pc_05 09 2002subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 9,2002
4:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Judith Faust
Craig Berry
Fred Allen,Jr.
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Bob Lowry
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Obray Nunnley,Jr.
City Attorney:Steve Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the March 28,2002 Meeting of the Little RockPlanningCommission.The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
MAY 9,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District a change from
Office to Multi-family (LU02-10-01)—Located on the west side of the 2000 block of
South University Avenue.
A.1 The Cottages at UALR Long-form PD-R (Z-4644-A)—Located on the west side of
the 2000 block of South University Avenue.
B.Michael Revised Short-form PCD (Z-6863-A)—Located at 1701 Rebsamen Park
Road.
C.Acts Church Short-form POD (Z-7154)—Located on the east side of John Barrow
Road between 41"and 42"Streets.
D.Kroger Fuel Station Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-735-A)—Located at
8824 Geyer Springs Road.
E.Kroger Fuel Center Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1337)—Located at
6420 Asher Avenue.
F.Pinnacle Valley Phase V Preliminary Plat (S-992-N)—Located 0.6 miles north of
Cantrell Road on the west side of Pinnacle Valley Road
G.Z-4650-B Parkway Place Baptist Church —C.U.P.,located 300 Parkway
Place Drive
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Otter Creek Community Phase IX Preliminary Plat (S-45-A-47),located on the
West side of Otter Creek Parkway and North of the Calleghan Branch
Channelization Easement.
2.The Ranch Tract A Lots 3 —8 Preliminary Plat (S-285-SS),located on the
Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Katillus Road.
Agenda,Page Two
3.Villa Vista Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1339),located south of West 36'"
Street between Stonehedge Drive and Tudor Drive.
4.British Cars of Little Rock Short-form PCD (Z-1432-C),located on the Northwest
corner of Georgia Avenue and Ohio Avenue.
5.LU 02-18-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District from Low Density Residential to Suburban Office at 1000 Nix Rd.
5.1 Advantage Publishing Company Short-form POD (Z-5466-B),located at1000NixRoad.
6.Sport's Authority Revised Long-form PCD (Z-6278-B),located on the Northwest
corner of Autumn Road and Chenal Parkway.
7.LU-02-16-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter Creek Planning
District from Single Family to Low Density Residential on the west side of Heinke
Road at the Saline County line.
7.1 Cottages in the Pines Long-form PD-R (Z-7174),located on the West side of Heinke
Road approximately 1200 feet south of Johnson Road.
8.Jacoby's Long-form PD-R (Z-7209),located at 7200 Beck Road.
9.Kling Manufactured Home CUP (Z-7210),located at 8800 Taliaferro Road.
10.LU-02-18-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District from Single Family to Multi-Family on the Northeast of the intersection of
Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive.
10.1 American Dream Builders Short-form PD-R (Z-7211),located Northeast of the
intersection of Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive.
11.Little Rock Association for the Deaf Short-form POD (Z-7212),located at
9005 Lew Drive.
12.Bowman Plaza Revised Long-form POD (Z-4213-G),located at Colonel Glenn Road
and l-430 on the Northwest Corner.
13.LU-02-19-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning District
from Single Family to Suburban Office at Drew Drive.
13.1 Mike Berg Company Short-form PD-0 (Z-7213),located at 17005 Cantrell Road.
Agenda,Page Three
14.Lasiter Construction Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1338),located on the
East side of Dixon Road at Tread Trail.
15.Wade Short-Form POD Revocation,located at 5100 "B"Street (Z-4741-A).
16.Cypress Point Phase III Preliminary Plat (S-285-JJ-1),located on the west end of
Buckland Road,northwest of Ranch Blvd.
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU02-10-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Boyle Park Planning District
Location:West side of 2000 block of S.University Ave.
~Re uest:Office to Multi-Family
Source:Joe White,White-Daters &Associates,Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Office to Multi-
Family.The Multi-Family category accommodates residential development of ten (10)
to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop the property
for apartments.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 10
+acres in size.Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the
property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating
establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial.The land to the east across University
Avenue is the campus of UALR,which is,zoned R-2.The land to the south and west
consists of property zoned R-2 and developed with single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park/Open Space at W.14'"Street and Pierce Street about a V~mile northeast of the application area.
On October 17,2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi-
Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and
Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question.
The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.The
area to the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University
Avenue.The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional.The
remainder of the land to the south and west is shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenues is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is
built to a four-lane width.Half street improvements would be needed to improve this
section of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards.There are no
Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be effected by this amendment.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.'U02-10-01
PARKS:
There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that
are located within an eight-block distance of the applicant's property.
Boyle Park,located at W.36'"Street and Boyle Park Road,as a 50+acre Large Urban
Park located west of the applicant's property.University Park,located at W.12'"Street
and Leisure Lane,as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest of the study area.Boyle
Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational opportunities,while
University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis Center.Oak Forest Park,
located at W.14'treet and Pierce Street,is shown as a mini-Park under 5 acres
northeast of the property in question and is design specifically to serve the needs of the
Oak Forest neighborhood,which surrounds the park.Curran-Conway Park,located at
W.24'"Street and Monroe Street,and is shown as a as a 20-50 acre Community Park
located east of the UALR campus and is located the furthest distance from the
amendment area.Since Boyle Park is classified as a Large Urban Park,and is the
most accessible park to the amendment area,the park should be able to accommodate
the neighborhood needs for open space and recreation areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be effected by this amendment.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the
neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern.The only practical access
to the property in question is from University Avenue.The neighboring houses are
oriented in such a way that the back yards face the applicant's property.The
Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue.
The UALR campus is accessed from University Avenue;however,the majority of the
buildings on the campus are not accessed directly from University Avenue.The street
pattern of the area isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential
areas.
The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues:traffic,topography,scale,
and massing.Development on this property would increase traffic on University
Avenue.Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on
which this property is located.Development on this property would also need a
sufficient buffer between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-
family residences to compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO A Cont.FILE NO 'U02-10-01
the property.Without sufficient buffers,the neighboring properties would be impacted by
intense residential uses on the applicant's properties.Although there is a change in
topographical elevation between the site and the surrounding neighborhood,this
application would allow development that could result in a visual intrusion into the
neighborhood.The massing and scale of any development on this site should be
complimentary and sympathetic to the surrounding single family development.
A change at this location would establish University Avenue as the boundary between
the non-residential to the east and the residential to the west.However,development at
this location would need to fit the character of the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association,
University Park Neighborhood Association,Westwood Neighborhood Association,
Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received 3 comments from area residents.None are in support,3 are
opposed to the change and none were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change to Multi-Family is not appropriate.Staff does support the
Office or a change to Low Density Residential with a smaller scale of development that
would conform to residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the May 9,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
3
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:A.1 FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
NAME:The Cottages at UALR Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:The west side of South University Avenue in the 2000 Block
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Don Spears White-Daters &Associates
312 W.South Street ¹24 Rahling Circle
Benton,AR 72015 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:10+Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PRD
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family Residential (86-Units —8.6 Units Per Acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3,with conditions,
for this site.The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping center
at this location.The applicant later withdrew the request and the property remains
zoned R-2,Single-family.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of non-traditional multi-family units on this
site.The proposed development includes dormitory style housing;four
bedrooms sharing a common kitchen and living area.The proposal includes
seven rows of structures,each separate buildings,all three stories in height,all
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
having a six car garage on the first level and two levels of living area above.
There will be 43 buildings total.A building includes eight bedroom facilities,four
on the second level and four on the third level.The levels each have four
bedrooms and a separate bath,which can be secured,and share a common
open area and kitchen facility.The applicant proposes in addition to the garage
parking spaces an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the perimeter of
the property.There will be four dumpster located on the site adjacent to each of
the four corners of the property.
The proposal includes a six-foot wrought iron fence on the east property line
adjacent to South University Avenue and an eight-foot opaque fence on the side
and rear property lines.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site,which has been previously graded and
somewhat leveled.The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree
covered with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension
Service Center.Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as
check cashing,liquor store and restaurants.Uses to the south and west of the
site are single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O'oods
neighborhoods.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls concerning the
rezoning request.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Broadmoor,Point
0'oods,Curran Conway,University Park and Oak Forest Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan)and the
existing plans for the widening of University Avenue.Construct one-half
street improvements to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with Planned
Development.
3.A right-turn lane into the site is required,with 10 feet additional right-of-way.
4.Entrance gate keypad must be located three car lengths deep from new
curb line of University Avenue.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
5.Entrance configuration must include turnaround outside the gate.Reduce
exit lane to 14-foot width.
6.The driveway onto University Avenue must be right turn only.
7.A median break is not permitted on University Avenue.
8.Driveways shall be asphalt,constructed as a street with curb inlets.
9.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
10.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
11.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
12.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
13.Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
14.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.
15.University Avenue has a 1998 average daily traffic count of 42,000 vehicles
per day.
16.Terracing requirements for deep cuts as described in the Land Alteration
Ordinance apply to this property.
17.Existing topographical information at maximum 5-foot contour interval and
the 100-year base flood elevation will be required.
18.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec.29-186 (e).
19.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)&(d).
20.Contact the ADPC8 E for approval prior to start of work.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.Capacity Analysis required,contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for details at 376-2903.
Entenny:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of
private fire line and meters.Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of
Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required.An
acreage charge of $150/acre applies in addition to the normal connection
charge for this parcel.(9.2 acres @ $150/acre =$1,380.00)
~Fire De erimeei::Contact the Fire Chief at 918-3752 for details
concerning fire lanes,fire hydrants and turning radius.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO A.1 Cont FILE NO Z-4644-A
~Count Ptannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located off Bus Routes ¹17,«17A and ¹21 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planninrt Division:
The request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.The Land Use Plan
for the site is classified as office.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential Development to place 43 buildings with 86 units of dormitory style
housing,all with garages,on the site.A Land Use Plan amendment from Office
to Multi-family is a separate item on this agenda (see File No.LU02-10-01 Item
No.3).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
Although not an officially recognized Action Plan,the site lies in an area reviewed
by the Boyle Park Neighborhood Action Plan Committee.The Plan was
completed in January of 2001 and never formally presented to the Planning
Commission or the Board of Directors.
The Goal of the Zoning and Land Use states Work toward establishing
compatibility between land uses and zoning in the area,as well as compatibility
of residential and non-residential uses.A more directly related Action Statement
under this Goal states "Encourage low-density multi-family and/or single-family
residential development to take place on currently vacant lands within the
neighborhood".
Landsca e Issues:
Since this site has over 150 parking spaces,interior landscape islands must be
at least 300 square feet in areas and at least 7 "/~feet in width.It will be
necessary to clarify areas to be landscaped near the proposed structures.An
irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required,
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
Mr.Joe White was present representing the application.Staff noted additional
items needed on the site plan (dumpster screening,more clearly label
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4644-A
landscaped areas,all set-backs labeled).Staff also requested a building detail
section to be furnished detailing landscaped areas.
Public Works comments were addressed.The applicant questioned Public
Works comment concerning the right-turn lane.Public Works stated this turn
lane would be in addition to the three lanes,which were being proposed for
South University Avenue.Public Works stated with a proposed 344-bedroom
development there would be an estimated 4,000 trips per day generated from the
site.
Staff also stated a turn-around for the gate would have to be provided.Staff
noted the Office and Buildings 22 —31 would have to be "moved back"to allow
the extension of the proper depth of the driveway and to allow for the turn-
around.Staff requested site elevation with the fencing indicated to show what
the surrounding neighborhood would be able to see with regard to the rooftop.
The Committee determined there were no other 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 plan addressing most of the concerns raised
by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there will
be an on site manager.The applicant has also indicated signage to conform to
Multi-family Ordinance standard (not to exceed 24 square feet in sign area).
The applicant has indicated four dumpsters on the site,one in each corner of the
development,all with proper screening.The applicant has also indicated any site
lighting will be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property.
The applicant is requesting a 6-foot wrought iron fence adjacent to South
University Avenue and a 6-foot opaque fence surrounding the remainder of the
development.The fence will be placed adjacent to the single-family
residences'roperty
line.
The applicant proposes 258 covered parking spaces and 153 surface parking
spaces.The minimum required parking for a dormitory development would be
(0.5 spaces per sleeping accommodation)172 spaces.The proposed parking
more than adequately meets the minimum parking requirement,
The applicant has increased the driveway length and provided a turn-around for
the gated entry.The applicant has also indicated a 10-foot sidewalk and utility
easement as requested by Public Works.The applicant has indicated '/~street
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
improvements including a 5-foot sidewalk,along the property line,will be
adhered to.
The applicant failed to submit a detailed section of the building detailing
landscaped areas as requested by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.It is
difficult to determine if the landscaped areas meet the minimum ordinance
requirement.The applicant is proposing a 25-foot street buffer,less than the
minimum required of 36-feet.The applicant is proposing a more than adequate
48-foot minimum buffer around the side and rear property lines.The applicant
has indicated there are hardwood trees on the south and rear property line and
these will be retained.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development.The density of the
development,along with the proposed design does not lend itself to add any
unique features to the Corridor.Just a few blocks north of this site is the area of
the University and Park Plaza Mails in which the City is currently conducting an
in-depth study on how to revitalize the area.Rows of buildings and large areas
of paved parking show a lack of creativity and design potential,as well as,
insensitivity to abutting residential properties.South University Avenue in this
area is fragile with vacant non-residential buildings and a large parcel of vacant
land to the east.Staff could be supportive of this site developing as something
other than single-family residential.The site is shown on the Future Land Use
Plan as Office.The site would be better suited as an office development or as a
lower density multi-family development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
Mr.Joe White and Mr.Ron Tabor were present representing the application.There
were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission the applicant had made a
request for the item to be deferred to the May 9,2002 Public Hearing.There was no
further discussion.
The application was place on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The vote passed by 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
6
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
~Staff tt -Data
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff for review on March 28,2002.After a
preliminary review of the revised plan,staff determined the applicant should complete a
new review by outside agencies and the Subdivision Committee.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff briefly describe the proposed Planned Development noting the
applicant had included all previously requested items on the site plan.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the application was still
at a density not acceptable for the site.He stated the applicant had met with the
neighborhood on the previous evening.He stated the neighborhood was looking at the
application as 336 one-bedroom units and not 84 four-bedroom units.Mr.Lawson
stated Staff concurred with the assessment.
Mr.Lawson stated the applicant did not have any form of agreement with the University
to rent to students.He stated there was no guarantee the units would be rented to
college students.Mr.Lawson stated this was a concern of the neighborhood because
the rent would be $300 per month for a bedroom and shared facilities.He stated this
was reasonable rent in the City.
Mr.Lawson stated the neighborhood was also concerned with acut-througha traffic.He
stated with South University Avenue not amenable to pedestrian traffic most of the
students would be driving to school.He stated the development would not be allowed a
median break and students would have very few options to enter the site.He stated the
tenants would either pass the site and make a u-turn or would acut-througha the
neighborhood to be traveling southbound when the site was approached.
Public Works comments were addressed indicating the need to construct South
University Avenue to Master Street Plan standard adjacent to the site.Staff stated a
right-turn lane would be required with 10-feet of additional right-of-way.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Mr.Bob Brown,Planning Staff,stated the
interior islands must be at least 300 square feet in area since the project contained over
150 parking spaces.Mr.Brown also requested the applicant clarify areas to be
landscaped near the proposed structures.
After the discussion the Committee then forwarded the proposal to the entire
Commission for resolution.
7
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.A.1 Cont FILE NO '-4644-A
ANALYSIS:
Comments from the various outside agencies remain the same as previously submitted;
Public Works comments also remain as previously submitted re-noting the need to
construct University Avenue to Master Street Plan standards including a 5-foot sidewalk
along the property frontage.A median break is not located at the site on South
University Avenue and a break will not be allowed.This remains a major concern of
Staff and the area residents.Since the development is planned to target students of
UALR,to reenter the site the motorist will have to be traveling south on University
Avenue,away from the line of travel when leaving the Campus.With the lack of
sidewalks between the proposed development and the Campus,most of the students
will be driving to and from classes.The concern is the apartment residents will "cut-
through"the Broadmoore Neighborhood to be traveling south at the entrance to the
proposed development.The second concern is if the apartment residents are not
"cutting-through"the neighborhood,then they will be making a u-turn at Boyle Park
Road which could result in dangerous traffic maneuvering.
Public Works has indicated terracing requirements for deep cuts as described in the
Land Alteration Ordinance,apply to this property.Near the rear of the site deep cuts
will be required to allow for the placement of the surface parking area.Since the cuts
will directly affect the preservation and livability of the natural area buffer,Staff has
some concerns with the actual area to remain as buffers.
The density proposed has changed very little since the original application.The
application is for 42 buildings of 2 levels of living of one-bedroom apartments sharing a
common living and kitchen facility.This results in 33 units per acre.Staff feels the
proposed density is too intense for the proposed site.The 1998 average daily traffic
count for South University Avenue was 42000 cars per day.Based on Public Work's
estimates,the site will generate an addition 4000 trips per day.
Staff is still not supportive of the proposed development.The density is too intense and
the lack of a median break with the possibility of 4000 tdps per day entering and leaving
the site could result in hazardous driving conditions.Staff concurs the site will develop
as something other than single-family and more than likely the site will develop in some
form of multi-family or quiet office.With this,staff would consider a multi-family
development of lesser intensity than the proposed development.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff continues to recommend denial of the application.
8
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont FILE NO.:Z-4644-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Joe White,White-Daters and Associates,was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission the applicant had
submitted a letter requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice.Staff stated they were supportive of the request for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
withdrawn.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
9
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
NAME:Michael Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION:1701 Rebsamen Park Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Anthony Michael Don Johnson
1701 Rebsamen Park Road 300 Springs Street,Suite 215
Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.30 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:C-3 Permitted Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3 Permitted Uses
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:Street improvements to Rebsamen Park Road
BACKGROUND:
July 18,2000 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,313 establishing a
Planned Commercial District titled Michael Short-form PCD located at 1701 Rebsamen
Park Road.As a part of the proposal the applicant was to construct a 500 square foot
kitchen facility and eliminate the mobile catering trailer from the site.The proposal also
included the addition of a paved driveway along the north side of the existing building
and a paved parking area to the rear of the building.The applicant proposed the
removal of the "head-in"parking in front of the building adjacent to Rebsamen Park
Road and to construct the road to Master Street Plan standard.
The applicant has not eliminated the "head-in"parking nor constructed Rebsamen Park
Road to Master Street Plan standard.The applicant proposes an amendment to the
existing PCD to reflect the current conditions of the site.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:2-6863-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved PCD to more accurately
reflect the current conditions of the site.The applicant is requesting the "head-in"
parking along Rebsamen Park Road not be eliminated and the roadway not be
constructed to Master Street Plan standard.The applicant is also requesting the
previously required parking lot landscaping in the rear of the building be
eliminated.
The previously approved application set the days and hours of operation at 11:00
am to 10:00 pm daily.The applicant is requesting the days and hours of
operation no longer be limited to this time period and not be set at any specific
time.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing commercial building (cigar shop)on the site,as well as a
restaurant and a deck used for outdoor dining.There is a parking area in the
rear yard with a cross easement for shared parking with the properties to the
south.
There are commercial uses immediately north and south of this property along
the east side of Rebsamen Park Road.There are also commercial uses
(including a parking lot)across Rebsamen Park Road to the west,with single-
family residences to the northwest.There is railroad right-of-way and a drainage
ditch immediately east of the property,with a mini-warehouse development
further east.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site
who could be identified and the Capitol View,Hillcrest and Cedar Hill Terrace
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot
sidewalk with the Planned Development.Match curb alignment to adjacent
property.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.Conform to
driveway grade requirements,in particular.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
5.Rebsamen Park Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
6.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entercny:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
~Fire De ertment:Place fire hydrants per ordinance.Contact Dennis
Free at 918-3752 for details.
