan submitted falls 328 square feet shortoffulfillingthisrequirement.These calculations are
based with the designated "mature area"reduction in mind.
A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the landscape
ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed will be
required of existing vehicular use area.
Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(January 24,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff presented the item and noted that additional
information was needed on the proposed building materials,
number of existing parking spaces and existing and
proposed building setbacks.Staff noted comments from theutilitiesandCentralArkansasWater.Public Works
Comments were also presented.
The issue of the utility easement running from when
Abigail Street was abandoned was discussed at length.Staff stated it would be necessary to abandon the existing
4
February '.2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1334
utility easement and establish a new utility easement.Staff stated the process would take Board of
Directors'ctionandthetimeframewouldbeapproximately 30 days.Staff stated the applicant would be required to file a
separate application for the process to begin.
The applicant stated there were no additional questions.
He stated the site plan would be revised and the
additional information submitted to staff.The Committee
then determined there were no other outstanding issuesassociatedwiththeproposedsiteplanreview.The
Committee then forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted to staff on January 30,2002 arevisedsiteplanaddressingtheissuesasraisedbystaff
and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has shown
the total number of parking spaces to be 103 (54 existing
parking spaces and 49 parking spaces proposed),some of
which will be lost to landscaping requirements.Parking
requirements for churches constructed prior to November 1,1988 require one space per five seats.The applicant
estimates the seating capacity of the sanctuary to be 500to600persons,including the choir seating area.Since
the applicant is not increasing the sanctuazy seating,
they are not required to provide any additional parkingspaces.With the proposal,they are bringing the total
number of required spaces (100 to 120 required parkingspaces)more in line with the Code.
The proposed setback for the new garage is 10-feet from
the side yard and 10-feet fzom the rear yard.In C-3
zoning the minimum side yard setback is 15-feet and therearyazdsetbackis25-feet.The proposed setbacks will
require a variance.Staff is supportive of this variance
request.All othez setbacks meet with minimum Code
requirement.
The applicant is not requesting any additional ground
mounted sign area but will place wall signage on the new
building.The applicant has requested the maximum wall
signage allowable under the Ordinance,10%of the fagade
5
February 1~,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1334
area adjacent to the street.The applicant has requested
both street frontages (West 12 and West 13 Streets)have
a wall sign.
The applicant is proposing to relocate the utilities
located in Abigail Street (previously abandoned as astreet)and provide a service and access easement through
their property from the alley in Block 2.The dumpstersitehasbeenlocatedonthesiteplan,adjacent to West
13 "Street,with proper screening put in place.
Staff is supportive of the Subdivision Site Plan Review
for the Greater Christ Temple Pentecostal Church.StafffeelstheadditionofaFamilyLifeCentertothechurch
property will have no adverse impact on the general area.
The hours of operation do not appear to be in conflict
with the neighborhood (9 am to 4 pm daily activities with
occasional use to 10 pm for special events).Otherwise,
to staff's knowledge,there aze no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed application.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested site plan
review subject to compliance to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions as noted in paragraphs D,
E and F of this report.
2.The applicant must submit an application and be approvedforrelocationoftheutilityeasementslocatedinthe
former Abigail Street.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance for a reduced
side yard and rear yard setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14 p 2002 )
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff
recommendation"above.
6
February 1.-,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1334
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on
the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff.The
vote passed by 10 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent and 1 recuse.
7
February =,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.;Z-6789
NAME:Hyde Park Short-Form PRD —Revocation
LOCATION:Along the north and south sides of Westglen Drive,
west of Gamble Road
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
ERC Properties,Inc.;Cornerstone Development;Rebecca Botos and
Martha Holter;Barbara Bird;Jing Yi Wang and Yan Huang;Jessica Collard;Kristie Hightower
ORIGINAL APPLICANT:Chandler Properties,Inc.
AREA:1.603 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PRD ORIGINAL ZONING:R-2
STAFF REPORT:
On February 15,2000,Ordinance No.18,213 was passed by the
Board of Directors rezoning 8 Lots of the Westhampton
Subdivision from "R-2"Single Family to "PRD".The proposal
was to develop the site as a 16-unit patio home (condo type)development.The proposed development consisted of seven
buildings.Five of the buildings were to contain two units
each,one building was to contain five units and one was to be asingleunitstructure.The properties were owned by Cornerstone
Development who had authorized the potential developer,ChandlerProperties,to act as their agent.
After the PRD zoning was approved,the developer chose not to dotheprojectandthedealbetweenChandlerandCornerstonewasnegated.However,the PRD zoning remained.
Cornerstone,who states they were not aware the PRD zoning wasineffectsincetheproposeddevelopmentwascalled-off,
proceeded to build single family homes on the lots.Due to anerrorinthepermittingprocess,zoning approval was given for
February .,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6789
construction of single family homes on the lots although the
properties were no longer zoned single family.Six of the eight
lots have been sold and single family homes have been
constructed on five of the lots and are now occupied by the new
owners.
The issue finally came to light when Cornerstone applied for a
permit to build a single family home on the sixth lot.Since
the 16 unit patio home development never occurred and single
family homes have been built on the lots,it is necessary to
revoke the PRD and to return the property to R-2,Single Family.
Section 36-458 of the Code states:
(a)Causes for revocation as enforcement
action.The planning commission may recommend to the
board of directors that any PUD or PD approval be
revoked and all building or occupancy permits be
voided under the following circumstances:
(1)If the applicant has not submitted a final
development plan to the staff as provided
in this article.Where an optional staged
development plan is utilized,the board
may revoke the entire preliminary plan or
may revoke only that stage on which a
final plan has not been submitted and
approved.
(2)If no building permit has been issued
within the time allowed.
(3)If the applicant does not adhere to the
phased development schedule as stated in
the approved preliminary plan.
(4)If the construction and provision of all
common open spaces and public and
recreational facilities which are shown on
the final plan are proceeding at a
substantially slower rate than other
project components.
Staff believes there clearly is cause for revocation of the PRD.
All current owners of the lots have been advised of this action.
2
February 1 2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6789
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Ordinance No.18,213 be repealed and the
Hyde Park Short-Form PRD be revoked,restoring the previous R-2
zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 14,2002)
There were no persons present to speak either for or against the
item.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote
of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
PLANNING COMNIISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE HOW ~Caesee i~
MEMBER X./
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
BERRY,CRAIG
DOWNING,RICHARD
FAUST,JUDITH
FLOYD,NORM
LOWRY,BOB
MUSE,ROHN 'v
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR,
RAHMAN,MIZAN
RECTOR,BILL
STEBBINS,ROBERT 'R E&U~A-
MEMBER c 5 (pj
ALLEN,FRED,JR.4 y ~
BERRY,CRAIG +&~-,,&v'v'
v'OWNING,RICHARD e 7 e e e v o Y ~
FAUST,JUDITH e y e e 4 g v
FLOYD,NORM a v'e e 7 v v'
LOWRY,BOB e P ~e e v v g
v'USE,ROHN ~e g g u'v
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.e 0 e e v 4
RAHMAN,MIZAN e /e a e v'v
RECTOR,BILL cut g '.00 Y
v'TEBBINS,ROBERT ~e e ~
w rLkr~A q7r((r )~~i~~~7AYfw&I hEFKE~
M~~NAI Meeting Adjourned r P.M.
+AYE +NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN ~RECUSE
February 14,2002
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Date
Chairman ec tary