pc_09 19 2002subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 19,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11)in number.
II.Members Present:Judith Faust
Craig Berry
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Fred Allen,Jr.
Jerry Meyer
Members Absent:None
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the August 8,2002 Meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 19,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU02-18-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Single Family to Multi-family located northeast of the intersection of Nix Road
and Laurel Oaks Drive
A.1.American Dream Builders Short-form PD-R (Z-7211),Located northeast of the
intersection of Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive
B.Ibsen Enterprises Revised Short-form PCD (Z-4973-C),Located at 3021
Cantrell Road
C.LU02-08-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City Planning District
from Single Family to Mixed Use,Located north of West 12'"Street and west of
Thayer Street
C.1.Union Rescue Mission Short-form POD (Z-6763-A),Located adjacent to the
Union Pacific Railroad;north of West 11'"Street and west of Thayer Street
D.Z-7264 Gilliam Car Wash —Conditional Use Permit
4700 West 12'"Street
E.Z-7269 P.A.R.K.—Conditional Use Permit
5900 Browning Road
11.NEW ITEMS:
1.Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat (S-46-X),located on Vantage Point
Drive
2.Riverdale Addition Replat and Site Plan Review (S-57-LL),located on
Riverfront Drive at Morgan Keegan Drive
3.Villages of Wellington Phase X Preliminary Plat (S-1042-S),located on the
Northwest Corner of Wellington Village Road and Loyola Drive
4.Boen 430 Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-943-A),located on the Northeast
Corner of 1-430 and Colonel Glenn Road
Agenda,Page Two
5.Whiffield Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1352),located on Asher Avenue at
Whiffield Street
6.Whitfield Addition (Lot 1)Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1352-A),located onAsherAvenueatWhitfieldStreet
7.Whiffield Addition (Lot 2)Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1352-B),located onAsherAvenueatWhiffieldStreet
8.Rush Engine Revised PCD (Z-4452-C),Northwest Corner of Asher Avenue andElmStreet
9.Harvest Foods Revised PCD (Z-5139-B),located on Cantrell Road at Taylor
Loop
10.Garden Ridge Revised PCD (Z-5645-A),located at 11801 Chenal Parkway
11.Centre at Chenal Revised POD (Z-6051-H),located on the Northeast Corner ofChenalParkwayatTechnologyDrive
12.The Villages at Rahling Road (Lot 10A)Revised PCD (Z-6232-D),located on
Rahling Circle
13.Kincade's Short-form PD-R (Z-7256-A),located on the Northwest Corner of
Kavanaugh Boulevard and Midland Street
14.A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central City Planning District at 2812 RingoStreetfromSingleFamilytoMultiFamily.
14.1.White Short-form PD-R (Z-7280),located at 2812 Ringo Street
15 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District at 12800
Arthur Lane from Single Family to Low Density Residential.
15.1.Threadgill Short-form PD-R (Z-7281),located at 12800 Arthur Lane
16 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District in the 2700 blockofWalkerStreetfromSinglefamilytoMulti-family.
16.1.Griffin Short-form PD-R (Z-7282),located at 2701 —2723 Walker Street
17.Chenal Commercial Park (Lot 3R)Short-form PD-C —Time Extension,located ontheNorthwestCornerofChenalParkwayandWellingtonVillageRoad
18.Land Alteration Permit -Notice of Violation Appeal,located at 11210 Sardis
Road
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:A 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.
Receuest:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Rebecca Chandler,American Dream Investments
PROPOSAL I 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 '/~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
Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
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
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
neighborhood.The Rock Creek 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
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 20,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the August 8,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion to approve the consent agenda was
made and approved.The item was deferred with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,
3 absent,and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(August 8,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 19,
2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws
for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting,That
motion to waive the bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 7 ayes,
2 noes,1 absent,and 1 open position.A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,
and 1 open position.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the Commission.Donna
James made a presentation of item A.1 so the discussion could coincide with the
discussion for item A.See item A.1 for a complete discussion concerning the
Short Form Planned Development-.Residential.