~Count Ptennin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is near Bus Route ¹21 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and
route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Heights-Hillcrest Planning District.The Future Land
Use Plan indicated a Commercial classification for the site.The applicant has
applied for a revision to an existing PCD with regard to parking and hours of
operation.The revision to the existing zoning does not require a revision to the
Future Land Use Plan.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site is located in an area not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:Landscaping for this project has not been installed.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
~But Idio Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
Chris Travis and Anthony Michael were present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed revision and noted that some additional
information was needed.
Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.It was noted that the previous
conditions of the Master Street Plan had not been installed.Staff stated the curb
and gutter had not been put in place thus eliminating the "head-in"parking from
Rebsamen Park Road.
Staff stated the landscaping on the rear parking area shown on the previously
approved site plan was no longer necessary.Staff stated the applicant and the
adjacent property owner now share a cross access easement.The parking in
the rear of the structure now stretches across the entire rear of several
businesses.
The applicant also requested the days and hours of operation be amended to
allow for continued operational hours.Currently the Planned Development
allows hours of operation to be from 11:00am to 10:00 pm daily.
The Committee determined there were no other issues associated with the
proposed request.The Committee forwarded the revision to the PCD to the full
Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
The previously approved Planned Development allowed C-3 uses as alternative
uses for the property.The applicant is requesting C-3 remain as alternative
uses.The property to the north and south is zoned C-3.These uses remain
valid as alternative uses for the property.
The applicant is requesting the "head-in"parking remain on the site.Staff is not
supportive of allowing this situation to continue.Although,for many years,cars
have been backing into the lane of traffic,Staff does not feel this is a safe
situation.As previous applications have been filed for renovation or new
construction in this area,applicants have been required to construct Master
Street Plan improvements.It is staffs belief that each of these parking situations
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
will be taken care of as the properties redevelop in the area.Staff feels the
parking should be removed and Rebsamen Park Road constructed to Master
Street Plan standard adjacent to the site.
Staff is supportive of the request to extend the hours of operation allowing the
applicant to operate in conformance with other area businesses and not limit the
hours to 10:00 pm.The applicant has stated the restaurant will close at 10:00
pm but the Cigar Shop will remain open.Staff is not supportive of allowing the
applicant unlimited hours of operation due to the proximity to residential
properties.Area businesses operate from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm Monday
through Saturday and 11:00am to 9:30 pm on Sunday.
Staff is supportive of removing the landscaping requirement in the rear parking
area.The current parking situation allows for a cross access easement with
shared parking along the rear of several businesses.In this situation
landscaping is not a requirement.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request for the extension of the
hours of operation but requests the hours be limited to operational hours of the
businesses in the area.(Normal operational hours are 11 am to 11 pm Monday
through Saturday and 11 am to 9:30 pm Sunday.)
Staff recommends approval of the request to eliminate the parking lot
landscaping requirement in the rear of the building.
Staff recommends denial of the request to waive the Master Street Plan standard
and leave the "head-in"parking along the front of the structure.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
The applicant was present.There were objectors present.There were seven
Commissioners present.The Chairman stated it was Planning Commission Policy to
offer a deferral to the applicant when fewer than nine Commissioners were present.
The applicant requested a deferral to the May 9,2002 Public Hearing.
The application was place on the consent agenda for deferral.The vote passed by
7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Derrick Davidson,Chris Travis and Anthony Michael were present representing the
application.There were several persons present in support and in opposition.
Commissioner Lowery stated the applicant had submitted a request for deferral.He
asked the applicant if they would like to pursue the deferral.The applicant stated he
would like to withdraw the request for deferral.
Staff introduced the item stating the applicant was requesting a revision to the existing
PCD to allow the applicant to keep the seven (7)head-in parking spaces along
Rebseman Park Road.Staff stated the applicant had agreed to eliminate these spaces
as a part of the previously approved PCD.Staff stated they recommended denial of the
request to eliminate the head-in parking.Staff stated the removal of the spaces was
more a safety issue than a street issue.Staff stated the dedication of Right-of-Way was
no longer an issue since Public Works had established the Right-of-Way was in place.
Staff stated the applicant was also requesting a waiver of the required parking lot
landscaping in the rear.Staff stated the applicant had made this request to City
Beautiful Commission and was denied.Staff stated the applicant was requesting to
extend the hours of operation for the private club until 2:00 am or in accordance with his
ABC license.Staff stated the previously approved PCD set the closing hour for the
restaurant at 10:00 pm.Staff stated they recommended denial of the request for the
business to close at 2:00 am.
Mr.Derrick Davidson,representing the applicant,spoke in support of the request for the
amendment.He stated the request was to amend a two (2)year old Planned
Development.He stated the previously approved PCD allowed for limited landscaping
in the front area and the construction of street improvements.He stated the closing
hours were set at 10:00 pm.Mr.Davidson stated the use of the deck was also an
issue,which needed to be addressed.He stated the original application was for a cigar
shop,restaurant and nightclub.Mr.Davidson stated since the nightclub was not in
operation at the time the original application was filed,the hours of operation were not
an issue.
Mr.Davidson stated the situation had changed since the original application was filed.
He stated the parking situation was different.He stated the cross access easement
was now in question and the issue of if it existed or not would work itself out.He stated
the parking across the street was not available to the applicant as indicated by a sign
now on the property.He stated the issue of the cross-access was not an issue until
three months ago when Mr.Michael removed the cigar shop and added "a few"tables
on the inside to offer indoor dining.
Mr.Davidson stated the city and the adjacent property owners were now closing in on
Mr.Michael;not allowing his customers a place to park.He stated the City Beautiful
6
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
Commission had denied the request for the removal of landscaping eliminating two of
the 17 rear parking spaces.He stated with the removal of the seven (7)spaces in the
front of the building this would leave Mr.Michael with only 15 parking spaces.Mr.
Davidson stated other area businesses were currently utilizing head-in parking along
the roadway.He stated if the reasoning for eliminating the spaces was a safety
concern,all the businesses should be required to eliminate the head-in spaces.Mr.
Davidson stated a Police Report confirmed there was not a safety issue.He stated over
the past one-year there has only been one traffic accident related to the parking
situation.
He stated the use of music on the deck was a request,which was allowed all over the
city.He stated music and dining go together.He stated Mr.Michael was trying to get
the effect of Beal Street in Memphis by allowing a blues type guitar on the deck during
the dinner hour from 7:00 pm until 10:00 pm during daylight savings hours.He stated if
the music became an issue then the music level would be controlled by the Noise
Ordinance and be heard before a Municipal Judge.He stated the issue of music and
noise was not an issue of the PCD.
Mr.Davidson stated the applicant was requesting the music be allowed outdoors until
10:00 pm and them moved in-doors until 2:00 am.Mr.Chris Travis stated the applicant
was not advised at the time of the original application that he would be bound by the
hours.
Commissioner Rector stated the Planned Development was a "wide-open"process.He
stated the process limited aspects to get other aspects approved.Commissioner
Rector stated the hours was an item customarily set by the Planned Development
process.
Chairman Lowery asked the applicant what the amendment request was before the
Commission.
Mr.Chris Travis stated the request was to maintain the seven (7)head-in parking
spaces,to allow the private club to operate until 2:00 am and the restaurant close at
11:00 pm and use the deck for outdoor entertaining until 10:00 pm.Mr.Travis stated
the music would be played with minimal amplification.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,questioned how Staff would
enforce "minimal amplification".He stated he would prefer no amplification,
Mr.Travis stated some form of amplification would be required to allow the voices to be
heard above the guitar.
Chairman Lowery questioned if this was an issue covered by zoning,
7
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
Mr.Steven Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated music and amplification could be
conditioned as approval of the PCD.He stated the question of if the music was to loud
and too who was the music too loud would be the question.He stated the area was
unique.He stated the area contained a mixture of commercial and residential uses.
Mr.Giles stated there was a need for a modest amplification devise to allow the voice to
be heard.Mr.Giles stated he would be willing to identify an amplification devise which
would be suitable for use on the deck until 10:00 pm only and then moved in-doors.
Mr.Lawson stated,"We have been down this road before".He stated the applicant
does not adhere to his end of the bargain.
Chairman Lowery stated the motion would have to be for all music or no music.He
stated the approval would have to be an enforceable approval.
Mr.Travis stated Mr.Michael would buy the equipment to be used by the musicians.
Mr.Giles stated decibel machines were available.He stated then the question was at
what decibel level was comfortable.
Mr.John Wickliffe spoke in support of the application.He stated the music was too loud
for some and not for others.He stated he was a Commissioner at the Little Rock Port
and understood the difficult decision the Commission must make.He stated he was at
the Cross Eyed Pig when one of the complaints was made concerning the volume of the
music.He stated the music was not very loud when the Police arrived.
Mr.Wickliffe stated parking was critical to a small business.He stated not allowing the
owner to keep seven (7)parking spaces when the business has limited parking would
be detrimental to his survival.He stated he was requesting the Commission allow Mr,
Anthony to retain the seven (7)front parking spaces.
Mr.Chris Barrier spoke in opposition of the application.He stated he was an attorney
representing Mr.Ed David (Faded Rose)and Mr.John Gaiser (Buffalo Grill).He stated
parking was the life-blood of retail business.He stated the issue before the
Commission was the applicant doing what he said he would not do and not doing what
he said he would do.He stated the complexion of the business had changed.Mr.
Barrier stated Mr.Michael presented to the neighbors in his original plan the installation
of a kitchen for take-out.He stated this was no longer the case.He stated the business
was now a full-scale sit-down restaurant.Mr.Barrier stated the taking,which was being
referred to,was not the taking of parking spaces from Mr.Michael,but the taking of
parking spaces from area businesses,which paid to lease them and to maintain the
parking areas.He stated the Faded Rose eliminated the head in parking at the time of
obtaining a building permit for the new store.He stated Mr.Gaiser was also willing to
comply with the requirement when renovations warranted the removal.
8
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO B Cont.FILE NO Z-6863-A
Mr.Barrier stated the issue of the music was similar to standing on the steps of the City
Hall and placing a band at the Pulaski County Complex across the street.He stated
this was the proximity of the residential units to the area businesses.He stated the
hours of operation should remain as set by the original PCD.Mr.Barrier stated he
would also request the Commission eliminate the additional C-3 uses as alternative
uses.He stated the employees of the Faded Rose had retained a log of the closing
times of the Cross Eyed Pig over the previous 36 days.He stated 30 out of the 36
nights the business had remained open after 10:00 pm and most nights after 11:00pm.
He stated live music was also on the deck many nights until 2:00 am.
Mr.Barrier stated the desire was not to put Mr.Michael out of business but to make him
play by the rules as well.He stated there were many places,which allowed live music
but those places were not adjacent to residential neighborhoods.Mr.Barrier stated his
desire was to not amend the current PCD but to require Mr.Michael to not have music
on the deck,to close at 10:00 pm,to remove the seven (7)head-in parking spaces,
construct the N street improvements and install the rear parking lot landscaping.
Mr.Ed David chose not to speak.
Mr.Roger Clark spoke in opposition of the proposed revision to the PCD.He stated his
home was directly across Rebsamen Park Road from the Cross Eyed Pig.He stated he
too had a log of closing times very few of which were the required 10:00 pm.He stated
the neighbors had signed a petition to request the business not be allowed outdoor
music at any hour.He questioned how the city would enforce on the volume level.He
stated the residents had called the Police to report loud music and were told the music
was allowed under his zoning.
Mr.David Edwards spoke in opposition to the proposed revision to the PCD.He stated
he lived in the Rivera Apartments and had for the past 15-years.He stated his home
overlooked the deck of the Cross Eyed Pig and many nights he had been awake until
2:00 am when the business closed.He stated there were many devices,which could
replicate a band to be used by a solo singer.He stated the use of an acoustical guitar
was "poppy-cock".He stated the Cross Eyed Pig was not a good neighbor.He stated
the bar and the hours of operation bring an element into the neighborhood,which was
not desirable to homeowners.
Mr.John Gaiser chose not to speak.
Ms.Donna McClelland,Property Manager of the Rivera Apartments,spoke in
opposition of the application.She stated many of the residents in the building
frequented the businesses and restaurants in the area trying to be good neighbors,She
stated in the Spring of 2001 she began getting phone calls from residents indicating
their concern over the loud music and noise coming from the Cross Eyed Pig.She
9
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6863-A
stated she and the residents worked with the Police Department,Zoning and Planning
and Development to resolve the problems.She stated the noise did get better and then
as the weather warmed this spring the music and noise began again.She stated the
residents were not allowed to enjoy their balconies,entertain or raise a window for fresh
air.She stated the music and the language was at times very offensive to the residents.
She stated she continued to work with the Police Department,Zoning and Planning and
Development to resolve the problem over the previous months.She stated the Zoning
Department had informed her there was to be no outside music under C-3 zoning.She
stated the request of the Riviera residents was not only to not allow live music outside
on the deck but to not allow speakers as well.
Mr.Chris Travis stated his confusion over Mr.Barrier's request to eliminate parking
spaces.He stated with the limited number of spaces in the area.Mr.Travis stated,
looks like he would be arguing for more parking.Mr.Travis stated he had met with Mr.
Clark and his requests were reasonable.He stated Mr.Clark had indicated there were
problems in the past but none recently.Mr.Travis requested the Commission and the
neighbors look to the future and not the past.
Mr.Anthony Michael,the owner,spoke on behalf of his application.He stated the
music was a hot topic of discussion.He stated he was trying to control the volume of
music and to not allow the music on the deck past 10:00 pm.He stated he was looking
for a mechanism that would allow the music and control the decibels.He stated many
nights when he was concerned over the volume he would walk across the street to the
off-duty police officer and then down the street to determine if the music was too loud.If
he determined the music was too loud he told the musicians to turn the volume down or
to leave.
Chairman Lowery stated the issues before the Commission to be voted on were the
hours of operation,the seven (7)head-in parking spaces,/~street improvements and
music on the deck.
Commissioner Rector stated the proposal was all one application.
Mr.Giles stated the Commission now had eight (8)Commissioners present.He stated
in the past the Commission had allowed applicants the right of a deferral.He stated the
applicant should be advised of his option of deferral.Mr.Giles stated the vote to be
taken was a vote on the amended application.He stated the vote was not to be a menu
vote.
Chairman Lowery asked the applicant if he would like a deferral.There was a
discussion concerning when the item would be heard by the Commission and the
privileges the applicant would be allowed to operate under until the next scheduled
10
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.B Cont FILE NO.'-6863-A
meeting.It was determined the applicant could operate under the perimeters of the
approved PCD only.The Chair asked the applicant once again if he would like adeferral.The applicant stated he did not wish to defer.
Commissioner Allen questioned how the City could legislate parking on one business
and still allow other businesses to operate under the same conditions.
Mr.Lawson stated,the Faded Rose had installed N street improvements as required bythebuildingpermitwhenconstructingthenewbuilding.
Mr.Steve Haralson,Manager Public Works Civil Engineering,stated the elimination oftheparkingwasnotonlyasafetyconcernbutalsoanaccessmanagementconcern.
He stated the desire was to reduce conflicts.He stated to "get-out"of a parking spacethemotoristmustcrossoneandsometimestwolanesoftraffic.He stated the MasterStreetPlanrequiresthestreettobewidened.He stated should the road be built toMSPrequirement,the parking would be a moot issue.The spaces would be eliminated
with the widening.
Commissioner Rahman stated the parking lot across the street was recently improved.He questioned how the parking lot could still maintain the head-in parking spaces.Mr.Giles stated the parking lot held a non-conforming status.Commissioner Rahmanquestionedthenumberofnon-conforming parking spaces there were in the area.Mr,Haralson stated the Buffalo Grill had 4 spaces,the Old Faded Rose had 3 spaces,theGrandFinalehad7spaces,Cynthia East's had 5 spaces and the Pizza Cafe had 4spaces.
Commissioner Rahman asked if the City could offer a deferral of the parking spaces,
Mr.Giles stated the Commission could send a recommendation to the Board ofDirectorstodeferthestreetimprovementsforsomesettimeandfranchisetheparking
in the Right-of-Way.
Commissioner Rahman stated taking away parking was only hurting customers.HestatedthePoliceReportsconfirmtrafficsafetywasnotanissue.He stated the areawasanentertainmentdistrict.He stated music and entrainment go together.He statedtheapplicantshouldbeallowedtohavemusicoutdoorsuntil10:00 pm and then movethemusicinside.He stated the pdvate club should be bound by the ABC rules.
Commissioner Faust questioned the original PCD and the components of the PCD.
Mr.Lawson stated,the original PCD was for a cigar shop,private club and restaurant.He stated the original PCD was filed in connection with an enforcement action toeliminateamobiletrailer,which was serving bar-b-que on the site.Mr.Lawson statedtheapplicanthadappliedforaPCDtoallowakitchenfacilitytobeconstructedandthe
11
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO B Cont FILE NO '-6863-A
deck to be used for outdoor dining;more of a take-out operation.Mr.Lawson stated the
applicant had not complied with the original PCD requirement of '/~street improvements
or landscaping and eliminating the parking spaces.He stated this was a good faith
effort on both the part of the City and the applicant.
There was a very lengthy discussion concerning the voting procedure.
Commissioner Downing questioned the parking and staff basis for approving the
parking situation in the original PCD.Staff stated there were 17 spaces behind the
building and the applicant indicated there was a cross access easement.Staff stated
an unsafe assumption was made,on the part of staff,that the parking lot across the
street could be utilized by the business.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to allow the continued use of the seven head-in
parking spaces in the front of the building and the City franchise the parking spaces.
The motion carried 7 ayes,3 noes and 1 absent.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to allow the hours of operation for the private club
to be until 2:00 am (Monday through Saturday)and the restaurant closing hour to be set
at 11:00 pm (Monday through Saturday)not addressing the music.The motion carried
8 ayes,2 noes and 1 absent.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to allow outdoor music during daylight savings
time,with no amplification or PA system,until 10:00 pm at which point the music would
be moved indoors with no limits placed on ampliffcation.The motion carried 9 ayes,1
noes and 1 absent.
Commissioner Rector made a motion for deferral of '/~street improvements for five (5)
years or until a time when adjacent properties redevelop.The motion failed.
Mr.Giles stated the Commission now needed to vote on the PCD as amended.He
stated if the vote fails and the amended PCD was denied then the vote conflict between
the "i~street improvements and the allowance to keep the seven head-in parking spaces
would be resolved.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to approve the PCD amendment as filed with
regard to parking,hours of operation,street deferral and music outdoors.The motion
failed by a vote of 3 ayes,6 noes,1 absent and 1 abstain (Bill Rector).
12
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.;C FILE NO.:Z-7154
NAME:Acts Church Short-form POD
LOCATION:On the east side of John Barrow Road between West 40'"and West 42"
Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Frank Stewart Lemons Engineering
1423 Ingram Street 204 Cherry Street
Conway,AR 72032 Cabot,AR 72023
AREA:4.0 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:0-3 &R-3
ALLOWED USES:General Office and Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:Church and Church related activities (Daycare,School,Library)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicantyroposes to rezone the property located between West 40'"Street
and West 42'treet,located on the east side of John Barrow Road,from R-3,
Single-family and 0-3,Office to a Planned Office Development for the placement
of a church.The applicant is proposing the closure of a portion of Longcoy and
41"Streets,and related alleys within the development.The applicant proposes
to final plat the site as one lot upon approval of the Planned Development.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7154
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a scattering of trees.The northern portion of the site is at
a slightly higher elevation then the southern portion."Filling"has been taking
place on the site in this area.Uses in the area include single-family to the north,
southeast and west of the site.A daycare center is located at the corner of West
42"Street and John Barrow Road and a Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation
Treatment Center is located south of the site.A recently approved PCD is
located on the southwest corner of John Barrow Road and West 42"Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site
who could be identified and the John Barrow,Western Hills and the Campus
Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.John Barrow Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.40'",41",and 42"Streets are classified on the Master Street Plan as
commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersections of
40'"and 42"'treets with John Barrow Road.
4.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.Applies to commercial streets.
Sidewalks to be located at new right-of-way line on commercial streets.
Street half-widths to be 15.5 feet,however,41"Street may be 13 feet.
5.Improve corner curb radius to 30 feet radius with construction (existing
corner radius is 25 feet).
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.Pedestrian
crossings shall conform to City details.
7.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
8.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
9.Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
10.John Barrow Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of 7000 vehicles
per day.
11.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed or
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7154
existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-
way.
12.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)&(d).
13.Petition to close street and alley as indicated on the plans.
14.Proposed north-south aisle in parking lot along the Longcoy corridor will
become a cut-through street.Relocate 60 feet to the east.
15.Streetlights are required on improved streets.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.Existing 6-inch main on
site,easement must be retained when road is closed.
EntennE:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:In 41st Street between Blocks 157 and 158 Central Arkansas Water may
have existing facilities located within the extreme western portion of this right-
of-way,which would need to be retained as a utility easement,however we
have no objection to closure and abandonment of easement rights in the
remainder of the right-of-way.Longcoy Street between blocks 157 and 132
Central Arkansas Water has no objection to the closure of this street right-of-
way.We do,however,have a 2-inch water main in Longcoy Street.
Therefore,we request that the portion of this right-of-way of Longcoy Street
be retained as a utility easement or the main should be abandoned.The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether
additional public and/or private fire hydrants (s)will be required.If additional
fire hydrants (s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's
expense.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per ordinance.Contact Dennis Free at
918-3752 for details.
CountOPlanning:No comment received.
CATA:Site is near Bus Route ¹14 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and
route.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7154
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
The request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.The Future Land Use
Plan for the site is shown as single-family.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Office Development to place a church on the site.The applicant has
applied for a Land Use Plan amendment but since the time of application Staff
has determined an amendment is not necessary.Item No.8 File No.LU02-10-
02 has been withdrawn by the applicant at the request of Staff.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site is located in the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan area.A part of
the area's "Blueprint to the Future"indicates the desire to reduce the number of
unsightly vacant homes and lots in the neighborhood area,to propose more
facilities towards the social service needs of the area and promote public
investment in improvements and facilities to encourage private reinvestment in
the neighborhood.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed land use buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site drops below
the average width requirement of 18-feet.Additionally,the proposed street and
land use buffers along the southern perimeter fall short of the average width
requirement of 24-feet.Interior landscape islands within the proposed parking
lots must be at least 300 square feet in areas and 7 /~-feet in width to count
toward fulfilling the 8%interior landscaping requirement.Additionally,these
interior landscape islands must be generally distributed throughout the vehicular
use areas.
A 6-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required where adjacent to
residential properties to the east and south.An irrigation system to water
landscaped areas will be required.Prior to a building permit issued,it will be
necessary to provide copies of an approved landscape plan stamped with the
seal of a registered landscape architect.
BButtdtni Codes:tvo comment received.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7154
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
Mr.Tim Lemons was present representing the application.Staff presented the
item and noted additional items were needed on the site plan (seating capacity,
steeple height,building height).Staff also stated the applicant had not detailed
all the activities which would be taking place on the site.The applicant stated a
day care and a church library were desired additional uses.
Public Works comments were presented.Staff stated right-of-way dedication
would be required and should be shown on the site plan.Staff also stated the
current design of the parking lot would allow for "cut-through"traffic from Longcoy
Street to West 40'"Street.Staff requested the applicant look for an alternative to
minimize the amount of "cut-through"traffic through the site.
The landscaping requirements were discussed.Staff stated there was a 24%
transfer allowance between areas.The applicant indicated the landscaping
along with the right-of-way dedication would require the development to lose
parking spaces.Staff indicated a minimum of nine-feet was required and with
the elimination of a minimum number of parking spaces,this could be achieved.
The Committee then determined there were no other issues associated with the
application.The Committee then forwarded the application to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on April 25,2002.The revised
plan addressed most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee
at the March 7,2002 Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated the seating capacity of the sanctuary to be 900 persons.The applicant
is proposing 179 parking spaces as a part of the development.The parking
proposed does not meet the typical minimum parking requirements for a
sanctuary of this size (225 parking spaces required).Staff is supportive of the
reduced number of parking spaces for the development since the applicant could
utilize street parking along West 40'"Street and Ludwig Street.Should at some
point in the future parking become an issue the applicant will be required to look
at acquiring additional lands for parking.
The applicant has indicated there will not be a ground-mounted sign on the site.
The wall signage to be utilized will be within the allowable signage for office uses
per the ordinance.The applicant has not indicated the steeple height;therefore
the height of the steeple shall not exceed two times the height prescribed for 0-1
zoned property (70-feet).
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7154
The applicant has located the dumpster and indicated the proper screening on
three sides.The applicant has also indicated landscaped areas,which meet the
minimum landuse buffer requirements.The applicant has also indicated a
proposed six (6)foot wooden fence to be used as an option from the dense
evergreen plantings.Staff is supportive of either choice of screening.
The applicant proposes the placement of a church run school on the site and a
daycare facility.The applicant is proposing classes for Pre-K and Grades K —3
and estimates the number of children to be 50.The hours of operation will be
from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm,Monday through Friday.The applicant is also
proposing night classes to be held for assistance with GED Certification and to
allow limited classes for high school students.The hours of operation will be
from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm also Monday through Friday.The applicant proposes
five to seven staff members for the school activities.There will not be any sports
fields located on the site.
The applicant proposes the daycare facility to house approximately 50 children
and 10 to 12 staff members.The applicant proposes the days and hours of
operation to be Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed.The proposed uses,a church,
should have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.Typically a
church is considered neighborhood friendly and allowed in residentially zoned
areas as a conditional use.The applicant chose to pursue a Planned
Development to allow for development of the church site instead.
The school and daycare facility are also uses typically allowed as conditional
uses in single-family neighborhoods.The night classes are geared more to
community outreach along with childcare to allow working parent the opportunity
to continue their education.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning of the site to POD for a
Church,Daycare and School along with Church related activities subject to
compliance with Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
6
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.'-7154
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Tim Lemons was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in "staff recommendation"above.
Staff stated the applicant was requesting to close a portion of Longcoy Street,West 41"
Street and an alleyway within the development.Staff stated they were supportive of the
request to close these streets since West 41"Street was not constructed and Longcoy
Street was not constructed for several blocks north of West 40'"Street.
Mr.Lorin Fleming spoke in opposition of the application.He stated he was a property
owner on Longcoy Street and the abandonment of the right-of-way would create a
safety issue with regard to fire and police.
Commissioner Floyd questioned if Longcoy Street was an improved street.Mr.Lemons
stated the street was a city street with a pavement width of approximately 15-feet.Mr.
Lemons stated the Church parking lot would be open for access when services were not
in session.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to approve the application as
filed.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 no and 1 absent.
7
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:S-735-A
NAME:Kroger Fuel Station Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:8824 Geyer Springs Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kroger Limited Partnership I Pickering Firm
800 Ridge Lake Blvd.1750 Madison Ave,Suite 500
Memphis,TN 38120 Memphis,TN 38104
AREA:6.29 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:C-3
PROPOSED USE:Retail Fueling Station
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved a development plan for the Colony South
Shopping Center located on the corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads on
January 9,1969.On April 19,1994,the Planning Commission reviewed and approved,
a modification to the site plan to allow Back Yard Burger restaurant to locate on the
northeast portion of the site.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of five gas pump islands on the southwest
portion of the site (near the Little Caesars location which will be removed as a
part of the development).The applicant is proposing a covered structure which
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-735-A
will be 52'155'ith a canopy price sign.There will be an 8'14'iosk in the
center manned by an attendant.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site,a developed Kroger parking lot,contains an existing Little Caesars
Pizza business.The remainder is surface parking.The site sits in a commercial
node of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads with a variety of commercial and
office type uses.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the
site who could be identified and the Upper Baseline,Windamere,Cloverdale and
the Southwest United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Verify location of centerline of Baseline Road.
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 that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~Fire De artmeot:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:No comment received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO:S-735-A
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route 417 and 417A and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site is located in an area covered by the Cloverdale /Watson Neighborhood
Action Plan.An Action Statement in the plan states "Support non-residential
changes in areas shown on the Future Land Use Plan as such".
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
,BBuildin t Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted that additional information was needed on the site plan (canopy
elevation,days and hours of operation,number of employees).
Public Works comments were presented.Staff indicated the applicant should
verify the right-of-way line of Baseline Road and show on the site plan.
The Committee determined there were no other issues associated with the
application.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan addressing most of the issues raised by
staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there will be a
canopy sign only.The days and hours of operation will be seven days a week
from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm.There will be one employee located at the site.The
applicant has indicated items to be sold from the Kiosk to be gas,candy,
cigarettes,automobile supplies (oil,brake fluid,etc.).
The applicant has addressed the issues raised by Public Works by agreeing to
the dedication of right-of-way,verification of the centerline of Baseline Road and
commitment to repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged
in the public right-of-way.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:S-735-A
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan review.With the current design,the
applicant has tried to minimize the detrimental impacts and minimize future
issues on the surrounding parking lot and access drives.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision Site Plan Review
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
~Staff Re oa:
The applicant submitted a letter requesting this item be deferred to the
May 9,2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.The reason for the deferral
request as stated by the applicant was his failure to notify property owners within
200-feet of the site of the Public Hearing as required by the Planning
Commission By-Laws.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission the applicant had made a request for the item to be deferred to the
May 9,2002 Public Hearing.There was no further discussion.
'The application was place on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The vote passed by 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were two objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation"above.Staff
stated the item was a Subdivision Site Plan Review,a technical review,and the
applicant had met all the requirements of the Ordinance.
Ms.Pam Adcock stated prior to the meeting the applicant and she had met to discuss
the landscaping along Baseline Road.She stated she was aware landscaping was not
a requirement of the application but requested the applicant furnish some landscaping
to be a good neighbor.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.'-735-A
Ms.Dottie Funk addressed the Commission concerning the lack of landscaping in the
two areas in which Kroger had made application,the area of Baseline Road and Geyer
Springs Road and the area of South University Avenue and Asher Avenue.She stated
when the Land Alteration Task Force was developing the existing Landscaping
Ordinance a decision was made to eliminate the requirement for existing sites to come
into compliance with the new requirement.She stated at that point the Committee knew
they would have to address each site as redevelopment occurred.She stated her
reason for addressing the Commission was to request Kroger add landscaping not only
to the Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road site but to the Asher Avenue Site as
well.
Mr.Steven Sheridan a representative of Kroger stated he would install landscaping
adjacent to Baseline Road near the fueling center.He stated Kroger would revise the
site plan to include the agreed upon landscaping.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to approve the item as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:S-1337
NAME:Kroger Fuel Center Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:6420 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kroger Limited Partnership I Pickering Firm
800 Ridge Lake Blvd.1750 Madison Ave,Suite 500
Memphis,TN 38120 Memphis,TN 38104
AREA:6.29 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:C-3
PROPOSED USE:Retail Fueling Center
VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of a fueling station in the parking lot of the
existing Kroger food store.The fueling station will be located adjacent to Asher
Avenue near the 'V/al-Mart Street"entrance.The structure will be a 53-foot by
102-foot open structure with an 8-foot by 14-foot Kiosk in the center to be used
by an attendant for payment.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located in a developed shopping center containing a Kroger,vacant
Wal-Mart and a strip center with various commercial uses.The fuel center
location is adjacent to Asher Avenue on the southeast portion of the site.Uses
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1337
along the Asher Avenue Corridor are a range of residential (multi-family)to
commercial (fast food and big box retail)uses.To the south of the site is an
automobile sales and salvage business.Located east of the site is multi-family
residential and northwest of the site is single-family.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the
site who could be identified and the College Terrace,John Barrow,Westwood
and Broadmoor Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Verify the location of centerline of Asher Avenue.
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 that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
5.Verify new right-of-way line and curb line in the existing road widening plans.
Adjust site design accordingly.
6.Entry curb line from Asher guides vehicles to a potential "dead end"at an
island.Re-stripe or modify for better traffic flow.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:There is a current main replacement project in this area in conjunction with
the widening of Asher Ave.The proposed fire hydrant can probably be
accomplished by adjusting the location of a proposed fire hydrant.Please
contact Central Arkansas Water at the earliest convenience to coordinate the
fire hydrant location.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1337
~Fire De artment:Relocate fire hydrant to west driveway.
CountaPlannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹14 and does not affect the bus radius,
turnout and route.CATA is requesting a bus pullout at this location on Asher
Avenue.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~Plannin Div sion:No comment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site is located in the Boyle Park Neighborhood Action Plan area (not a City
recognized Action Plan).Under the Infrastructure Goal the plan states the need
to resurface Asher Avenue from South University Avenue to West 36'"Street and
install sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.An Action Statement under the
Zoning and Land Use Goal states "encourage non-residential developments be
low intensity developments".
Landsca e Issues:Interior landscaping islands must be at least 300 square feet
in areas and have a width of at least 7 &'*feet.
BBuildinl Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted additional information needed on the site plan;days and hours of
operation,any signage,building elevation,number of employees.Staff also
indicated there was a concern with the location of the air and water service.Staff
stated the proposed location would interfere with the general circulation of traffic
in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the right-of-way for Asher
Avenue was complete therefore,the applicant should verify the location of the
right-of-way for Asher Avenue and indicate it on the site plan.
Landscaping comments were also addressed.Staff stated the interior islands
must be at least 300 square feet.Staff also stated the minimum width would be
7 "/R feet.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1337
The Committee then determined there were no other outstanding issues
associated with the application.The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan addressing most of the issues raised by
staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there will be a
canopy sign only.The days and hours of operation will be seven days a week
from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm.There will be one employee located at the site.The
applicant has indicated items to be sold from the Kiosk to be gas,candy,
cigarettes,automobile supplies (oil,brake fluid,etc.).The applicant has
relocated the gas and water dispenser to the south within the fueling center to
allow for better circulation of traffic within the parking lot.
Public Works comments have been addressed.The applicant has modified the
striping from the entry curb line to eliminate the potential "dead end"at the island
when entering the parking lot.The applicant has verified the center line of Asher
Avenue and has committed to dedication of right-of-way.
Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan review.With the current design the
applicant has tried to minimize the detrimental impacts and minimize future
issues on the surrounding parking lot and access drives.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision Site Plan Review
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
~Staff Ra art:
The applicant submitted a letter requesting this item be deferred to the
May 9,2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.The reason for the deferral
request as stated by the applicant was his failure to notify property owners within
200-feet of the site of the Public Hearing as required by the Planning
Commission By-Laws.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-1337
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission the applicant had made a request for the item to be deferred to the
May 9,2002 Public Hearing.There was no further discussion.
The application was place on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The vote passed by 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation"above.Staff
stated the item was a Subdivision Site Plan Review,a technical review,and the
applicant had met all the requirements of the Ordinance.
Ms.Dottie Funk addressed the Commission concerning the lack of landscaping in the
two areas in which Kroger had made application,the area of Baseline Road and Geyer
Springs Road and the area of South University Avenue and Asher Avenue.She stated
when the Land Alteration Task Force was developing the existing Landscaping
Ordinance a decision was made to eliminate the requirement for existing sites to come
into compliance with the new requirement.She stated at that point the Committee knew
they would have to address each site as redevelopment occurred.She stated her
reason for addressing the Commission was to request Kroger add landscaping not only
to the Geyer Springs Road and Baseline Road site but to the Asher Avenue Site as
well.
Mr.Steven Sheridan a representative of Kroger stated he would review the site plan
and the site to determine areas in which additional landscaping would be appropriate.
He stated Kroger would revise the site plan to include any additional landscaping
deemed appropriate.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to approve the item as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:S-992-N
NAME:Pinnacle Valley Preliminary Plat Phase V
LOCATION:0.6 miles north of Cantrell Road on the west side of Pinnacle Valley Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Kelton Brown,Jr.McGetrick &McGetrick Engineers
¹6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.080 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:15 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Lots without public street frontage for Lots 2,3,4,5,8,&9.
2.A variance for a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to an arterial street.
3.A variance for a 15-foot platted building line for all interior lots.
4.A variance to allow double-frontage lots for Lots 13,14 and 15.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 4.080 acre tract into 15 single-family
residential lots.The lots will be accessed via a private cul-de-sac off Pinnacle
Valley Road.Lots 10,11 and 12 will have access from the rear via a 30-foot
access easement shared by these lots and Lots 8 and 9.There will be a platted,
no-access easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road.
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
abuts the creek on the opposite side to the west.A new single-family residence
is under construction to the north of the site and single-family residences are
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:6-992-N
located to the south of the site.Single-family residences on large lots are to the
east of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the application.All property owners abutting the site,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.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalk with the Planned Development.Design is to conform to existing
road construction plans as prepared by Pulaski County.
3.Improve corner curb radius to 30 feet radius with construction (existing
corner radius is 25 feet).
4.Provide access easement to residential property to the south.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
6.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
7.Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-992-N
8.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Pinnacle Valley Road with the private street.
9.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)8 (d).
10.Streetlights are required on improved streets.
11.City requests that lots fronting Pinnacle Valley Road be prevented access
with a NO ACCESS easement,instead using an ACCESS easement along
rear.
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.
EntercnE/:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Modification of water facilities installed previously,but not accepted by
Central Arkansas Water,will be required.An acreage charge of $300/acre
applies in addition to the normal connection charge in this area.
~FrreDe anment Place fire hydrants per ordinance.Contact Dennis Free at
918-3752 for details.
CountOPlannind:No comment received.
CATA:Site is near Bus Route ¹25 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and
route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(March 7,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application.Staff noted some additions which were needed on
the preliminary plat.Staff also noted there were four variances to the Subdivision
Ordinance,which should be requested:a variance to allow lots without public
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-992-N
street frontage,a variance for a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to an
arterial street,a variance to allow interior lots to have a 15-foot platted building
line and a variance for double frontage lots for Lots 13,14 and 15.
Staff noted some of the lots did not appear to be build-able lots.Staff requested
a building footprint be shown on Lots 5,6 8 and 9.Staff noted the comments
from Central Arkansas Water concerning the modifications to the previously
installed water system and suggested the applicant contact the water department
to eliminate the concern.
Public Works staff stated the dedication of 45-foot right-of-way from the
centerline of Pinnacle Valley Road would be required and the dedication should
be shown on the preliminary plat.Public Works also noted the access easement
on the south property line,which had been identified in previous discussion,and
requested the easement be shown on the preliminary plat.Staff also indicate a
10-foot no access easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road would be required
on Lots 1,6,7,13,14 and 15.
There was no further discussion.The Committee determined there were no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.The
Committee then forwarded the application to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan addressing most of the issues raised by
staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant requested four
variances from the Subdivision Ordinance;a variance to allow double frontage
lots for Lots 13,14 and 15,a variance to allow Lots 2,3,4,5,8 and 9 to have no
public street frontage,a variance to allow a 25-foot platted building line adjacent
to an arterial street and a variance to allow Lots 2,3,4,5 8,and 9 to have a
15-foot platted front building line.