Ms.Rebecca Chandler,applicant,made a presentation to the Commission
concerning census information about the area,prices of current homes in the
market,projected costs of the units she wishes to develop,availability of housing
in the area,and shortages of townhouse/condos in the area.She continued to
state that she was trying to promote an alternate living ownership arrangement
for less money than single family detached housing.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he was uncomfortable with the
abandonments on both the Land Use Plan and the zoning item.
A motion was made to defer both items 16 and 16.1 until the time in which the
abandonments are heard.The item was deferred with a vote of 10 ayes,1 no,
and 0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:A 1 FILE NO.:Z-7211
NAME:American Dream Builder's Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: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 (6-units detached single-family housing)
PROPOSED USE:Detached Single-family housing (6.25 units per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Waiver of street improvements to Farris Street
and to Coleman Street.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to place six units of detached housing on this four lot
site.The applicant proposes the units to be two story units and each will have an
attached 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.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
The applicant is proposing 5-foot set backs between the buildings and the side
property lines and a 20-foot access and utility easement to serve the
development as a single access from Nix Road.
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 of the alley dght-of-way between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 9 and 10.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a slope falling to the south and west.
Nix Road is an unimproved narrow roadway with deep ditches.The site is
currently zoned R-2 as is the majority of the property around the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.The Parkway Place Property Owners Association and
the Gibralter/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations along with all
residents within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified,and all property
owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Nix Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Unless closure of the platted but undeveloped Coleman and Farris Streets
is accomplished,dedication of right-of-way and construction to Master
Street Plan standards will be required.
3.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.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
7,A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section
29-186 (e).
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO A1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:Need a better copy of the plat showing cross streets.
Southwestern Bell:Easements on both sides of the drive are needed to provide
telephone access.Contact Southwestern Bell at 373-5112 for additional
details.
Water:A water main extension may be required to serve this property.An
acreage charge of $600 per acre currently applies to this property in addition
to normal charges in this area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438
for additional details.
~Fire De artmenk Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
CountoPlanntng'o comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptanntn Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan indicates Single Family for the site.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Residential Development to build six units to be sold
under a horizontal property regime.A Land Use Plan amendment for a change
to Multi Family is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-18-01),
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 is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density
development in the area.Action Statements include using multi-family housing
to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the density
and square footage of multi-family developments.
~bandana e The plan submitted does not aflow for the required nine fgt foot
wide land use buffers to the north and east.A six (6)foot high opaque screen is
required to the north and east unless there are to be no windows or doors
(except those required by the city)on the north and east sides.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
BBuildini Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had tried
unsuccessfully to close the roadways adjacent to the site and now wished to
pursue the item with only the closure of the alleyway between the lots.Staff
stated the applicant should contact the utility companies and Public Works to
obtain comments with regard to the alley closure.Staff stated they would work
with the applicant to resolve the technical issues prior to the Commission
meeting.
There being no further issues to discuss,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.The applicant has included a six (6)foot wooden fence on the
north and south property lines and has indicated a fence could be placed along
the undeveloped Farris Street if necessary.The applicant has indicated a five
(5)foot side yard setback along the north and south property lines.The typical
required land use buffer is nine (9)feet.Staff is not supportive of the requested
reduction in landscaped area.The development abuts single-family to the north
and the minimum typical buffer should be put in place.In addition,with the
dedication of right-of-way on the south side of the development (Coleman Street)
there will be a zero side yard setback.
The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage as a part of the
development.The applicant has also indicted the development will be
constructed in one phase.As stated in the proposal section the applicant
proposes the units to be for sale through a horizontal property regime and
ownership and maintenance of common areas will be handled through a property
owners association.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Coleman Street
and to Farris Street.The roadways have not developed in the area and the
applicant feels the construction of the streets is unjustified at this time.