The developer has indicated he will construct /~street improvements to Pinnacle
Valley Road adjacent to the property.The applicant has also indicated a 10-foot
no access easement along Pinnacle Valley Road for the lots,which abut the
roadway.The lots will be accessed by a 30-foot access easement along the rear
of the lots.
Staff is not supportive of the plat due to the number of variances requested.Staff
is supportive of the site developing as single-family but,with the number of
variances required,the developer may be trying to "over-build"the site.Although
the density proposed is consistent with single-family development,(3.67 units per
acre)the site does not lend itself to such density development pattern.The site
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO '-992-N
has numerous limitations;lying adjacent to the Isom Creek and the 50-foot water
line easement along the rear of the property.
The site is also located adjacent to an arterial street,which requires a 35-foot
front platted building line.The development is proposing a 25-foot front platted
building line adjacent to the roadway thus requiring a variance.In addition,the
interior lots do not meet the required 25-foot front platted building line,thus
requiring an additional variance.
Three of the 15 lots are double frontage lots.Double frontage lots are
exclusively prohibited under the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant has
placed a 10-foot no access easement along the roadway as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance thus minimizing these concerns.
The applicant has prepared building footprints for several of the lots,which
appear to be unbuildable.Staff still has concerns whether these footprints will
"fit"on the lots and allow the required side yard setbacks under the zoning
ordinance.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed preliminary plat due to the large
number of variances to the Subdivision Ordinance required to develop the site as
proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 28,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were objectors present.There were seven Commissioners present.
The Chairman stated it was Planning Commission Policy to offer a deferral to the
applicant when fewer than nine Commissioners were present.The applicant requested
a deferral to the April 11,2002 Public Hearing.
The application was place on the consent agenda for deferral.The vote passed by
7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 11,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff stated the applicant had requested a deferral of the item to the May 9,
2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the request was not made seven days prior to the
meeting therefore,the request would take a waiver of the By-Laws.
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-992-N
Mr.Harry Willems stated he was opposed to the deferral request.Mr.Willems stated
this was the fourth month the Commission had received a request concerning this
project.He stated the applicant had given short notice for the requested deferral not
allowing the citizens sufficient time to be notified to not attend the meeting.Mr.Willems
stated the group had taken off work to attend the meeting and should be allowed an
opportunity to speak concerning the application.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated this was the first deferral
for this application.He stated the application was a new application and not the
application the Commission had previously heard.He stated the deferral from the
previous meeting was a by-right deferral due to the number of Commissioners present.
Mr.Pat McGetrick stated the applicant was requesting the deferral to review
neighborhood comment and concern over the number of lots proposed.He stated the
application had been reduced from a four-plex development to a duplex development to
the current single-family.Mr.McGetrick stated the applicant was now looking at the
possibility of reducing the intensity of the development.
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws for the inadequate notification procedure of
the request for deferral.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 9,2002 Public Hearing.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 noe and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present representing the
application.There were numerous objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised
preliminary plat indicating thirteen lots as opposed to the original submission of fifteen
lots.Staff stated the applicant had also eliminated one of the requested variances,the
reduced platted building line adjacent to an arterial street.Staff stated the remaining
variances were variances typically supported;Reduced platted building line for interior
lots,Double frontage lots with a platted restricted access easement adjacent to the
arterial street and lots without public street frontage.
Mr.Jim Greenfield spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary plat.He stated the
applicant had in-fact reduced the density of the proposed subdivision but the location of
the site,adjacent to Isom Creek,and the density did not lead themselves to a quality
development.Mr.Greenfield stated Pinnacle Valley Road was a narrow well traveled
roadway and the current density would only increase the traffic concerns on an already
dangerous road.
6
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont FILE NO.:S-992-N
Mr.Greenfield stated housing in the area was located on larger lots and for the most
part acreage.He stated the smaller lots would decrease property values for area
homeowners.He stated the proposed plat indicated rental units and not units offered
for homeownership.
Mr.Harry Willems spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary plat.He stated his
opposition was not only to the proposed design of the subdivision but the number of
variances required to develop the site.He stated with the number of variances
requested,reduced building lines,the applicant was trying to over-build the site.He
stated Mr.Brown purchased the land,located in a flood plain,and developed a portion
of the property by removing dirt from the creek.He stated Mr.Brown was now trying to
develop the remainder of the land as single-family and the problem with the small site
was directly attributed to Mr.Brown's removal of the dirt from the creek.Mr.Willems
stated he and the neighbors had been before the Commission five times stating
opposition of the site with greater densities than the current proposal.He stated the site
should be developed as single-family but at a lesser density still than the current
proposal.
Mr.McGetrick stated the development was well within the density required for single-
family development.He stated the applicant had worked with Public Works and the
Corp of Engineers to dredge the creek.
After a general discussion concerning the design,the density and the "trade-offs"for the
developer building the road and densities required for the N street road improvements a
motion was made to approve the proposed preliminary plat as submitted by the
applicant.The vote failed 4 ayes,4 noes and 3 absent.
7
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-4650-B
NAME:Parkway Place Baptist Church -Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:300 Parkway Place Drive
OWNER/APPLICAN'T:Parkway Place Baptist Church/Howard David
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow a new,
40-space parking lot and a 24,000 square foot education
addition on this existing,R-2 Single Family residential
zoned church site.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the southwest corner of Parkway Place Drive and
West Markham Street,one block south of Chenal Parkway.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within
300 feet who could be identified and the Parkway Place Neighborhood
Association were notified of this application.
The church is located at the northern edge of a single family neighborhood.
Single family homes are located south of the site.Multiple non-residential uses,
including offices,a fire station,a neighborhood swimming pool,a car wash,a
funeral home and undeveloped commercial properties are located east,north
and west of the site.
It is the relationship of the abutting single family residences to the proposed
parking lot that concerns staff.The parking lot intrudes beyond the bulk of the
church site into the residential neighborhood.Since the church has over twice
as many parking spaces as required by Code,staff questions the necessity of
constructing this parking lot in an area that currently serves as a buffer between
this nonresidential use and the abutting residences.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The church currently has a 309 space parking lot with single driveways onto
Parkway Place Drive and West Markham Street.This application includes the
addition of a new 40 space parking lot and a one-way drop-off.The sanctuary
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO '-4650-B
has a seating capacity of 600 persons,requiring 150 parking spaces,based on
the Ordinance Standard of one parking space for every 4 seats in the main
worship area.The church currently has more than twice as many parking
spaces as required by Code.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The plan submitted does not allow for the 1,048 square feet of landscaping
required within the interior of the proposed parking lot.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the
southern and eastern perimeters of the site.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged or
missing in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.Mark drop-off as a one-way driveway.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Concern regarding proposed drive off Markham;SWBT
may have cable that will need lowering based on excavating levels.
Water:The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If
additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the
Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional meter(s)are needed.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CountOPlanning:No Comments received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO '-4650-B
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 7,2002)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the applicant.Staff presented the item
and noted additional information was needed regarding signage,site lighting,
dumpster location,seating capacity in the main worship area,fencing and roof pitch
and materials.Staff stated the proposed driveway must be labeled "one-way"and
signage installed indicating such.Staff asked if there would be a canopy erected over
the drop-off area along the new driveway.The applicant indicated there would be a
canopy and it would be shown on a revised site plan.Landscaping comments were
presented and it was noted that additional interior landscaping must be provided.
Public Works Comments were presented.The applicant was directed to submit a
revised cover letter and site plan addressing the issues and concerns raised by staff.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the
item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Parkway Place Baptist Church occupies the R-2 zoned property located at
300 Parkway Place Drive.The church facility consists of a 13,250 square foot,
600 seat sanctuary,a 13,700 square foot education wing and a 309 space parking lot.
The church proposes the addition of a 24,000,two-story education wing addition and a
40 space parking lot.The addition will house children's and youth classes.A variance
is requested to allow a building height of 44 feet.The Code has a height limit of
35 feet in the R-2 district.A one-way,drop-off driveway is proposed off of KirbyNVest
Markham,in front of the addition.An 8 foot tall,wood fence is proposed along the
south perimeter of the new parking lot,to provide screening for the adjacent residential
properties.
Staff is supportive of aspects of the proposed development,but not all.Allowing the
classroom addition is reasonable.It is located within the defined church site and
meets the Ordinance setbacks.The height variance is relatively minor.Directly
across from the area of the addition are a neighborhood swimming pool,fire station
and undeveloped C-3 zoned property.The addition is located some 90m feet away
from the rear of the abutting residential properties.
The proposed one-way drop-off driveway in front of the addition also seems
appropriate to staff for the same reasons.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4650-B
Staff does have concerns about the proposed 40 space parking lot to be located south
of the new addition.This parking lot pushes the envelope of the church site further
into the abutting residential neighborhood.To construct the parking lot will require the
clearing and paving of an undeveloped,tree covered lot that serves as a buffer
between the church and the abutting residential properties.The church currently has
a 309 space parking lot.The Code requires 150 parking spaces for this church.No
changes are proposed in the seating capacity of the worship area/sanctuary.While
recognizing that churches are an appropriate element within a residential
neighborhood,staff questions the necessity or desirability of constructing the proposed
40 space parking lot.In staffs opinion,the negative impact of the parking lot on the
abutting residential properties outweighs the necessity or advantage of constructing it.
The applicant did submit a revised site plan and cover letter on March 27,2002,in
response to questions raised at Subdivision Committee.The comments are reflected
in the analysis above.The revised site plan shows a canopy over the entrance on the
drop-off driveways and the driveway being clearly labeled one-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to construct the
two-story education addition and one-way drop-off driveway subject to compliance with
staff comments and conditions noted in Sections 4,5 and 6 of this report.Staff
recommends approval of the requested height variance.
Staff does not recommend approval of the request to construct the proposed 40 space
parking lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 28,2002)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested that this application be
deferred to the April 11,2002 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairperson placed this item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 11,2002 agenda.A motion to that effect was
made.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 21,2002)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application.Staff informed the
Committee that the comments and issues were the same as those raised at the
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4650-B
February 7,2002 committee meeting.The applicant had requested deferral of the
item prior to responding to those issues.Mr.McGetrick stated there was,at that time,
some question as to whether the item would be pursued,as originally proposed.He
stated he would have responses to all questions and issues to staff by March 27,
2002.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 11,2002)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to complete the
required notification.Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the May 9,2002
commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral as
recommended.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Patrick McGetrick,Engineer,and Steve Elliott,Architect,were present representing
the application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and
recommended approval of the application,less and except the parking lot.
Mr.McGetrick and Mr.Elliott each briefly described particulars about the project and
explained why they felt the parking lot was needed.Mr.Elliott stated the church had
conducted a study which showed it needed parking at the ratio of 2.1 persons per
vehicle.Mr.McGetrick stated the church had met with the neighborhood association
and the Association was in support of the application.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated staff was now in support of
the application,in its entirety,in light of the neighborhood association's action.
A motion was made to approve the application,less and except the parking lot.The
vote was 5 ayes,2 noes and 4 absent.The motion failed.
A motion was then made to approve the application,with the parking lot.The vote
was 4 ayes,3 noes and 4 absent.The motion failed.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO '-45-A-47
NAME:Otter Creek Community Phase IX Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located on he West side of Otter Creek Parkway and North of the
Calleghan Branch Channelization Easement.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
James Built Homes McGetrick 8 McGetrick Engineers
P.O.Box 23806 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72221 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.50 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:300
CURRENT ZONING:MF-6,Multi-family Six Units Per Acre
(The applicant has filed an application for rezoning to R-2,Single-family to be
heard at the May 23,2002 Public Hearing.)
PLANNING DISTRICT:16
CENSUS TRACT:42.08
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:A variance to allow a 15-foot platted front
building line on Lots 1303,1304 and 1305.
A.P ROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 2.50-acre site into 8 single-family
residential lots.The property is currently zoned MF-6,Multi-family 6 units per
acre.Single-family is not an allowable use under this zoning.The applicant has
submitted a rezoning application to be heard by the Planning Commission at the
May 23,2002 Public Hearing.
A single 300-foot cul-de-sac extending from Otter Creek Parkway will serve the
lots.The applicant proposes a no-access easement along Otter Creek Parkway
for Lots 1301 and 1306.The applicant is requesting a variance from the
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO '-45-A-47
Subdivision Ordinance to allow a 15-foot front platted building line for three of the
eight lots (Lots 1303,1304 and 1305).The applicant is proposing a side yard
platted building line of 25-feet adjacent to the floodway for Lots 1304,1305 and1308.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site.The Calleghan Branch Channelization
Easement is adjacent to the site to the south abutting single-family and a large
power line is adjacent to the site to the north,which also abuts single-family.The
Otter Creek Elementary School is located across Otter Creek Parkway to the
east.Zoning in the immediate area is primarily R-2,Single-family residential.
There are large areas of undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the west and east of
the proposed site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners abutting the site as well as the Otter Creek Home Owners
Association were notified of the Public Hearing.As of this writing,staff has not
received any comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.
2.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed or
existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in the right-
of-way.
3.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded
to Traffic Engineering.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension is required,with easements,if service is
required for project.Contact Wastewater for additional details at 376-2903.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension is required to serve lots 1302 —1305 within
this subdivision.Lots 1301,1306 —1308 may be served off of Otter Creek
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.;S-45-A-47
Parkway.The development must meet fire flow requirements of 1500 GPM
throughout the subdivision.The development must also meet Little Rock Fire
Department requirements for fire hydrant locations.Contact Central
Arkansas Water for additional details at 992-2438.
~Fire De artmeno place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICALIDESIGN:
~Plannin Division:No comment.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.Staff briefly introduced the proposed preliminary plat noting
additions needed on the proposed plat.Staff requested the applicant indicate a
10-foot no access easement along Otter Creek Parkway for Lots 1301 and 1306.
Staff also requested the applicant plat a 25-foot building line along Lots 1304,
1305 and 1308 to reflect a 25-foot setback from the floodway.Staff stated the
platted building line adjacent to a collector street was 30-feet and requested the
applicant adjust the building line accordingly.
Public Works comments were addressed as well as the comments from Central
Arkansas Water,Little Rock Wastewater and the Little Rock Fire Department.
Mr.McGetrick indicated he would contact the utilities to alleviate their concerns.
After a brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on April 24,2002.The revised
plan addressed most of the concerns raised by Staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The applicant has adjusted the platted building line adjacent to a
Collector Street to reflect 30-feet.The applicant has also platted a 25-foot
building line adjacent to the floodway on Lots 1304,1305,and 1308.The
applicant has indicated a 10-foot no access easement adjacent to Otter Creek
Parkway for Lots 1301 and 1306.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-45-A-47
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a
15-foot front platted building line for Lots 1303,1304 and 1305.Staff is
supportive of the requested variance to allow the 15-foot platted building line.
The building line is adjacent to the end of a 300-foot cul-de-sac,which should
mitigate any possible negative impacts of a reduced front building line.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat as filed.The proposed
development of 3.2 units per acre is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood density.The platted single-family portion of the Otter Creek
Community has been developing at a rapid pace.
Otherwise,to staff knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed preliminary plat.The subdivision of this 2.50-acre site into 8 single-
family residential lots should have no adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat for the subdivision of
this 2.50-acre site into 8 single-family residential lots subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1.The applicant rezones the property from MF-6 to R-2,Single-family.
2.Compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval subject to the rezoning of the property from MF-6 to R-2
and 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 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-285-SS
NAME:The Ranch Tract A Lots 3 —8 Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Katillus Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
FCC Tract A Partnership White-Daters and Associates
Suite 300 Financial III Building ff24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:8.2acres NUMBER OF LOTS:6 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-2,Shopping Center District
PLANNING DISTRICT:20
CENSUS TRACT:42.01
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request this item be deferred to the May 23,2002 Planning
Commission Public Hearing to be heard in conjunction with the proposed rezoning
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Joe White,White-Daters and Associates,was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request for
the item to be deferred to the May 23,2002,Public Hearing to allow the proposed
preliminary plat application to be heard along with a proposed rezoning application.
Staff stated they were supportive of the requested deferral to the May 23,2002 Public
Hearing.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-285-SS
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1339
NAME:Villa Vista Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:South of West 36"Street between Stonehedge Drive and Tudor Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ford Properties Homes LLC Hope Engineers
16328 Interstate 30 203 Lillian Street
Benton,AR 72015 Benton,AR 72015
AREA:27.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:94 FT.NEW STREET:4189
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:11
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow reduced front platted building line for Lots 10,11 and 12 (15-
feet).
2.Variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 4 -12.
3.A variance to allow a reduced platted building line (25-feet)on Lots 4 —12 adjacent
to a Minor Arterial.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 27.716 acre site into 94 single-family
residential lots.The lots will be accessed from West 36"Street and West 38
Street and James Aulwes Drive will be extended into the subdivision.There will
be 4,189 linear feet of new residential street with the development.
The proposed preliminary plat will be final platted in five phases.The following
phases are proposed:
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1339
Phase I Lots 1 -14,and Lots 63 —69 (21 Lots)
Phase II Lots 15 —23,Lots 59 —62 and Lots 70 and 71 (15 Lots)
Phase III Lots 46 —58 and Lots 87 —94 (21 Lots)
Phase IV Lots 35 —45 and Lots 76 —86 (22 Lots)
Phase V Lots 24 —34 and Lots 72 —75 (16 Lots
The applicant is proposing the average lot size to be 60-foot by 120-foot (7200
square foot lots).The applicant is proposing an area for storm water detention
located near West 36'"Street.
The applicant is proposing the roadway to be a 26-foot (back of curb to back of
curb)roadway with a 50-foot right-of-way.The applicant is proposing the
placement of sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the subdivision.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with R-2 zoning.The area to the south is
also a vacant tree covered site also zoned R-2.Single-family subdivisions abut
the site to the east and west.The area to the north is Keningston Subdivision,a
subdivision still developing.Other uses in the area include an elementary school
on Romine Road and Multi-family housing to the west and two churches to the
east located along West 36'"Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from the
neighborhood.All abutting property owners along with the Keningston,Campus
Place,John Barrow and Westbrook Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West 36'"Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Construct one-half street improvement to West 36'"Street including 5-foot
sidewalks with Planned Development.
3.Proposed residential street width standard is 26 feet back-to-back of curb.
Proposed pavement structure must be equivalent to standard residential
street.
4.Residential sidewalk of 4-foot width must have passing zones every 200
linear feet per ADA requirements.
5.Curve radii must be 150 feet for residential streets,75 feet for minor
residential streets,or seek variance.
6.Street grades may not exceed 15%except minor residential streets may
not exceed 18%with special approval.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1339
7.Cul-de-sac radii must be 40-foot minimum.
8.West 38rh Street requires a sidewalk.
9.Indicate quantity of flow entering the subdivision from adjacent
watercourses.
10.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)&(d).
11.Contact the ADPC8,E for approval prior to start of work.
12.The 2 street names of "Villa Vista Drive"and "Vista View Lane"will be
approved as "Villa Vista Court"and "Vista View Circle."
13.The street name of "Villa View Lane"will be approved as "Villa View
Cove."
14.Pebble Lane is already named as James Aulwes Drive.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension will be required,with easements,if service
is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:A water main extension is required to serve all proposed lots within this
subdivision with the exception of those abutting West 36'"Street.The
development must meet fire flow requirements of 1500 gpm throughout the
subdivision.The development must meet Little Rock Fire Department
requirements for fire hydrant locations.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for
details.
~Fire De artment Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
Coun Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1339
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary
plat to the Committee and stated numerous issues needed to be resolved prior to
the presentation to the full Commission.Staff stated they would contact the
applicant and meet with them prior to the Commission meeting to assist the
applicant in minimizing Staff concerns.
The Committee then forwarded the proposed preliminary plat to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to Staff on April 25,2002.The
revised preliminary plat addressed most of the issues addressed by Staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The revision included a 10-foot restrictive easement
along Lots 4 —12 as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for double frontage
lots.The applicant also requested a reduced building line adjacent to a Minor
Arterial (30-feet required)of 25-feet.Staff is supportive of the request to allow
the double frontage lots since the applicant has complied with Section 31-257 of
the Subdivision Ordinance.Staff is also supportive of the reduced building line to
allow uniformity.The applicant has platted a 35-foot platted building line for Lots
1 —3 which also abut the Minor Arterial.
The revised plat also addresses Public Works concern for the curve radii.The
plat indicates a four (4)foot sidewalk on the interior of the subdivision with the
placement of sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the development
and a passing zone every 200 linear feet.The applicant has also indicated a
sidewalk extending from West 38'"Street and James Aulwes Drive into the
proposed development.
The applicant has indicated a phasing plan consistent with Ordinance
requirements.The applicant proposes to Final Plat the lots in five (5)phases
with between 15 to 20 lots in each phase or 15%to 20%in each phase.The
Ordinance requirement is 5%or a minimum of five (5)lots.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed preliminary plat.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the
conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont FILE NO '-1339
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 4 —12 to be
double frontage lots.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced
(15-foot)front building line on Lots 10 —13.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced
(25-foot)platted building line adjacent to a minor arterial for Lots 4 -12.
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1339
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 4 -12 to be
double frontage lots.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced
(15-foot)front building line on Lots 10 —13.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced
(25-foot)platted building line adjacent to a minor arterial for Lots 4 -12.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed
preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation"above.
Staff stated the applicant had submitted a revised phasing plan to include nine phases.
Staff stated the minimum number of lots to be final platted would be 6 and the maximum
number of lots would be 21.Staff stated the phasing plan submitted conformed to the
Subdivision Ordinance requirement.Staff stated they were supportive of the revised
phasing plan to allow the subdivision to develop in nine (9)phases.
Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat would require two variances.Staff
recommended approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 3 —12 to be double
frontage lots.Staff also recommended approval of the requested variance to allow a
reduced front building line for Lots 10 —13.Staff stated the applicant had withdrawn
the third variance request.Staff stated the applicant would plat the 30-foot building line
adjacent to an arterial street as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and 1
recuse.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-1432-C
NAME:British Cars of Little Rock Short-form PCD
LOCATION:On the Northwest corner of Georgia Avenue and Ohio Avenue
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Putnam Realty,Inc.Mehlburger Engineers
Ste 1820 Union National Bank 201 S.Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72201 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.394 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Storage of new automobiles along with C-3 uses.
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Adjustment reviewed the site and approved the development plan dated
April 22,1963,which was revised May 1,1963,for the development of multi-family
housing and a shopping center.
In March of 1988,the Board of Adjustment approved a height variance to allow a 148-
foot tower to be located on the site for a low-power frequency radio station.A time
extension request was filed in June and later withdrawn when Staff determined a time
extension was not necessary.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-1432-C
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to use the site for the storage of new automobiles and
place a 6-foot wooden fence around the site.British Cars of Little Rock,the
Jaguar Dealership,located at 7321 Cantrell Road has requested the use of this
site to store overflow inventory and for employee parking.The dealership will not
take delivery of any inventory on the site and there will be no service of the
automobiles on the site.In addition there will be no customer traffic to the site.
In addition to the PCD to allow British Cars of Little Rock to store excess
inventory and employee parking,the applicant is requesting C-3 uses as an
alternate use for the site.(The site is currently zoned C-3.)
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with a hard surface parking area with C-3 zoning.The
Tanglewood Shopping Center is north of the site and the Tanglewood
Apartments are located to the west of the site (Zoned C-3).There is a
condominium development located to the east of the site and a vacant office
building to the northeast of the site (zoned C-3);both "back-up"to British Cars of
Little Rock,the Jaguar Dealership.Uses located to the south and southeast are
a mix of single-family and duplex housing with a mixture of zoning classifications
(R-2,R-4 and PRD developments).
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the
site would could be identified and the Normandy-Shannon Property Owners
Association,Evergreen Neighborhood Association,South-Normandy Property
Owners Association and Meriwether Neighborhood Association were notified of
the Public Hearing.As of this writing staff has received only informational phone
calls from area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-1432-C
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Southwestern Bell has a buried cable running east to west in
the north right-of-way on Ohio Avenue.Locate underground utilities before
excavating.Contact Charles McDonald for additional details.
Water:If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,contact
Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.(That work would
be done at the expense of the developer.)
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Multi-Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Commercial Development to store new automobiles on the site along
with C-3,General Commercial uses.The property in question is a lot currently
zoned C-3 General Commercial and is contiguous to the property to the north
which is a shopping center zoned C-3 General Commercial.As a whole,the
boundary between the areas shown as Commercial,and Multi-Family,on the
Future Land Use divide the original platted property by use,shopping center and
apartments.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Midtown Neighborhoods
Action Plan.The Commercial Development goal listed an objective of increasing
the long-term viability of the retail,office,and medical centers and preventing
destabilization of surrounding neighborhoods.Strategies listed include improving
and increasing retail development to meet local demand for goods and services,
while continuing to service regional demand.
Landsca e Issues:
Since there will be no expansion of the existing vehicular use area and the site is
to be screened with a six (6)foot high wood fence,no landscaping or buffers are
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-1432-C
required.The face side of the proposed wooden fence must be directed
outward.
~Bottdtn Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Bill Putnam was present representing the application.Staff briefly described
the proposed Planned Commercial Development noting the applicant was
requesting C-3 uses as alternative uses in addition to the storage of new
automobiles and employee parking for British Cars of Little Rock,a C-4 use.
Staff stated the proposed Planned Development was not a transferable use and
British Cars of Little Rock was the only dealership to be considered for the site.
Staff stated the delivery of new automobiles was to not be taken on the site,on
the street or in the Tanglewood Shopping Center.
Staff questioned if the parking was originally committed to the Tanglewood
Apartments.Mr.Putnam stated the same owner constructed the shopping
center and the apartments in the 1960's.He stated the apartments later sold
leaving the piece of property proposed for the rezoning with the shopping center
property.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the preliminary plat to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff as requested.The applicant
indicated deliveries of the automobiles would be taken at the Cantrell Road
location and subsequently moved to the site.The applicant stated there would
be no servicing or detailing of the automobiles on the site.The applicant
indicated there would be no signage and no additional site lighting.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request to allow British Cars of Little Rock to
use the site for overflow and storage of new automobiles and employee parking.
The proposed use,a parking lot,is consistent with the current use and design.
The vehicular traffic to the site should be minimal since the site will be to store
excess inventory and employee parking only.Customer traffic will not be allowed
on the site nor will the servicing or detailing of any automobile.
Since a 6-foot wooden fence will enclose the site,the neighborhood should be
sheltered from any negative impacts that would arise from the placement of the
automobiles on the site.The request for C-3 as alternative uses for the site
should have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood since the site is
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:2-1432-C
currently zoned in this fashion.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed rezoning request.The placement of new automobiles and
employee parking should have no adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Bill Putnam 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 item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:LU02-18-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:1000 Nix Road
Receuest:Low Density Residential to Suburban Office
Source:Terry Burrus,Terry Burrus,Architects
PROPOSAL I REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Low Density
Residential to Suburban Office.The Suburban Office category shall provide for low
intensity development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density
residential areas to assure compatibility.A Planned Zoning District is required.The
applicant wishes to develop the property for an office use.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the area south of the applicant's property toward Kanis
Road and extending west to the area already shown as Suburban Office.With these
changes,the entirety of the Low Density Residential shown west of Nix Road would be
eliminated.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family with a Conditional Use
Permit for a church and is approximately 0.47+acres in size.The expanded area
includes a house zoned R-2 located south of the applicant's property while the next lot
further to the south at the corner of Kanis Road has a Conditional Use Permit for a
manufactured home.To the west in the expanded area is a Planned Development-
Office zone for an office building while the remainder of the expanded area is vacant
land zoned R-2.The property to the north is developed with single family housing
zoned R-2.A parcel of vacant property zoned R-2 located on the east side of Nix
Road north of Laurel Oaks Drive is the subject of another item on this agenda.The
property to the east consists of houses on large lots zoned R-2.The property south of
Kanis Road is zoned R-2 and is composed of houses built on large lots.The one
exception is a small office located in a Planned Office Development at the southwest
corner of Kanis and White Road.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-02
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001 changes were made from Low Density Residential,Neighborhood
Commercial,and Mixed Office Commercial in an area bounded by Bowman Road,
Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road,and Brodie Creek starting about'/4 of a mile
southwest of the applicant's property.
On February 15,2000 a change was made form Single Family to Low Density
Residential at Westglen Drive and Gamble Road about V4 of a mile southeast of the
application area.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Transition,Neighborhood
Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed Office
Commercial to Single Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,Mixed Office
Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,Commercial,and Community
Shopping along Kanis Road within a 1 mile radius of the property in question.
The applicant's property,as well as the rest of the expanded area is shown as Low
Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan.The land to the north is shown as
Single Family while the land to the east is shown as Low Density Residential.The
land south of Kanis Road is shown as Low Density Residential east of White Road and
Suburban Office west of White Road.The property immediately west of the expanded
area is shown as Suburban Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Nix Road is a Residential Street with open drainage and is not built to standard.Laurel
Oaks Drive is a Residential Street built to standard.Half street improvements may be
required to upgrade Nix Road to a Residential Street through the installation of curb
and gutters.Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial and is built as a rural two-lane
road.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected
by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's
property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed
to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this
amendment as well as surrounding areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-02
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood
Action Plan.The Residential Development goal listed an action statement of requiring
that city staff ensure both single-family and multi-family uses in newly developing
areas,while allowing the multi-family to act as a buffer between single family and
office.The Office and Commercial Development Goal contained an action statement
recommending the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to insure that new
developments would be compatible with the existing neighborhood.This area is due
for another land use study as a part of the review of the Rock Creek Neighborhood
Action Plan.
ANALYSIS:
At this time most of the houses along Kanis Road conform to the original rural pattern
of development that characterized the area at the time of annexation.The latest
developments in the area consist of the two properties zoned PD-0 located on the
north side of Kanis and a POD on the south side of Kanis Road.The latest residential
development in the area is a Conditional Use Permit for the manufactured home on
the corner of Kanis and Nix Road.Most of the residential development in the
neighborhood has been Single Family and Multi-family developments.This
amendment would not affect the amount of land available for Single Family or Multi-
Family development but could decrease the amount of vacant land available for Low
Density Residential development.A large portion of the land shown as Low-Density
Residential remains vacant.However,most of the developed uses in the area shown
as Low Density Residential are either developed as single family homes or offices,in
spite of the vacant land available already shown as Suburban Office,Mixed Office
Commercial,or Single Family.
The applicant's property is also located in the area that was covered by the Kanis
Road Study.The current land use pattern in the area places the more intense land
uses at the edge of the neighborhood along Kanis Road,W.Markham Street,and
Chenal Parkway.The non-residential uses are concentrated at intersections located
at the edges of the study area while the higher density residential areas are located
along Minor Arterials and Collector Streets to the north.The higher density residential
areas serve as a buffer between the Single Family and non-residential uses to the
north.The non-residential uses to the south are less intense with the areas shown as
Low Density Residential separating the non-residential uses to preserve a residential
character along Kanis Road.A change to Suburban Office could increase the amount
of non-residential development located near areas shown as Single Family.Although
the applicant's property is located in close proximity to a residential area,the
Suburban Office category requires the use of Planned Zoning Districts to minimize the
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-02
impact of quite office uses near a residential area.Approval of Suburban Office will
decrease the buffer formed by the current Low Density Residential land uses shown.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received three comments from area
residents.None are in support,one is opposed to the change and two were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.With an impending review of
a City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan,this amendment would be premature.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission.Donna James
made a presentation of item 5.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion
for item 5,See item 5.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned
Office Development.
Tim Franklin spoke in opposition to the item and sited concerns with the potential for
the increase of noise,which could result from future development of the property.Mr.
Franklin addressed concerns that the proposed development of the property could
increase traffic on Nix Road and stated that the road could not handle such an
increase.Mr.Franklin also expressed concerns that future development of the
property could alter the topography of the property and result in an increase in storm
water run-off.
Brian C.Gibson spoke in opposition to the item and stated that he did not oppose the
current Low Density Residential future land use category shown for the property,Mr,
Gibson said that he opposed any Office or Commercial use of the property.Mr.
Gibson mentioned that his property neighbors the applicant's property and described
how an alteration of the applicant's property could result in the flooding of his own
property.Mr.Gibson also stated his concern that non-residential development on the
applicant's property could result in a decrease in property values in the neighborhood
and closed his remarks by stating that the area in question is not a commercial area.
Commissioner Richard Downing,explained the difference between the zone change
request and the future land use plan amendment application.Mr.Gibson stated that
he was opposed to both the Future Land Use Plan Amendment and the Zoning
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 5 Cont.FILE NO 'U02-18-02
change request.Jim Lawson,City Staff,added comments about the zoning request,
by mentioning that the property is presently zoned R-2 Single Family with a
Conditional Use Permit for a church,stated that the zoning application consists of a
requested change from R-2 Single Family to a Planned Office Development,and
concluded with a statement that a change from a church to an office was not a major
change since both have a similar impact on the neighborhood due to the fact that
churches have offices.
Charlotte Yarborough,the applicant,spoke in support of her application and stated
that her business with eleven employees would have less of an impact on the
neighborhood than the church would have.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was denied with a
vote of 0 ayes,7 noes,and 4 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:5.1 FILE NO.:Z-5466-B
NAME:Advantage Publishing Company Short-form POD
LOCATION:1000 Nix Road
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Dewey &Frances Yarbrough Terry Burruss,AIA
1000 Nix Road 1202 Main Street
Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:2.820 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family with a CUP for a Church
ALLOWED USES:Single-family/Church
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 10,1999,the Planning Commission approved a request for a CUP for
the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Church to bring into compliance a gravel
parking area.In February 2002,an application was filed for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Montessori School,which was later withdrawn.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing church building into offices for
Advantage Publishing Company's Home office on the site.The applicant has
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-5466-B
indicated there will be no customer sales from the site and the site will not be
used as a publishing facility.
The applicant also proposes the placement of two additional office buildings
located at the western edge of the existing paved parking area.The buildings
will be two story buildings and each contains 4800 square feet.Due to the
topography of the site the buildings when viewed from Nix Road will appear one
story.The applicant has indicated the use for the buildings will be quiet office
uses of professional and general office uses as defined by the City.
The applicant is proposing a future Phase II in the western most portion of the
property.The applicant has indicated a revision to the POD will be sought
should Phase II develop.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The east one-half of the lot contains a church and a hard surface parking lot
with approximately 70 parking spaces.The western portion of the site is vacant
and tree covered with a substantial drop-off from the existing developed area.
There are single-family homes located to the north,northwest and south of the
site.There is a new single-family home east (across Nix Road)of the north
property line.Other areas of Nix Road are scattered with vacant lots and
single-family residences.There is a Planned Office Development located to the
west (with a new office building located on the site)with access from Kanis
Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls as well as
statements of opposition to the future development plans for the addition of four
office buildings on the west portion of the site.All property owners within 200
feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified,
the Gibralter/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the
Parkway Place Property Owners Association were notified of the Public
Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Nix Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.5.1 Cont F I LE NO.:Z-5466-B
2.Provide design of street conforming to eMSPn (Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot
sidewalk with Planned Development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
4.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and the nMSP".
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
6.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
7.Easements for proposed storm water detention facilities are required.
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec.29-186
(e).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension will be required,with easements,if
service is required for the project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.A revised site plan,with right-of-
way and easements,for the future development will be required to be
submitted for review.
Water:An acreage charge of $600 per acre applies in addition to normal
charges in this area.A water main extension and on site fire protection will
be required in order to prove water service to this project.Contact Marie
Dugan at 992-2438 for details.
~Fire De adment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at
the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
CountOPlanning:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.The applicant has
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5.1 Cont.F I LE NO.:Z-5466-B
applied for a Planned Office Development for an office.A Land Use Plan
amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda
(LU02-18-02,Item ¹5).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek
Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and Commercial Development Goal call
for the enhancement of the residential character of the neighborhood.The
Office and Commercial Development Goal also lists as an objective
recommending the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts (PZD's)to
influence more neighborhood friendly and better quality developments to insure
that office and commercial development fit the residential character of the
neighborhood.
Landsca e Issues:Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern
and southern perimeters of the site.Credit may be given for existing vegetation
that gives the year round screening required.Curb and gutter or another
approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements
can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
~Buildin Codes:teo comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Terry Burruss and Ms.Charlotte Yarborough were present representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed rezoning request and noted
additions needed on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the applicant was to
identify all site lighting,both existing and proposed,to determine the effect on
the surrounding neighborhood.Staff also requested the applicant indicate the
driveway as a cross access and service easement.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5.1 Cont FILE NO.:Z-5466-B
Staff noted the comment from Wastewater.Staff stated the existing church was
served by a septic system.The proposed construction of four new buildings
would require the extension of a sewer line to serve the site.Staff stated the
applicant should contact Wastewater to determine if the sewer line extension
was feasible.
Public Works comments were noted.Staff stated the development would
require dedication of right-of-way and half street improvements to Nix Road.
Staff presented the landscaping issues associated with the proposed site plan.
Staff stated the proposed landscaping and buffers would meet the ordinance
requirements.Staff stated the applicant would be required to screen the
northern and southern perimeters of the site.Staff also stated the City
Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many existing trees as
feasible.
Staff stated the applicant was to provide a phasing plan for the future
development.Mr.Burriss stated the desire was to achieve as much flexibility
as possible for future development.He stated the proposed buildings were
shown larger than the applicant proposed to construct.Mr.Burriss stated with
potentially smaller buildings there would be larger buffers.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,indicated the applicant
should consider scaling back the development until some point in the future
when there were fewer unknowns.He stated,if the applicant was unsure of the
proposed tenants,building size and sewer availability then the applicant should
consider submitting an application for the portion of the property that would be
used currently and revise the Planned Development at some point in the future.
Mr.Lawson stated the required street improvements and landscaping
requirements would be tied to the future development and not the existing
building and parking area.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the proposed rezoning to the full
Commission for final resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on April 24,2002,addressing
the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant scaled
back the development by eliminating the two buildings furthest west.The
current proposal is to convert the existing church building to offices and to
construct two (2)additional buildings adjacent to the existing parking lot.The
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5.1 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-5466-B
applicant proposes the buildings to be two-story in height and contain 4800
square feet each.The applicant eliminated the proposed additional parking
leaving the site with the existing 70 parking spaces.The applicant has not
indicated tenants for the buildings or a specific use (only general and
professional office uses).The applicant has stated the buildings will be
constructed in three-years.
The proposed parking (70 parking spaces)would be more than adequate to
serve the site.The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of
this type based on square footage would be 30 parking spaces.
The applicant has indicated a single-ground mounted sign on the site plan.The
sign is to be located near the south corner of the existing driveway and Nix
Road,five (5)feet from the property line.The proposed sign is shown as a
maximum of six (6)feet in height and sixty-four (64)square feet in area.The
applicant is also proposing a single wall mounted sign on each building
identifying the building and occupant.The site plan indicates the wall sign will
comply with ordinance standard for office zones (not to exceed ten (10)percent
of the occupant's facade area).