Staff is not supportive of the development as proposed.The density of the
development is not consistent with the development pattern in the area.With the
placement of this number of units on these four 50-foot by 150-foot lots there is
not sufficient room for side yard setbacks.Should the applicant be unsuccessful
in the abandonment of the alleyway the development will not work.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO '-7211
Similar densities have developed in the area but each of these were closer to
West Markham Street,shown for multi-family on the Future Land Use Plan and
were adjacent to existing multi-family developments.Staff feels the
neighborhood would be better served if the lots developed as single-family units.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed Planned Residential Development as
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Ms.Rebecca Chandler was present representing the application.There were no
objectors present.The land use plan amendment and the rezoning were discussed
simultaneously.Staff presented each item with a recommendation of denial for each.
Commissioner Berry questioned the number of units,which could be constructed on the
site today.Staff stated four (4)and increase of four (4)units since the proposal
included eight (8)units.Staff stated the applicant was requesting a waiver of right-of-
way dedication and street construction to Coleman Street and Farris Street.Staff stated
the applicant was also requesting the roadway be abandoned and the alleyway within
the development be abandoned.
Ms.Chandler stated her occupation was a real estate appraiser.She stated recently
she had determined there was a shortage of homes in the $85,000 to $95,000 range.
She stated this became an issue when looking for a home for her widowed mother.She
stated most of the homes in the area were $100,000+.Ms.Chandler gave the
Commission statistical data from the Census related to homeownership,occupancy,
ages and number of units in the area.She also gave the Commission a MSL listing of
data indicating the market and the pertinent data related to home sales.
Commissioner Berry questioned if the design was directly tied to the closure of the
streets.Ms.Chandler stated she had reduced the size of the development to comply
with the requirements of staff.Staff stated once the dedication of the right-of-way there
would be a zero side yard setback on Coleman Street.Commissioner Berry stated the
project was hinged on the closing of the street.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the street abandonment and the impact of
abandonment of streets in areas,which had not yet developed.
Staff stated the area was a very old plat and they had not heard from all the property
owners within the affected area.
Commissioner Berry made a motion to defer the item until the street issues could be
resolved.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO '-4973-C
NAME:IBSEN Enterprises Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION:3021 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
IBSEN Enterprises,Inc.White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 250565 ff24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA;0.894Acres NUMBEROF LOTS:1 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Auto sales and display
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Retail (C-3 uses)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:17-foot retaining wall.
BACKGROUND:
On August 14,1990,the Planning Commission recommended approval of a PCD for
"boat sales and display"for Red River Marine;the request at that time included a
request for approval of all other by right uses in the C-3 zoning district,and this request
was included in the approval.The Board of Directors established the PCD on
September 12,1990 in Ordinance No.15,932.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4973-C
On May 17,1994 the Planning Commission reviewed a revision to the PCD to allow
IBSEN Imports,an automotive dealership,to operate on the site.The request was also
made at the time for all C-3 uses as alternative uses for the site.The Board of
Directors adopted Ordinance No.16,689 on June 7,1994 to allow the revision of the
PCD for IBSEN Imports and all other C-3 uses.
There were conditions attached to the PCD which included the landscaping be
reinstalled along Cantrell Road and thereafter,maintained,and should IBSEN Imports
vacate the site,the fence which was approved (to be located on the front building line of
the property)be removed.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing commercial building and
construct a new 9270 square foot strip retail center.The applicant has requested
C-3 uses be allowable uses for the site.The proposed development will contain
45 parking spaces 39 of which are adjacent to Cantrell Road.The applicant is
proposing a loading zone in the rear of the building along with six (6)parking
spaces and the dumpster.There is an existing AP &L easement (34-feet)on the
west property line in which the applicant proposes the placement of a portion of
two (2)parking spaces.The applicant proposes the placement of a single
ground mounted sign but has identified two locations.The sign is to be located
near the east driveway entrance with the alternative location the west driveway.
The applicant has indicated a possibility of nine (9)bays within the development
eight (8)of which are estimated at 1808 square feet with the last bay estimated
at 630 square feet.The walls will be temporary wall capable of being moved to
accommodate larger or smaller uses.
The applicant has indicated the street will be constructed to Master Street Plan
standards including a five (5)foot sidewalk.A portion of the front landscaping
will be located in the street right-of-way and will require franchising from the City
and approval by the City Beautiful Commission.