The applicant proposes an average of 185-feet of undisturbed area between the
proposed development and the adjoining properties to the west.This area is
shown on the site plan as Future Phase II.The site to the west is developed
as an office development through a Planned Development.Properties to the
northwest are developed as single-family.
Staff is not supportive of the proposal as filed.Staff feels the development is
still unclear of the future for the site with regard to tenants and the availability of
sewer.Staff feels the development would be better served by developing the
existing building into an office uses and in the future,when prospective tenants
are identified and sewer is made available,revise the Planned Development to
include additional uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the application as submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Terry Burruss and Ms.Charlotte Yarborough were present representing the
application.There were two objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the requirements in
6
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5466-B
Paragraphs D,E and F above.Staff stated the applicant had revised the site plan,
eliminating the two proposed buildings in the rear,and now developing the church
building only,as an office use.Staff stated the applicant had indicated there would not
be any changes to the exterior of the site.Staff stated the only modifications would be
to the interior of the structure and the applicant would utilize the existing parking area.
Mr.Tim Franklin spoke in opposition to the application.He stated an office use would
increase traffic into the neighborhood.He stated Nix Road was not designed to
handle the increased traffic.He stated the residents of the neighborhood bought their
homes knowing the site was a church and not an office.He stated with the church
converting to an office use the development of Phase II would be less difficult.
Mr.Brian Gibson spoke in opposition of the development.He stated the development
of the site as an office use would decrease the property values of the single-family
homes in the area.He stated his home was not adjacent to the site but with the
development of the site persons would travel Parkway Place to access the site,not
knowing there was not an entrance to the site from Parkway Place.
Ms.Charlotte Yarborogh,the applicant,addressed the Commission indicating the use
was for an office use only.She stated the facility would employ eleven (11)people
and there would not be any sales from the site.She stated the company was in fact a
publishing company but there would be no actual publishing from the site.She stated
as far as traffic generation the office development would be a less intense use than
single-family.
After a general discussion concerning the development and the likelihood of the
church site becoming a residential use a motion was made to approve the site plan as
presented to staff.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,1 no and 4 absent,
7
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6278-B
NAME:Sport's Authority Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION:On the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Angela 8 Robert Barrow Canino Peckham 8 Associates
215 North Bowman Road 10401 West Markham Street
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72205
AREA:5.93 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Commercial/Office
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Medical Office with a Drive-thru Pharmacy
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.17,488 established Sport's Authority Long-form PCD on May 20,1997.
There were stipulations placed on signage,trash pick-up and building height in the
original Planned Development.The sign was to be placed at the south access drive
and be no more than 8-feet in height and 100 square feet in area.The lighting
incorporated into the sign was to be "turned-off'fter business hours.The maximum
height of the building was to be a one-story building with a maximum parapet height of
20-feet.The trash was to only be removed from the site between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm
Monday —Friday.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:2-6278-B
The original approval included an office building to be located on Lot 2 with a maximum
square footage of 7,200 square feet.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD to increase the
allowed square footage of office space and allow a drive-thru pharmacy on the
site.The applicant proposes the construction of a 4,800 square foot medical
clinic and a 2,500 square foot pharmacy with a drive-thru facility.The site will be
the home to three doctors with 13 employees.The pharmacy will employ three
(3)persons.
The parking is in place along with the signage.The applicant is proposing the
placement of building signage on the east facade of the building.The applicant
is proposing 10 inch wall mounted cast aluminum business sign to identify the
use of the building;one identifying the pharmacy and one identifying the medical
clinic.In addition,the applicant is proposing 4 inch mounted cast aluminum
personnel signs below the clinic identification to identify the physicians.
The applicant proposes the pharmacy days and hours of operation to be Monday
through Friday from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm and Saturday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
The clinic will be open from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed with Sport's Authority building and the parking as shown on
the attached site plan.The site,Lot 2,is a vacant grass covered site.Other
uses in the area include large retail uses and office uses.There are two strip
commercial developments one to the south and one to the southeast of the site
and an office use to the northeast of the site.The area directly east of the site is
vacant 0-2 zoned property.The area to the west is a Planned Commercial
Development for Best Buy and Linens and Things.Single-family residences are
located to the north of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet,all residents within 300 feet of the site who
could be identified and the Birchwood Neighborhood Association were notified of
the Public Hearing.As of this writing staff has not received any comment from
the neighborhood.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6278-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.Developer should be prepared to
provide conduit from phone room to right-of-way.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding size and location of water main
at 992-2438.
~pire De anment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
This request is located in the 1-430 Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows
Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a revision to a previously
approved Planned Commercial Development to add an office building with a
pharmacy and drive-thru to the site.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6278-B
Landsca e issues:
Interior landscape islands within the interior of the vehicular use area must be at
least 300 square feet in area.An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will
be required.
~Buildin Codes:tdo comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Greg Peckham of Canino,Peckham and Associates,was present representing
the application.Staff briefly described the application noting the proposal was a
revision to an existing Planned Development.Staff stated the original
development included the placement of an office building on Lot 2,which was 100
square feet smaller than the office building proposed.Staff stated the major
differences were the placement of the retail and the drive-thru window for the
pharmacy.Staff stated the retail was allowable as an ancillary use but the drive-
thru would require a revision to the PCD.
Staff noted the parking was in place along with the sign location.Staff stated the
development would not be allowed any additional ground-mounted signage.Staff
requested the applicant indicate any building signage that was proposed.Staff
stated all previously approved restrictions to the site would remain in effect with
regard to days and hours of operation,building lighting,building heights,trash
pick-up etc.
After the discussion the Committee forwarded the revision to the Planned
Commercial Development to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised by
staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant indicated there would be
three doctors and 13 employees staffing the clinic and 3 employees in the
pharmacy.The typical parking requirement for a doctor's office and 2500 square
feet of retail would be 18 spaces for the clinic and 8 spaces for the retail for a
total of 26 spaces.The applicant has proposed a total of 51 parking spaces,
which is more than adequate to serve the site.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation of the clinic to be
Monday —Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and the hours of operation for the
pharmacy to be 8:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00
pm on Saturday.The proposed hours of operation conform to the previously
approved hours of operation of 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday —Sunday.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6278-B
The applicant has indicated on the site plan all interior landscaped islands to be
300-square feet in area.The applicant has also noted an irrigation system to
water landscaped areas will be installed.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed rezoning request.Staff is supportive of the request to revise the
previously approved PCD to allow the placement of a medical office facility and a
pharmacy on Lot 2.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to Sport's Authority Long-
form PCD subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E
and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Greg Peckham of Canino,Peckham 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 item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and
1 recuse.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:LU02-16-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning District
Location:West side of Heinke Road and south of the Proposed Minor Arterial-
County Line Extension
Receuest:Single Family to Low Density Residential
Source:Rolling Pines Limited Partnership
PROPOSAL I REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from Single Family to
Low Density Residential.The Low Density Residential category 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 filed a rezoning to
develop the property for apartments to accommodate senior citizens.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant wooded land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately 5.34+acres in size.The neighboring property to the north and west is
vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family.The land to the east consists of three houses
located on large lots lying outside city limits in an area that is not zoned.The land to the
south lies in Saline County and is not zoned but is developed with large lot housing
along Joanne Lane.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 2,2002 a change was made from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial
north of Johnson Road at the proposed route of the South Loop about a "l~mile north of
the applicant's property.
On January 2,2002 multiple changes were made from Area For Future Study to Single
Family,and Public Institutional about 1 mile east of the amendment area.
The applicant's property is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.All of
the property to the west,north,and east is shown as Single Family,while the property
to the south lies outside the planning boundary in Saline County.The Shannon Hills
Comprehensive Development Plan shows the area immediately south of the subject
property and west of Heinke Road as Urban Density Residential —which roughly
corresponds to our Single Family category on our Land Use Plan.The land in Saline
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-16-03
County south of the subject property and east of Heinke road is outside both planning
boundaries.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Heinke Road is shown as a Collector Street on the Master Street Plan.Heinke Road is
currently built as a two-lane rural road and is not built to standard and has a paved
width of 16 feet +with drainage provided by open ditches.There is an east-west
Proposed Minor Arterial shown from Vimy Ridge Road to the proposed South I oop
which will require a 90 foot cross section for right-of-way that will abut this property to
the northwest.This roadway is referred to as "County Line Extension".There are no
bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan,which would be affected by this
amendment.Development of this property would be subject to half street improvement
requirements on Heinke Road and the County Line Extension.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's
property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed
to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this
amendment as well as surrounding areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is an isolated piece of property located immediately outside the
city limits inside Pulaski County at the Saline County line characterized by rural patterns
of development.This property is also the subject of an impending annexation vote at
the May 21"Board of Directors meeting.
Most of the houses in the area are located in subdivisions at least 1/10'"of a mile away
and face side streets.There are a few houses on larger lots that face Heinke Road.A
change to Low Density Residential would allow for an increase in the density of the
residential development of the area.Due to the low density of the current development,
Low Density Residential will substantially increase the perceived density of residential
uses in this area.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-16-03
An increase in density will have an effect on area traffic by increasing the number of
trips generated in the area,increasing the use of Heinke Road.An additional result of
higher density could also increase the demand for utilities in the area and place an extra
burden on existing water,sewage,drainage,and electrical lines in the area.The
current utilities are designed to service the current residential uses in the area and may
need improvement to carry the extra burden of higher density housing.However,higher
density housing developments generally have fewer occupants per unit and therefore
have less impact per dwelling unit on public services.
The Proposed Minor Arterial route shown on the Master Street Plan generally follows
the right-of-way of the abandoned railroad bed.The narrow width of Heinke Road will
require improvements that will affect the square footage available for development.The
right-of-way issues will also affect the placement of current and future utilities needed to
serve future development of this property.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association,Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter Creek
Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood Association,and Rolling Pines
Neighborhood Association.Staff has not received comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes this change is appropriate.Due to the homogenous nature of the housing
in this area,a change to Low Density Residential would diversify the types of residential
land uses available for this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 20,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
3
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:7.1 FILE NO.:Z-7074
NAME:Cottages in the Pines Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:On the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1200 feet South of
Johnson Road.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rolling Pines Limited Partnership McGetrick &McGetrick Engineers
¹2 Otter Creek Circle 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72210 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:Not Zoned.(The applicant has applied for annexation to the
City of Little Rock.The Public Hearing has been set for May 21,2002.)
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family housing
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of 14 four-plex buildings (a total of 56-
units)and a 61-foot by 30-foot clubhouse on this 5.340-acre site.The applicant
has indicated he plans to develop the site as two bedroom four-plex apartments
for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age plus.Each building will be 3825
square feet (76.5 feet by 50 feet)with each unit being approximately 950 square
feet.The development includes the placement of 110 parking spaces with a
single access from Heinke Road.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7074
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right-
of-way.The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old
salvage yard.North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station.Other uses
in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered
along Heinke Road and the roads,which feed onto Heinke Road.Heinke Road
is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several phone calls both in favor and
opposition of the proposed application.All property owners within 200 feet,all
residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo,Rolling
Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Existing topographical information at maximum 5-foot contour interval and
the 100-year base tlood elevation will be required prior to completion of a
detailed review.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension will be required,with easements,if service
is required for the project.Capacity Analysis required,contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 fore details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A development fee will be assessed in addition to normal charges for
water connections to this project.This fee will range from $2600 for 6"
connection to $4400 for 10"connection.The LRFD needs to evaluate this
site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrants(s)will
be required.Contact Marie Dugan for additional details at 992-2438.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7074
~Fire De artment:Maintain a gg-foot drive between buildings.Place fire
hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information at 918-3752.
C~ount Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.The Land Use Plan
shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential Development for a special population multi-family development.A
Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda (LU02-16-03 Item ff7).
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:
1.Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
2.An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
3.Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape
architect.
~Buildin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present
representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed zoning request.
Staff stated the site was the location of the annexation request from the April 11,
2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.Staff stated the applicant had
applied for a residential development for elderly housing.Staff stated elderly
housing was a use defined in the Zoning Ordinance and specifically outlined
requirements with regard to parking etc.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7074
Mr.McGetrick stated the parking ratio was 2 to 1 whereas multi-family was 1.5 to
1.Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the applicant
should consider defining the development as multi-family and not elderly
housing.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff questioned the alignment of the
proposed County Line Road.Staff stated this was an issue that must be
resolved prior to the application proceeding to the full Commission.Staff stated if
the alignment was in fact the abandoned railroad right-of-way,then platted-
building lines on the rear of the property would need to be adjusted.Mr.
McGetrick stated he would work with Public Works to determine the alignment of
the roadway prior to the Commission meeting.
Public Works requested the applicant a submit topographical survey and a storm
water detention plan.Staff also stated the maximum driveway width would be
30-feet and the pull in must be increased to 75-feet.The applicant indicated he
would remove the island rather than increase the depth to 75-feet.Staff stated
the ordinance was worded such that the Planning Commission may require a
maximum driveway width of 30-feet.
After the discussion the Committee forwarded the Planned Development to the full
Commission for final action.
~Staff U date:
The applicant met with Public Works Staff and Planning Staff on April 23,2002
concerning the alignment of the proposed County Line Road.Public Works Staff
has determined the roadway will either follow the existing railroad right-of-way or
will be north of the railroad right-of-way and will not affect this site.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revise plan to Staff on April 24,2002 addressing most
of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has
indicated the drive to be a 36-foot driveway,stated any site lighting will be low
level and directed away from residentially zoned property and located the
handicapped parking stalls and accessibility.
The applicant has met with Public Works and Planning Staff and resolved the
issues of the Master Street Plan.The proposed minor arterial,County Line
Road,will travel north of the site along the abandoned railroad right-of-way or
north of the right-of-way.The property owner has indicated he currently owns
the property on both sides of the abandoned railroad and is willing to donate
right-of-way for the proposed roadway.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7074
The applicant has indicated a single ground-mounted sign to be located adjacent
to Heinke Road in the 25-foot building setback.The sign is proposed to be within
the allowable square footage for a multi-family development (not to exceed 24-
feet in sign area).
The applicant is proposing the development to be primarily housing for empty
nesters and persons fifty years of age and older.The parking proposed is more
than adequate to meet the parking minimum for a multi-family development (110
parking spaces proposed —84 parking spaces required).
The development,56 units on 5.34 acres,is consistent with Low Density
Residential.The site is located adjacent to a proposed Minor Arterial,County
Line Road,which,when built,will offer choices for connectivity throughout the
City.Although,Heinke Road is a substandard roadway,development within the
City has occurred on numerous occasions on substandard roadways.If the City
were to limit development to areas with adequate infrastructure,development
would be limited.Staff is supportive of the request to allow a Planned
Residential Development to occur for Cottages in the Pines Short-form PD-R.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed zoning request.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development for Cottages
in the Pines Short-form PD-R subject to the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,
E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present representing the
application.There were several objectors present.The Chairman stated since there
were fewer than nine (9)Commissioners present the applicant had the option of a
deferral.
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 20,2002 Public Hearing.The motion
was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:8 F I LE NO.:Z-7209
NAME:Jacoby's Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:7200 Beck Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Jon Jacoby Cromwell Architects/Engineers
7200 Beck Road 101 South Spring Street
Little Rock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:12.93 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Estate
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes,in addition to the existing single-family home,the
placement of a two-story guest house,a one story shop and greenhouse
building,a two-story game house with an apartment located on the second story
and a new garage with living quarters above the garage for an employed grounds
keeper on this 12.93 acre site.The existing house,guest house,shop and game
house will be connected by a covered walkway colonnade which is oriented
toward the existing garden and pool area;this arrangement creates the design of
a main house with attached dependencies,in the same spirit as Thomas
Jefferson's "Lawn"in Charlottesville,Virginia.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7209
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is an existing home site located on 10+acres.Areas to the north,south,
east and west contain single-family homes on large tracts.The area is rural in
character with pastureland accompanying most homes.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet,all residents who could be identified and the
River Valley Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the requested rezoning.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary,no comment.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre (2 acre max)will be charge for
any additional request for service in addition to normal charges.Contact
Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details.
~Fire De artment Check with Central Arkansas Water Department f992-2439)
for location of fire hydrant.
CountOCPlannin:Please provide a copy of a driveway permit from Pulaski
County Road and Bridge Department.Please provide or obtain a floodplain
permit from Pulaski County Planning.Please provide or obtain an elevation
certification from Pulaski County Planning.
CATA:No comment received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7209
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Residential development for an Estate.The proposed development is
consistent with the Future Land Use plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Bottdtn Coded:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff informed the Commission the applicant had
met with Staff prior to the Committee meeting and the issues had been resolved.
Staff briefly described the proposal to the Committee.After the description the
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The proposed Jacoby Estate involves more residential units than is allowed on a
single-site.The site is 12-acres and has the potential for four living quarters.
Should all the units become residential the site would be less than the allowable
densities of single-family residential.The guesthouse and apartment above the
game house are not proposed for permanent living quarters.The living quarters
above the garage will be utilized as living quarters for a grounds keeper.The
original site plan indicated all buildings and setbacks along with the building
dimensions.
Pulaski County Planning has requested the applicant secure a permit from Road
and Bridge for the driveway placement and provide or obtain a floodplain permit
from the Pulaski County Planning Department.The Pulaski County Planning
Department has also requested the applicant provide or obtain an elevation
certification.The applicant has indicated he will comply with all agency requests.
Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning request.The density proposed is
less than that allowed under single-family zoning.The addition of four additional
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7209
living quarters to be used as an estate should have not adverse impact on the
surrounding area.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed Planned Residential Development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed PD-R for Jacoby Long-form Planned
Development-Residential subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Gene Levy 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 item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO '-7210
NAME:Kling Manufactured Home —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:8800 Taliaferro Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:George and Evelyn Parrault/Kandi Kling
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
placement of a 1996,28 foot by 60 foot multi-sectional
manufactured home on this R-2 zoned,0.86 acre tract.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the north side of Taliaferro Road,900 feet —1,000&
feet east of Heinke Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is characterized by a scattering of single
family homes on larger,R-2 zoned tracts and large tracts of undeveloped,
heavily-wooded properties.Although the single family homes nearest this site
are traditional,site-built homes,there are several manufactured homes in the
vicinity.Placement of this single,multi-sectional home on this .86 acre tract is
compatible with uses and zoning in the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress and Shiloh
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this proposal.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This proposed single family residence requires one on-site parking space.The
applicant proposes a gravel driveway from Taliaferro Road.A two-car garage
addition is proposed for construction at a later date.The proposed parking and
drive is sufficient for the use.The driveway apron must be paved within the
right-of-way.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
None required for this single-family use.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7210
5.PUBLic WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this
property.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Piennin:No Comment received.
CATA:No Comment received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 18,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and noted that there were few
comments.It was noted that placement of the home must conform with ordinance
siting standards and the driveway apron must be paved.Utility comments were noted.
The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the
item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow for placement of a 1996 model,28 foot
by 60 foot,multisectional manufactured home on this vacant,R-2 zoned,0.86 acre
tract.A two-car garage,is proposed to be added at a later date.A single driveway is
proposed to access the site from Taliaferro Road.
Staff is supportive of this proposal to place one multisectional home on this single
tract.The home is proposed to be placed near the center of the site,well exceeding
required setbacks.The area around the site is characterized by single family homes
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7210
on larger tracts and large tracts of undeveloped,wooded property.Although those
homes nearest the site are site-built,there are several manufactured homes in the
general area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the following siting criteria from Section 36-254(d)(5)is required:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen (14)degrees or
greater.
b.Removal of all transport elements.
c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood.
e.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures.
f.Underpinning with permanent materials.
g.All homes shall be multisectional.
h.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard.
2.Provide paved driveway apron within right-of-way.