The applicant is requesting a 17-foot retaining wall to be located in the rear of the
building.The wall will abut the AP 8 L easement and extend to the north and
east falling to zero near Cantrell Road and to a few feet behind the building.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the current location of IBSEN Imports,an automobile dealership.In
the past the site has been home to Red River Marine,the use,which originally
established the PCD and Brown's Carpets and Custom Rugs the use,which
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4973-C
entered the site after Red River Marine vacated.Brown's Carpets and Custom
Rugs was an allowable use under the original PCD since all C-3 permitted uses
were also approved.
The zoning in the area includes 1-2,0-2,C-3 and R-2.The uses in the area
include a mix of office and commercial type uses including,an antique store,
restaurant sites,both large scale office developments and single use office
development and an automobile service center.To the south,on the bluff
overlooking Cantrell Road,is R-2 zoning which is developed as single family.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the proposed application and uses of the site.The Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association,the Cedar Hill Terrace and the Capitol View
Neighborhood Associations,along with all residents within 300 feet of the site,
who could be identified,and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required.
(90'otal right-of-way minimum).
2.Public Works will support a franchise agreement for landscaping in the right-
of-way.
3.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.
4.Because of the volume of traffic on this arterial,a 28'riveway width is
recommended.
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
8.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.(Note:Estimated
lot size 1.2 acres)
9.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
10.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)8 (d).
11.Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4973-C
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA;No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:The existing 1-inch water meter that serves this property is the largest
size available off the existing water main.A water main extension will be
required if additional fire protection is required.Contact Central Arkansas
Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fire Oe artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~ount Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹21and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights /Hillcrest Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant
has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development for a
new neighborhood shopping development.
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.
~hendeca e:The Zoning Ordinance does not allow for utility easements to be
located within the required land use buffer when adjacent to single family zones
or uses.The proposed land use buffer width of twelve (12)feet is required along
the western perimeter.At no point should this buffer drop below a width of 6.7
feet.The requirements listed take into account the reductions allowed within the
designated "mature area".
Since the proposed landscaping perimeter strip along Cantrell Road will be
located within the public right-of-way City Beautiful Commission and City
franchise approval will be required,
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO '-4973-C
BBuildin B Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:August 29,2002
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed development noting additions,
which were needed on the proposed site plan,(days and hours of operation,
listing of proposed uses,dumpster location,building height).Staff stated the
proposed site plan indicated the use of the AP 8 L easement as the landscape
buffer,which was not allowable.Staff stated the Zoning Ordinance did not allow
for utility easements to be located within the required land use buffer when
adjacent to single family zones.Staff stated the proposed development had to
maintain a minimum width of twelve (12)feet along the western perimeter and at
no point can the buffer drop below a width of 6.7 feet.
Staff also stated the proposed development would require franchise approval
from the City and the City Beautiful Commission with regard to parking and
landscaping in the right-of-way.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the applicant would be
required to install street improvements along Cantrell Road.Mr.White
questioned if an in-lieu contribution would be an acceptable alternative.Staff
stated the request would be considered.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the Revised PCD 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
Cantrell Road will be constructed to Master Street Plan standard including a five
(5)foot sidewalk.The proposed landscaping is located in the right-of-way and
will require a franchise from the City and approval by the City Beautiful
Commission.Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 6:00 am to
10:00 pm seven days per week.The applicant has indicated the maximum
building height will be 35-feet.The applicant has also indicated on the site plan
the dumpster to be located behind the building and screened on three sides with
an 8-foot opaque fence.
The applicant has indicated a sign will be located near the east driveway
entrance and will be a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area,
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4973-C
The applicant has indicated an alternative location near the west driveway
entrance and has also indicated,if constructed,the sign area would not be any
larger than allowed by the zoning ordinance for commercially zoned property (a
maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area).
The applicant has indicated the proposed retaining wall located adjacent to the
AP&L easement near the southern portion of the site will be 17-feet in height
gradually falling as the wall extends to the north and the east.Staff is supportive
of the request.Per the current ordinance the applicant would be allow a 15-foot
single retaining wall and Staff does not feel the additional two (2)feet would
cause any adverse impact on the area.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 45 parking spaces.The typical
required parking for a development of this type would be 41 spaces based on
shopping center development criteria of one (1)space per 225 square feet of
gross leaseable space.The proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical
parking demand of the development.
The applicant proposes the use of the AP&L easement as a portion of the land
use buffer and the placement of two (2)of the front parking spaces in the
easement.The typical land use buffer along the western perimeter should
maintain an average of 12-feet and at any point not fall below 6.7 feet excluding
the easement.Staff would require,prior to a building permit being issued,the
applicant furnish written approval from AP &L to use that portion of the easement
for parking.
Staff has some general concern with the mechanical equipment,which is
proposed to be located on the roof.There are single-family homes located on
the ridge top overlooking the site.Staff would propose the applicant screen the
mechanical equipment and place some form of deflector to send the sound to the
north of the site.
In general staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed.If the
applicant works to mitigate the noise from the mechanical equipment the
development should have minimal adverse impact on the surrounding residents.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the Planned Commercial
Development to allow a new commercial building to be constructed on the site
and allow C-3 uses as the allowed uses for the site subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E,F and H of this report.
6
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4973-C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated they were unaware of any unresolved issues
associated with the proposed modification to the PCD.Staff presented the item with a
positive recommendation of the proposed revision to the Planned Commercial
Development to allow a new commercial building to be constructed on the site and allow
C-3 uses as alternative uses for the site 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 for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
7
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU02-08-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Central City Planning District
Location:An area north and west of 12th and Thayer Streets.
Receuest:Light Industrial,Industrial,Park /Open Space and Commercial to
Mixed Use
Source:William Willis,Union Rescue Mission
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from Light
Industrial,Industrial,Park /Open Space and Commercial to Mixed Use.The
Mixed Use category provides for a mixture of residential,office and commercial
uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is required if the uses are entirely office
or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.The applicant has submitted
an application to develop the property to provide temporary lodging,offices,and
social services.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the area between the Union Pacific tracks and
Thayer Street extending south to 11'"Street.The boundary continues west on
11'"Street to the alley between Thayer and Jones Street continuing south to the
area shown as Commercial along 12"Street then west to the railroad tracks.The
railroad tracks serve as the western boundary for the expanded area.
With these changes,the entire area of Park /Open Space between 10'"and
11'treetswestofThayerStreetwillalsobeeliminated.The area was expanded to
1)remove a remnant of industrial that would be between Single Family and Light
Industrial,2)recognize existing commercial zoning that was shown as Light
Industrial and Industrial,3)and remove Park /Open Space that was placed as a
buffer between Industrial and Single Family.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The expanded area consists of vacant land,houses,and commercial building on
12'"Street currently zoned I-2 Light Industrial,R-4 Two Family Residential,and
C-3 General Commercial and is approximately 9.54+acres in size.A bus barn
and a print shop are located in an I-2 zone to the west.A warehouse,junkyard
and vacant property are located in the I-2 zone to the north.The property lying to
the east of the expanded area is zoned R-4 and R-3 Single Family and is
occupied by single-family residences.The property to the south of the expanded
area is 1-2,C-3,R-3,and R-4 occupied by residential and commercial structures
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-08-03
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 19,2002,multiple changes were made from Single Family,Mixed
Office Commercial,Public Institutional,and Mixed Use to Public Institutional and
Multi-Family about "/4 of a mile to the east of the applicant's property in the
vicinity,and including,the campus of the Arkansas Children's Hospital.
On July 17,2001,a change was made from Single Family to Park /Open Space
at Stephens Park about 9/10 of a mile southwest of the amendment area.
On September 19,2000,multiple changes were made from Service Trades
District to Park /Open Space,Public Institutional and Mixed Use in the 1100
block of Cantrell Road about '/4 of a mile northeast of the expanded area.
On March 7,2000,multiple changes were made from Mixed Use,Office,
Commercial,Mixed Office Commercial,Service Trades District,and Public
Institutional to Public Institutional and Mixed Use Urban covering most of the
Downtown Planning District starting east of Woodlane Street about '/4 of a mile
northeast of the study area.