3.Compliance with Utility Comments outlined in Section 6 of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn,without
prejudice.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal.The vote
was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:North of the intersection of Nix Road and Coleman Street.
~Re uest:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Rebecca Chandler,American Dream Investments
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family
to Multi-Family.The Multi-Family category accommodates residential development of
(10)to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.This application results from the
applicant's wishes to build four duplexes.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review southward from the applicant's property toward Kanis Road to the
existing Low Density Residential.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately 0.64+acres in size.In the expanded area,zoned R-2,a house sits
immediately to the south of the applicant's property while the remainder of the
expanded area is vacant.The R-2 property to the north and east is vacant land zoned
R-2.The property to the south consists of houses on large lots zoned R-2.The
property to the west is developed with single-family houses and is zoned R-2 Single
Family.A church located on a lot to the southwest of the applicant's property is zoned
R-2 Single Family with a Conditional Use Permit for a church and is the subject of
another item on this agenda.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001 changes were made from Low Density Residential,Neighborhood
Commercial,and Mixed Office Commercial in an area bounded by Bowman Road,
Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road,and Brodie Creek starting about 'l~of a mile
southwest of the applicant's property.
On February 15,2000 a change was made form Single Family to Low Density
Residential at Westglen Drive and Gamble Road about "/4 of a mile southeast of the
application area.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Transition,Neighborhood
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO LU02-18-01
Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed Office
Commercial to Single Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,Mixed Office
Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,Commercial,and Community
Shopping along Kanis Road within a 1 mile radius of the property in question.
The applicant's property,as well as all of the rest of the expanded area,is shown as
Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.The properties to the west,north,and
east are shown as Single Family,while the property to the south is shown as Low
Density Residential.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Nix Road is a Residential Street with open drainage and is not built to standard.Laurel
Oaks Drive is a Residential Street built to standard.Half street improvements may be
required to upgrade Nix Road to a Residential Street through the installation of curb
and gutters.Two platted undeveloped street right-of-ways are adjacent to the
applicant's property.Coleman Street and Farris streets are un-built residential streets.
Both streets will be subject to improvements unless the right-of-way for either,or both,
streets is abandoned.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that
would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's
property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed
to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this
amendment and surrounding areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood
Action Plan.The Residential Development goal listed an action statement of requiring
that city staff ensure both single-family and multi-family uses in newly developing
areas,while allowing the multi-family to act as a buffer between single family and
office.The Office and Commercial Development Goal contained an objective of
encouraging the adoption of a plan for Kanis Road.An action statement
recommended the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to insure that new
developments would be compatible with the existing neighborhood.The Rock Creek
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
Neighborhood Action Plan is due for an update study.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property lies in an area that is characterized by mostly vacant property
located between Nix and Gamble Road.A few houses are located on Nix Road.Most
of the developed property is located in the Parkway Place subdivision and is not
oriented towards Nix Road.
The current land use pattern in the area places the more intense land uses at the edge
of the neighborhood along Kanis Road,W.Markham Street,and Chenal Parkway.
The higher density residential areas serve as a buffer between the Single Family and
non-residential uses to the north.Most of the Multi-family area is built out to capacity
at the Shadow Lakes Apartments.In contrast,most of the land shown as Low-Density
Residential remains vacant.Extra land shown as Multi-family could allow for the
development of more housing at Multi-Family densities at the expense of land shown
as Single Family.This amendment would not effect the availability of exiting Low-
Density Residential land,nor would it increase the availability of land for housing that
is not Multi-Family or Single Family.However,even though this amendment would
reduce the amount of land shown as Single Family,there will still be land shown as
Single Family available for development north of the applicant's property and east of
Gamble Road.Approval of Multi-Family will place a small area,less than two-thirds of
an acre,of Multi-Family in a location that is surrounded by a large area shown as
Single Family.
The applicant's property is also located in the area that was covered by the Kanis
Road Study.The current land uses along Kanis Road are the result of
recommendations made in that study.The current pattern of development places the
more intense Multi-Family and Low Density Residential uses at locations accessed by
Collector and Minor Arterial Streets.This application would introduce an area shown
as Multi-Family accessed solely from a Residential Street.Depending on the
resolution of right-of-way abandonment issues,this application could introduce an area
shown as Multi-Family accessed solely from one Residential Street.Regardless of the
outcome of the abandonment issues,all of the access to the property will be from
Residential streets.
The issues concerning the construction,or abandonment,of Coleman and Farris
Streets could also effect not only the development of the applicant's property,but also
the future development of neighboring properties.If future development takes place
on property located between Nix and Gamble Roads,adequate access would need to
be provided to those properties.Coleman and Farris streets could provide access to
future developments,or else future streets will need to be developed to provide access
to potential developments.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 10 Cont.FILE NO.'U02-18-01
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS;
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received two comments from area
residents.None are in support,both were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change to Multi-Family is not appropriate at this time.With an
impending review of a City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan,this change would
be premature.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 20,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:10.1 FILE NO.:Z-7211
NAME:American Dream Builder's Short-form PD-R
I OCATION:Northeast of the intersection of Laurel Oaks Drive and Nix Road.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
American Dream Builders,Inc.Carter Burgess
18 Misty Court 10809 Executive Center
Little Rock,AR Suite 204
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:0.64 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Condominium Development
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop four buildings of two-unit condominiums.The
applicant proposes the units to be two story units and each duplex will be
attached by the garage.The future sale of these units will be under a horizontal
property regime.Each of the units will contain between 1400 —1526 square feet
and be 3 bedroom,2.5 baths and a two car garage.
The applicant is proposing 6-foot set backs between the buildings and a 16-foot
access and utility easement to serve the development.Access for all the units
will be taken from Nix Road.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO '-7211
The applicant proposes to replat the four lots into one lot as a part of this
process.Also included in the application is the request for right-of-way
abandonment.The applicant is requesting the abandonment of the alley right-of-
way between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 9 and 10.The applicant is also requesting
Coleman Street,an undeveloped city street,right-of-way be abandoned south of
Lots 8 and 9 and Farris Street,east of Lots 9 and 10,right-of-way be abandoned.
The applicant is in the process of securing the right-of-way abandonment for the streets
and alleyways.The applicant has requested this item be deferred until the process of
abandonment of the street,alleyways and the utility easements has been finalized.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a request for deferral to the June 20,2002 Public Hearing to
allow a request for alley and street closures to be heard simultaneously with the
rezoning request.Staff stated they were supportive of the request for deferral to the
June 20,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was place on the consent agenda for
deferral by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-7212
NAME:Little Rock Association for the Deaf Short-form POD
LOCATION:9005 Lew Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Little Rock Association for the Deaf Laha Engineers
9005 Lew Drive 6602 Baseline Road,Suite E
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:.604 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential (Non-conforming office)
PROPOSED ZONING:POD and 0-1 Uses
PROPOSED USE:Continue existing office use.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:3-year deferral of hard surface parking.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The Little Rock Association for the Deaf,Inc.proposes to continue an existing
use on the site.The Association currently operates a clubhouse in an existing 46
foot by 50 foot block building located at 9005 Lew Drive.The applicant proposes
to add a 40 x 46 foot patio area and enclose the area with a 6-foot wooden fence.
The applicant also proposes to add a 10 foot by 16 foot storage shed adjoining
the rear of the building.In addition to the clubhouse use,the applicant is
requesting 0-1,Quite Office uses be allowed as potential future uses for the site.
There is an existing gravel parking lot to the south containing 29 parking spaces.
The applicant is requesting a three-year deferral of the hard surface parking area.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7212
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a block building used by the Little Rock Association for the
Deaf as a meeting facility.On the east property line,there is a chain link fence
between the site and the residential uses,a mobile home park.To the south of
the site,there is multi-family housing and The Pines Apartments are located to
the northwest.Also to the northwest are Auto Zone and MPG Service Company;
commercial type uses.There are several non-residential uses located along
Baseline Road including a used automobile dealership,an appliance store and
the U-Haul Rental business.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the proposed application.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Upper
Baseline,OUR,Windamere and the Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Repair or replace existing sidewalk and driveway apron prior to occupancy.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if additional and/or larger
meter(s)are required.
~Fire De artment Place fire hydrants Oercode.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
C~ount Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7212
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The site is located in an area covered by the Upper Baseline Neighborhood
Action Plan.The Economic Development Goal states as an Objective to "Retain
existing businesses,and when necessary,find new businesses to replace those
that close".
Landsca e Issues:
The street and eastern land use buffers drop one-foot below the minimum width
requirement of nine (9)feet.
A total of 984 square feet of the interior of the vehicular use area must be
landscaped with interior landscaping islands of at least 150-square feet in area
and with a width of at least 8 l~feet.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings,is required to the south,east and north of
this site.
~Buildin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Troy Laha was present representing the application.Staff briefly described
the item along with the proposed additions to the site.Staff stated the applicant
had requested a five-year deferral of the hard surface parking area.Staff stated
a five year deferral was not acceptable but staff would be supportive of a three-
year deferral.
Staff requested the applicant submit a plan detailing activities to be taking place
outdoors.Staff stated the use was for the Little Rock Association for the Deaf
only and not a transferable use to any other organization or business.
Landscaping issues were discussed.Staff stated the applicant would be
required to screen the north,south and east property lines.Staff stated the
screening on the east would be required upon approval and on the north and
south when the improvements were made to the parking area.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7212
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated a
nine (9)foot landscaped strip along the east and south property lines and a six
(6)foot wooden fence along the east property line to screen the site from the
adjacent residential structures.
The applicant has also indicated the placement of cross ties to contain the gravel
until the parking area has a hard surface.The applicant is requesting a three
year deferral of the hard surface parking area.Staff is supportive of the request
for the three year deferral.The applicant has indicated the hard surfacing of the
handicapped spaces and the driveway apron to eliminate the tracking of gravel
onto Lew Drive.
The applicant has indicated the patio area will be utilized by the Little Rock
Association for the Deaf from 5:00 pm to 1:00 am on Friday and Saturday nights
for cookout and smoking.The Association expects the maximum participation to
be between 25 and 30 people at any one function.
Staff is supportive of the application as filed.The proposed uses should have no
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.With the placement of the six
(6)foot wooden fence around the patio area and the addition of the six (6)foot
wooden fence on the east property line,the patrons should have no adverse
impact on the adjoining residential units.
The request for 0-1 as alternative uses should also not have any adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhoods.0-1 uses are generally quiet office uses and
normally considered neighborhood friendly.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed Planned Development for the Little Rock Association for the Deaf
Short-form POD.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed application as filed subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7212
2.The use of the outside patio area is to be for the Little Rock Association for
the Deaf and is not a transferable use to any other organization or business.
Any other use must be operated totally within the enclosed building.
Staff recommends approval of the requested three-year deferral of the hard
surface parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Troy Laha 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.
Staff stated the applicant had requested a three (3)year deferral of the hard surface
parking area.Staff stated they were supportive of the requested deferral.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO Z-4213-G
NAME:Bowman Plaza Revised Long-form POD
LOCATION:Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads on the Northwest Corner
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Boen Enterprise,LLC McGetrick 8 McGetrick Engineers
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:16.366 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:Office/Showroom/Warehouse
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised POD
PROPOSED USE:Office/Showroom/Warehouse with selected C-3 uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On March 4,1999,the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat (4 lots)and a
POD (Lots 1 and 2)for this property at the northwest corner of Colonel Glenn and
Bowman Roads.On April 6,1999 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,974
approving the POD for Lots 1 and 2.
The approved POD included the construction of two (2)office-showroom/warehouse
buildings (one per lot)and associated parking areas.The following site specifics were
approved:
1.Lot 1 —63,575 square foot building and 79 parking spaces.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont FILE NO.:Z-4213-G
2.Lot 2 —111,000 square foot building and 202 parking spaces.
3.Driveway from Bowman Road to serve Lot 1 and a shared driveway from Colonel
Glenn Road (with access easement)to serve Lots 1 and 2.
4.A 50-foot undisturbed buffer along the north property line.
5.An in-lieu contribution for the future traffic signal at the intersection of Bowman
and Colonel Glenn Roads.
6.Hours of operation —8:00 am to 5:00 pm,Monday-Friday.
On June 22,2000 the Planning Commission approved a Revised POD application for a
different site plan design for Lot 2 only.The applicant subsequently decided to not
pursue the revised application and it was not taken to the Board of Directors.
In December of 2000 the Planning Commission approved a Revision to the POD to
incorporate Lot 3 into Lot 2.The area of Lot 3 was used for additional parking to serve
the development.The applicant was also granted a 5-year deferral of street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road along the frontage of Lot 3.
The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 4 to serve as
overflow parking for Lots 3 and 4.The applicant proposed two parking lots with a total
of 200 parking spaces.The future plan for the site (Lot 4)included the addition of an
office building.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the allowable uses for Lot 2 to include
specific C-3,General Commercial type uses as well as the previously approved
uses of office,showroom and warehouse activities.The applicant also proposes
to revise the percent mix of the development and the hours of operation.The
applicant proposes the hours of operation to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday
through Friday.The applicant proposes the use mix to be 30%Commercial,
30%Warehouse,20%Office and 20%Showroom.
The proposed C-3,General Commercial uses to be considered allowable for the
Planned Development are as follows:
Animal clinic;Antique shop (with repair);Auto parts and accessories;Bank or
savings and loan office;Cabinet and woodwork shop;Camera shop;Catering,
commercial;Church;Clinic (medical,dental or optical);Clothing store;College,
university or seminary;Custom sewing and millinery;Duplication shop;
Establishment of a religious,charitable or philanthropic organization;Furniture
store;Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork;Hardware or sporting
goods store;Hobby shop;Job printing,lithographer,printing or blueprinting;
Laundry,domestic cleaning;Lawn and garden center,enclosed;Library,art
gallery,museum or similar public use;Lodge or fraternal organization;Medical
appliance fittings and sales;Office (general and profession);Office,showroom
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4213-G
with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed);Office equipment sales and service;
Optical shop;Paint and wallpaper store;Photography studio;Private school,
kindergarten or institution for special education;Recycling facility,automated;
Retail uses not listed (enclosed);School (business);School (commercial,trade
or craft);School (public or denominational);Studio (art,music,speech,drama,
dance or other artistic endeavors);Studio broadcasting and recording;Tailor;
Taxidermist;Travel bureau;Auto parts,sales with limited motor vehicle parts
installation;Home Center;Landscape service;Miniwarehouse;Office
warehouse;Swimming pool sales and supply.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an office-showroom/warehouse building under construction on Lot 2 and
a newly constructed office-showroom/warehouse building on Lot 1 which appears
to be fully occupied.The parking areas for Lots 1,2 and 3 have been
constructed.On Lot 4,site work was begun for the parking area.
The general area has a mixture of uses,including a mobile home park to the
north and a few residential structures on large tracts to the west.A large office
building is located the northeast corner of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads.
There are a couple of single-family structures to the south across Colonel Glenn
Road,with a convenience food store and a telephone cable company (C-4 type
use)located a the southeast and southwest corners of Colonel Glenn and
Lawson Roads.There is also a large amount of vacant property in the general
area.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all resident within 300 feet of the
site who could be identified and the John Barrow Neighborhood Association were
notified of the Public Hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment
from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4213-G
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
FEire Detartment:Place fire hydrants percode.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
CountaPlanninl:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows
Mixed Office Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied for a
revision of an existing Planned Office Development to add C-3,General
Commercial uses.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.A Land Use Plan amendment is not
necessary for this site.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Buildin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present
representing the application.Staff briefly described the project noting additions
needed on the site plan.Staff stated the previous application was approved for
the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday and was indicated as
such in the general note.Staff stated the general note should reflect the desired
hours of operation with the addition of the C-3 uses.Staff also stated the
percentage mix indicated in the general note (60%warehouse,20%showroom,
20%office)should reflect the desired use mix of the new application.
Staff questioned how the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for Lot 4
(additional parking)would relate to the new application.Staff requested the
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4213-G
applicant show the access easement across Lot 3 as was previously approved.
Staff stated without the additional parking included in Lot 4 there could be
parking concerns.
After the discussion the Committee forwarded the proposed revision to the
Planned Office Development to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated the
hours of operation to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday.The
applicant has indicated the percent mix of uses to be 30%Warehouse,30%
Commercial,20%Showroom and 20%Office.The building total square footage
is 111,000 resulting in 33,300 square feet of warehouse space,33,300 square
feet of commercial space,22,200 square feet of Showroom space and 22,200
square feet of office space.Parking requirements based on this percentage mix
would be 306 parking spaces.The applicant is proposing the placement of 299
parking spaces which is sufficient to meet the parking demand for the site.
Staff is supportive of the proposed revision to the POD for Lot 2 to add the
following C-3,General Commercial specified uses as allowable uses:
Animal clinic;Antique shop (with repair);Auto parts and accessories;Bank or
savings and loan office;Cabinet and woodwork shop;Camera shop;Catering,
commercial;Church;Clinic (medical,dental or optical);Clothing store;College,
university or seminary;Custom sewing and millinery;Duplication shop;
Establishment of a religious,charitable or philanthropic organization;Furniture
store;Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork;Hardware or sporting
goods store;Hobby shop;Job printing,lithographer,printing or blueprinting;
Laundry,domestic cleaning;Lawn and garden center,enclosed;Library,art
gallery,museum or similar public use;Lodge or fraternal organization;Medical
appliance fittings and sales;Office (general and profession);Office,showroom
with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed);Office equipment sales and service;
Optical shop;Paint and wallpaper store;Photography studio;Private school,
kindergarten or institution for special education;Recycling facility,automated;
Retail uses not listed (enclosed);School (business);School (commercial,trade
or craft);School (public or denominational);Studio (art,music,speech,drama,
dance or other artistic endeavors);Studio broadcasting and recording;Tailor;
Taxidermist;Travel bureau;Auto parts,sales with limited motor vehicle parts
installation;Home Center;Landscape service;Miniwarehouse;Office
warehouse;Swimming pool sales and supply.
The requested uses for Lot 2,along with the previously approved uses,
(office/showroom/warehouse)should have no adverse impact on the surrounding
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4213-G
neighborhood.The hours of operation are limited to 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday
through Friday.With the limited hours this should minimize any adverse impacts
on the surrounding area.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed revision to Bowman Plaza Long-form Revised POD.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Bowman Plaza Revised Long-form POD to allow
the proposed revised use mix for Lot 2 subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in Paragraphs E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,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.
Staff stated the applicant failed to notify the property owners within the required time
frame of 15-days.Staff stated the notifications were mailed 14 days prior to the meeting
which would take a waiver of the By-Laws to accept the notification submitted.
A motion was made to accept the 14-day notification of the property owners.The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,1 no and 1 absent.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
6
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:LU02-19-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Chenal Planning District
Location:17005 Cantrell Road
Receuest:Single Family to Suburban Office
Source:Mike Berg
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Single Family to
Suburban Office.The Suburban Office category shall provide for low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential
areas to assure compatibility.A Planned Zoning District is required.The Land Use
application is a result of a zoning request where the applicant wishes to develop the
property for an insurance office.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the
area of review to include an area along the south side of Cantrell Road extending east
from the applicant's property to the area shown as Park/Open Space at the creek
located east of Drew Drive,and extending west to include the house next to the
applicant's property.With these changes the amount of Suburban Office fronting
Cantrell Road would increase.The additional area would recognize an existing non-
conforming use at the southeast corner of Cantrelf Road and Drew Drive as well as
include several small residential lots.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property consists of houses and manufactured homes and is currently
zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 1.36+acres in size.The expanded
area consists of houses built on lots zoned R-2 with a non-conforming use for a
veterinary clinic at the southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Drew Drive.The
property to the north is an office building on land zoned 0-3 General Office at the
northwest corner of Cantrell and Ranch Drive.The property to the northeast is vacant
land zoned Planned Development-Office for a proposed branch bank and C-2
Shopping Center.In addition,a strip of land is zoned OS Open Space along the north
side of Cantrell Road.The land to the east,south,and west is zoned R-2 and is
composed of single-family houses built on large lots.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-19-02
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On September 18,2001 a change was made from Low Density Residential and Public
Institutional to Single Family about 'l4 of a mile to the south and located south of Taylor
Loop Road and west of Hinson Road.