The area is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Light Industrial,Industrial,
Park /Open Space and Single Family.Industrial is shown on the Land Use Plan
to the north of the area while Light Industrial is shown to the west.Single Family
is shown to the east of the area while Commercial is shown to the south.
This property was the subject of a previous Land Use Plan amendment heard
and approved by the Planning Commission on November 11,1999.The
amendment was forwarded to the February 15,2000 Board of Directors meeting
and was tabled.The current land uses shown for the area have remained
unchanged.The current application is similar to,but slightly smaller than,the
original application heard by the Planning Commission.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
12'"Street is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Collector Street and is built to
standard.10'",11'",Jones,and Thayer Streets are standard residential streets in
need of repair.There are no Bikeways shown on the plan that would be affected
by this amendment.
PARKS:
The nearest park shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of
2001 is Fletcher Park located at 1-630 and Woodrow Street west of the railroad
tracks.Fletcher Park is listed as a mini-park of less than five acres equipped
with a playground,basketball pad,a practice /active recreation area,and two
picnic tables.This park is designed to serve the recreational needs of the
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-08-03
neighborhood this application area is located in.The main disadvantage of the
park is the partial barrier created by the railroad tracks located at 10'"and 11'"
Streets.The railroad may be crossed at 12'"Street.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS;
The south boundary of the expanded area of review is located one block north of
the north boundary of the Little Rock Central High School National Historic
District.Since the historic district in a national district and not a local district,
development within the amendment area hopefully will respect the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.However,this amendment should not affect the
area inside the historic district.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Stephens Area
Neighborhood Action Plan.The Housing goal recommends the removal of
substandard houses and lots with an objective of providing a safer living
environment.Action statements support the removal of burnt and unsafe
buildings while cleaning vacant weed lots and alleys.Since a large portion of the
property in the area is vacant this amendment would provide for infill
development that would minimize the occurrence of weed lots.Most of the
neighborhood's burnt and unsafe structures are located to the east outside of the
study area.
ANALYSIS:
At an earlier time,industrial enterprises located along this section of the railroad
tracks for the obvious transportation reasons.Other industrial buildings lie along
these tracks,but no notable development has occurred in the recent past.As
market forces change,this site has become less desirable for industrial infill,
even though it is zoned 1-2.Mixed Use would also provide a transition between
the remaining area shown as Light Industrial west of the Railroad Tracks and the
residential uses to the east.The use of Planned Zoning Districts in the area
shown,as Mixed Use would protect the character of the residential areas to the
east and the area adjacent to Central High by providing a mechanism for design
review of future developments located in this area.Mixed Use would provide for
redevelopment in an area where the conforming industrial development would
likely not happen.
Outside the application a mixture of industrial,institutional,commercial and
residential uses characterizes area the neighborhood.Most of the neighborhood
to the east is residential in character.The northern edge of the neighborhood,
next to 1-630,is a marginal residential area with a junkyard and machine shop
located at the railroad and freeway.The Dorcus House located at the southeast
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO C Cont FILE NO LU02-08-03
corner of 1-630 and Park Street serves as a mixture of both residential and
institutional activities.The Children's Hospital located at Martin Luther King is a
large Public Institutional use that serves as the eastern boundary of the
residential area.The Future Land Use for the properties to the east of Schiller
Street shows Public Institutional,which will limit the possibility of new residential
development.In addition to the Future land Use plan,the Children's Hospital
Campus Long Range Plan shows that the hospital plans to extend its campus to
Schiller Street north of 11'"Street which would limit the long term viability of
residential uses in that area.12'"Street east of Thayer consists mainly of
residential uses while west of Thayer storefront churches and small commercial
businesses with a day care center located at the railroad tracks.The businesses
on 12'"at the railroad consist of a commercial building on the south side of the
street and a building on the north side that is a warehouse and office building.
The neighborhood to the south of 12'"Street is strictly residential in character.