On June 20,2000 a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial
at 17800 —17900 Cantrell Road starting about "/4 of a mile northwest of the property in
question.
On November 16,1999 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 6400
Patrick Country Road about '/4 of a mile northwest of the area under review.
On October 5,1999 changes were made from Office and Commercial to Mixed Office
Commercial on Cantrell Road at Chenonceau Boulevard and Ranch Boulevard
starting about Y4 of a mile to the northwest of the amendment area.
The applicant's property and the expanded area are shown as Single Family on the
Future Land Use Plan.The property to the north is shown as Mixed Office
Commercial,and Commercial,with a strip of Park/Open Space shown along the north
side of Cantrell Road.The land to the east of the expanded area is shown as
Park/Open Space,and Transition.The land to the south and west is shown as Single
Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built to
a 5-lane width with curb and gutter installed.Ranch Drive is shown as a Collector
Street and is built to Minor Commercial Collector standards with curb and gutter
installed.Drew Drive is a sub-standard residential street with open drainage in need
of improvements.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would
be affected by this amendment.
PARKS;
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's
property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed
to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this
amendment and surrounding areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-19-02
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a developing area of the city.The expanded
area is located at a signalized intersection between a Principal Arterial and a Collector
Street.This area is also located within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District,
resulting in any development of the area required to meet those regulations.The
houses on the applicant's property and in the expanded area of review face Cantrell
Road.The manufactured housing located on Drew Drive is accessed from Drew
Drive.
This amendment would provide a buffer of Suburban Offices between the low-density
areas of residential uses to the south and the intense non-residential uses to the north.
There is vacant land to the north shown as Mixed Office Commercial and Commercial,
a change to Suburban Office could act as a buffer through the requirement of Planned
Zoning Developments for non-residential developments.Any future residential
developments to the south could be separated from intense non-residential
developments allowed in areas shown as Mixed Office Commercial or Commercial.
The expanded area would create a node of non-residential uses accessed from
Cantrell Road and recognize an existing non-conforming use.Most of the neighboring
residential developments consist of large lots while the lots in the review area are
small.In addition,the widening of Cantrell Road further decreased the size of the lots
from their original size.The decrease in lot size as a result of the widening of Cantrell
may have hampered the future viability of Single Family uses on these lots.A change
to Suburban Office would allow non-residential development to take place in the area
in a manor that would be sensitive to the neighboring residential uses.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Aberdeen Court
Property Owners Association,Bayonne Place Property Owners Association,Carriage
Creek Property Owners Association,Chenal Ridge Property Owners Association,Du
Quesne Place Property Owners Association,Eagle Pointe Property Owners
Association,Glen Eagles Property Owners Association,Hillsborough Property Owners
Association,Hunters Cove Property Owners Association,Hunters Green Property
Owners Association,Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association,Marlowe Manor
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-19-02
Property Owners Association,Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association,and St.
Charles Property Owners Association.Staff has received one neutral comment from
an area resident.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.The change will buffer the less intense
Single Family uses located to the south from the intense Office and Commercial uses
to the north and recognize an existing non-conforming use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval.A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
4
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:13.1 FILE NO.:Z-7213
NAME:Mike Berg Company Short-form POD
LOCATION:17005 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mike Berg Company Thomas Engineering
1725 N.Spruce Street 3810 Lookout Road
Little Rock,AR 72207 North Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:1.37 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:General and Professional Office Uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to convert an existing single-family house into an office
to be used as an insurance sales company.The site is located in the Highway
10 Design Overlay District.The southern-most area contains a garage (to
remain)and two manufactured homes to be removed as a part of the
development.
The applicant is proposing 5 parking spaces in the front of the building,adjacent
to Highway 10.The applicant proposes a 25-foot landscaped area in the front
yard with a single-ground mounted sign.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7213
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family house with a garage and two
manufactured homes in the rear.The area to the east of the site contains a non-
conforming manufactured home park and a non-conforming veterinary clinic
(Town and Country Animal Hospital)adjacent to Cantrell Road in a converted
single-family structure across Drew Lane.The site directly to the east is also a
single-family home with a detached garage in the rear.Uses across Cantrell
Road include office uses (Cingular)and vacant office zoned property (0-3 and
PD-0)with vacant C-2 zoned property to the northeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood.All
property owners within 200 feet,all residents within 300 feet who could be
identified and the Aberdeen Court,Bayone Place,Maywood Manor and Johnson
Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Move proposed driveway to west building line setback.Due to proximity to
Drew Lane,only a single driveway access is allowed.
3.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and the "MSP".
4.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.
6.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
7.Rezoning of existing property on Drew Lane will require right-of-way
dedication.Drew Lane would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
8.Any construction or commercial use on Drew Lane will require construction of
one-half street improvements per Master Street Plan.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A Sewer main extension will be required,with easements,if service
is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 13.1 Cont FILE NO.:Z-7213
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be
required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the
Developer's expense.If this project is divided into more than one parcel,
each parcel will have to have frontage on a water main in order to obtain
water service.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for additional details.
~pire De artment:Place fire hydrartts per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The Land Use Plan
shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Office Development to convert an existing house into an office.A Land Use Plan
amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item on this agenda
(LU02-19-02 Item ¹13).
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
The plan submitted drops below the forty (40)foot width requirement along
Highway 10 required within the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
A six-foot high opaque screen,either wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings,is required where adjacent to residential
property.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7213
Buildincu Coded:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Mike Berg and Thomas Pownall were present representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposal noting additions needed on the site plan (sign
details,proposed screening materials).Staff questioned if the application was a
single-use application.Mr.Berg stated the application was for an insurance
office and general and professional office type uses.Staff stated any additional
site lighting would be required to be low level and directed away from
residentially zoned property.
Staff stated the applicant should consider eliminating the rear portion of the
Planned Development since there were currently no uses planned for that portion
of the site.Staff stated if in the future a use was identified,the applicant could
request an amendment to the Planned Development to include this portion of the
property.Staff stated as currently shown,the applicant would be required to file
an amendment because there were no proposed buildings or uses indicated.
Public Works comments were discussed.Staff stated the driveway should be
relocated to the west property line to allow additional separation between the
driveway and Drew Lane.Staff stated if the Planned Development extended to
the southern portion of the property,street improvements would be required to
Drew Lane.Staff stated the applicant would be required to place sidewalks
along Cantrell Road adjoining the site.Staff requested the sidewalks be placed
5-feet off the curb to match the sidewalk on the north side of Cantrell Road.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the parking area was
shown at 45-feet in depth and 40-feet was the requirement by ordinance.Staff
stated if the applicant reduced the parking area by the 5-feet then the applicant
would be within the 40-foot minimum setback for the Highway 10 Overlay District.
Mr.Berg stated the site contained a large oak tree he was trying to preserve.
Staff stated if 75 percent of the drip line was preserved,the tree was more likely
to survive.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the Planned Development
rezoning request to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on April 24,2002.The applicant
has indicated a ground-mounted sign in the landscaped area of the front yard
setback and stated the sign will be within the allowable limits of the Highway 10
Overlay District.The applicant has also moved the driveway to the western most
property line as requested by Public Works.The applicant has stopped the PD-
4
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-721 3
0 at the rear of the single-family structure leaving the rear portion of the site as
R-2,Single-family zoning.
The applicant proposes the placement of five (5)parking spaces in the front yard.
An office use,based on the square footage of the structure,would require four
(4)spaces.The parking spaces proposed are sufficient to meet the minimum
ordinance requirement.
The applicant is not proposing any additional site lighting as a part of the
development.The applicant has indicated the existing natural screening (privet
hedge)will remain on the east and west property lines.The buffer on the east is
nine (9)feet and on the west is 15.3 feet.The proposed landscaped areas are
sufficient to meet the land use buffer requirement.The applicant has not
indicated a land use buffer to the south of the site and will be required to place a
buffer to the residentially zoned property to the south.
The applicant is proposing the landscaped area be twenty-five (25)feet and a
half-berm to be constructed as allowable under the Highway 10 Overlay District
guidelines for a hardship case.Since the structure is an existing single-family
house and the applicant is proposing the parking in the front of the house to
minimize the adverse impact to the homes along Drew Lane,the site is unable to
meet the required 40-foot front yard landscaped area.Staff is supportive of the
requested reduced landscaped area.
The days and hours of operation have been indicated at 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Monday through Friday.The applicant estimates the number of employees to be
two (2).
Staff is supportive of the proposed Planned Development.The use,an
insurance office,with the limited number of employees and the days and hours of
operation should have limited adverse impact on the surrounding area.The
applicant is not proposing the placement of any additional site lighting therefore,
the site should remain residential in character.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,
there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed Planned
Development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
5
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7213
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Mike Berg and Thomas Pownall were 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 item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
6
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:S-1338
NAME:Lasiter Construction Company Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:East side of Dixon Road at Tread Trail
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Lasiter Construction Thomas Engineers
309 South Vine Street 3810 North Lookout
N.Little Rock,AR 72214 N.Little Rock,AR 72116
AREA:4.176 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:Not Zoned.
PROPOSED USE:Contractors office and storage yard
VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAUREQUE T:
The applicant proposes the placement of a 5000 square foot office/warehouse
and two separate warehouse buildings,each totaling approximately 9000 square
feet.The office will be metal with a brick facade facing Dixon Road.The
perimeter of the building is to have landscaped areas.The applicant proposes
the placement of a 19-space,paved parking area to the front and south side of
the building.
The applicant proposes the placement of a single 24-foot drive from Dixon Road
entering the site.The warehouse area will be enclosed with a 6-foot chain link
security fence and be used as a gravel contractor's storage area.Each of the
warehouse buildings will be metal construction,equipped with a small office and
break room.The applicant has indicated the site will be used as an office for
operations as well as shop,warehouse and equipment storage.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1338
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant single-family structure with the remainder being
vacant with a scattering of trees.Uses in the area include heavy industrial uses
to the south and west.The Granite Mountain Quarries is located to the west of
the site and National Lift of Arkansas is located to the south.Delta Asphalt is
located to the southwest of the site and a fleet trucking service company is
located to the north of the site.There is a strip commercial center and a gas
station located northeast of the site at the 1-530 interchange.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site along with the Southwest United for
Progress Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Dixon Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside service boundary,no comment.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:The Fire Department having jurisdiction in this area needs to
evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire
hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will
be installed at the Developer's expense.Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438
for additional details.
~pire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
CountOPlanntnq:Provide driveway permits off Tread Trail.Pave Tread Trail
(the road will be required to be paved contingent upon the sale of abutting
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1338
properties).Darken boundary lines per subdivision rules.Identify all corners.
Need a minimum of two land ties.Finish street design plans and drainage,
construction of the road will need to be in conformance with road design
standards set forth by the County,which is 6"of compacted SB2,and applicable
shoulders and ditches.Contour intervals need to be shown in mean sea level.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The area lies in an area not covered by a city of Little Rock Neighborhood Action
Plan.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Buildin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated they had met with the applicant prior
to the meeting and the applicant was willing to resolve as many of the issues as
possible.Staff briefly described the proposed request to the Committee.Staff
noted to the Committee some additions needed on the site plan.Staff stated the
site was located in an area in which the City exercised subdivision control but did
not exercise zoning.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the applicant was willing
to dedicate the required right-of-way from Dixon Road.
Staff stated the project was located on a site previously subdivided through the
County.Staff stated the applicant was requesting the subdivision be vacated
and returned to acreage.Staff stated the applicant had filed the necessary
documentation with the County to make such a request and the application was
to be heard by the County Judge in the next 30-days.Staff stated they had
informed the applicant should the plat be vacated a revised drawing indicating
the proposed points of ingress and egress and building placement would be
required.
After the discussion the Committee forwarded the proposed subdivision site plan
to the full Commission for final action.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont FILE NO.:S-1338
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff on April 23,2002.The applicant
addressed most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee by
identifying the building dimensions,dimensioning the building setback lines and
indicating the drive into the site.The applicant has also indicated on site fire
protection.The applicant proposes the parking area to be a hard surface area
with the remainder of the site to be a gravel lot.Since the City does not exercise
zoning in this area the surface treatment would be acceptable.
The applicant has indicated the driveway entering the site to be a 25-foot radius.
The applicant has also stated the willingness to dedicate the right-of-way for
Dixon Road at 55-feet from the centerline.
Staff is supportive of the proposed subdivision site plan.The applicant has met
the requirements as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.Otherwise,to Staffs
knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision site plan review subject
to compliance with paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Michael Lasiter and Mr.Jim Hill were 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 item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO '-4741-A
Name:Wade Short-Form POD -Revocation
Address:5100 "B"Street
~Owner/A liuent:Nancy Wade/Dave and Billie O'Neal
Area:0.20 acres Number of Lots:1 Ft.New Street:0
C~urrent Zonin:POO ~Previous Zonin:R-3
STAFF REPORT:
On July 3,2001,Ordinance No.18,519 was passed by the Board of Directors rezoning
this lot from uR-3n Single Family residential to PPOD".The applicant proposed to
utilize a portion of the single family residence located on the site as an office for a
landscaping business.225 square feet of the residence were to be used for the office
with the remaining 1,000 square feet to be utilized as a single family residence.After
the POD was approved,the applicant decided not to pursue the use of the property,
Dave and Billie O'Neel propose to purchase the property to be used solely as their
single family residence.Acting as agents for the property owner,they have requested
that the POD be revoked and the previous uR-3e Single Family zoning be restored.
Section 36-548 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.
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO Z-4741-A
(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.No permits were
obtained in anticipation of the landscape company occupying the site.The sign was
never erected and the previously approved garage structure was not constructed.
Staff believes it is appropriate to revoke the POD and restore the previous R-3 single-
family zoning.The Heights/Hillcrest District Land Use Plan recommends Single
Family for this site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to revoke the POD and to restore the R-3
zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff.
The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
May 9,2002
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:S-285-J J-1
NAME:Cypress Point Phase 3 Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:On the West end of Buckland Road,northwest of Ranch Boulevard
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Ranch Properties,Inc.White-Daters 8 Associates
900 S.Shackleford Road ¹24 Rahling Circle
Suite 300 Little Rock,AR 72223
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:24.74 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:46 FT.NEW STREET:4,950
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:20
CENSUS TRACT:42.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Minimum centerline radius reduced to 75-feet.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this site on November 11,
1999.The applicant failed to pursue Final Platting within the time frame required by the
Subdivision Ordinance;therefore,the previous plat is now null and void.The applicant
has re-filed the application,as previously approved,for consideration.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to develop Phase 3 of Cypress Point Subdivision,which
includes subdividing 24.74 acres into 46 single-family residential lots (zoned R-
2).The applicant proposes 4,950 linear feet of new residential streets with the
development.The following phases are proposed:
Phase I —Lots 261 —263,284 —307
Phase II —Lots 264 —283
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:S-285-JJ-1
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is partially wooded,with a large area of grass covered pasture land.
There is a railroad right-of-way and a creek to the north and undeveloped
property (zoned R-2)to the west.Phase 1 and 2 of Cypress Point Subdivision
are located to the east and southeast,with the Ranch Subdivision (including a
school)to the south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood.All
abutting property owners along with the Johnson Ranch,Aberdeen Court and
Maywood Manor Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Buckland Road appears to be a collector —redesign per City standards.
2.Permanent erosion control as required to withstand current and wave action
must be provided at the fill-water interface in the floodplain.
3.Proposed 90-foot bridge must meet City engineering standards to not impede
flow of watercourse.
4.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
5.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31%03 of the Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded
to Traffic Engineering.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:A sewer main extension will be required,with easements,if service
is required for project.Contact Jim Boyd at 372-2903 for additional details.
ENTERGY:Easements required:10-foot east property line of Lot 261;5-foot
west property line of Lot 261;5-foot east property line of Lot 262;10-foot west
property line of Lot 266.Contact Entergy for additional details.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Water is not available to this site without extension of new facilities.The
development must meet fire flow requirements of 1500 gpm throughout the
subdivision.The development must also meet Little Rock Fire Department
requirements for fire hydrant locations.There is a $300 per acre charge for
2
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:S-285-J J-1
development of this property in addition to normal meter connection charges.
Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Dennis Free at the
Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752.
~Count Plannin:No comment recei ed.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(April 18,2002)
Mr.Tim Daters,White-Daters and Associates,was present representing the
application.Staff stated the plat was approved in 1999 and the owner failed to
final plat the application in the required time frame therefore,the plat was no
longer valid.Staff stated the applicant had resubmitted the plat as it was
approved previously.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the design of Buckland
Road was not shown according to Master Street Plan standard.Staff stated it
was not desirable for Chenonceau Boulevard to change names and the road
name should be extended to Ranch Boulevard eliminating Buckland Road.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the proposed preliminary plat
to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on April 24,2002.The
revised plat contains the additional notes and information as requested by staff.
The street name of Buckland Road has been changed to Chenonceau Boulevard
as requested by staff.
The applicant has requested a variance from the minimum centerline radius
requirement for Buckland Loop,at the northwest corner of the subdivision.The
ordinance required radius for a residential street is 150 feet.The proposed
radius at this location is 75-feet.Public Works supports the variance as
requested;the 75-foot radius should act as a traffic calming devise.
3
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:S-285-J J-1
The preliminary plat as proposed shows a portion of Buckland Loop within the
existing AP &L easement along the north boundary of the subdivision.As was
previously required,AP &L must approve and sign off on the road construction
within the easement area and the roadway must be dedicated as right-of-way.
Otherwise,to Staff s knowledge,there are no other outstanding issues
associated with the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed plat should have no
adverse effect on the general area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
2.The applicant must receive Entergy approval for the placement of the portion
of Buckland Loop,which extends within the existing AP &L easement.
3.Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for a reduced
centerline radius for Buckland Loop.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
Mr.Joe White,White-Daters 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.Staff also presented a positive recommendation of the
requested variance to allow a reduced centerline radius on Buckland Loop.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE
C 0&5&c t
MEMBER 5 P~/3 i.I(
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
BERRY,CRAIG v
DOWNING,RICHARD
FAUST,JUDITH I
FLOYD,NORM
LOWRY,BOB
MUSE,ROHN 4
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.
RAHMAN,MI ZAN
RECTOR,BILL
v'TEBBINS,ROBERT
PKb.Nr)m0&ir,yA g 2 &U I-~fgt /~kgb w'I p4
,'MEMBER
ALLEN,FRED,JR.v g V v''4 v'
v'ERRY,CRAIG uv4 6;ptt a o
DOWNING,RICHARD e e Z V v'p v y e e v d
ev'AUST,JUDITH ~~~V/V t/0(~v
FLOYD,NORM +I d 2 'p ~0 +v
I/'OWRY,BOB V'4 v'V'~V'4
MUSE,ROHN V v'0 I t/v
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.A A-A Pr
RAHMAN,MIZAN v v v''8 v'e ~y w a
RECTOR,BILL lmr /„'fD v''A6 A
STEBBINS,ROBERT ',0l v''v'I/A
&b~A'/H
Meeting Adjourned I ')P.M.
AYE NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN ~RECUSE
May 9,2002
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned
at 7:45 p.m.
Date
Chairman ec tary