About two block of housing separate the Central High School Historic Site from
the study area.Based on the general development pattern of the area,small
retail business,small offices,quasi-public institutions,and affordable historic
residences would be compatible with the current development pattern of the
neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Capitol Hill
Neighborhood Association,Central High Neighborhood Association,East of
Broadway Neighborhood Association,Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,
MLK Neighborhood Association,South End Neighborhood Association,South
End Neighborhood Developers,Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association,
Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association,and Pine to Woodrow
Neighborhood Association.Staff has received one neutral comment from area
residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.The change to Mixed Use should
provide flexibility for,and review of,future development in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(June 20,2002)
The applicant was notified that less than 8 Commissioners were present and that
a minimum of 6 votes would be needed for the item to pass.The applicant was
given the option to defer the item to the August 8'"Planning Commission
meeting.The applicant requested the deferral.A motion to defer item 15 to the
August 8'"meeting and was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent
and 1 open position.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-08-03
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 8,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 19,
2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,
and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the Commission.Donna
James made a presentation of item C.1 so the discussion could coincide with the
discussion for item C.See item C.1 for a complete discussion concerning the
Short Form Planned Office Development.
William Willis,the applicant,made a presentation to the commission about the
Union Rescue's mission to serve the homeless.He spoke of crime records for
the area,the Consolidated Housing Plan and the support of contributors
throughout the city.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that he did not agree last time and he is still
opposed to the application.
Commissioner Faust asked if Ms Ambrose was opposed to the Land Use Plan
Amendment.Ms.Ambrose stated that she would not oppose it,Susan Leslie
stated that she could not say.
It was noted that Commissioner Bill Rector has recused and had left the room at
the beginning of the discussion.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was approved
with a vote of 10 ayes,0 no,0 absent,and 1 recusal.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
NAME:Union Rescue Mission Short-form POD
LOCATION:Adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad;North of West 11'"Street and West
of Thayer Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Union Rescue Mission Lewis,Elliott and Studer
3001 Confederate Blvd.11225 Huron Lane,Suite 104
Little Rock,AR 72206 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:2.43 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:1-2
ALLOWED USES:Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:Union Rescue Mission facilities
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a proposed rezoning
request for the Union Rescue Mission from 1-2 to POD on November 11,1999.The
Board of Directors at their January 20,2001 meeting denied the request.The applicant
proposed to rezone the 2.43-acre site from 1-2 to POD to allow for the development of
the Union Rescue Mission facility.The project was to house administrative offices,
temporary living quarters,food preparation and dining areas,and educational space.A
Future Land Use Plan amendment was also filed and later denied by the Board of
Directors.
September 1u,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO Z-6763-A
The applicant proposed to construct a 29,000 square foot,single story building along
the south side of West 10'"Street,west of Thayer Street.The applicant also proposed
to construct a small area of parking (21 spaces)along the north side of West 10'"Street
and a small area of parking (19 spaces)along the north side of West 11"Street.
The proposed building was to be one story with a 30-foot ridge height.The facade was
to be a split face block and brick,with a colored raised seam metal roof.One wall-
mounted sign was proposed which would have an area of approximately 25 square feet.
The applicant proposed to abandon the portion of West 10'"Street between the railroad
right-of-way and Thayer Street,the alley right-of-way within Block 9,Roots and Coy
Subdivision (block bounded by Thayer Street,West 10'"Street,West 11'"Street,and
the railroad right-of-way),and the portion of West 11'"Street between Jones Street and
the railroad right-of-way.
The applicant noted the facility would include the following uses:
1.Temporary living quarters —180 to 200 beds
2.Office space —5,800 square feet
3.Educational space —4,000 square feet
4.Kitchen and dining areas
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant has filed exactly the same application as was previously approved
by the Planning Commission and denied by the Board of Directors.
The applicant proposes to construct a 29,000 square foot,single story building
along the south side of West 10'"Street and west of Thayer Street.The
applicant also proposes to construct a small area of parking (21 spaces)along
the north side of West 10'"Street and a small area of parking (19 spaces)along
the north side of West 11'"Street.
The proposed building is to be one story with a 30-foot ridge height.The facade
will be a split face block and brick,with a colored raised seam metal roof.One
wall-mounted sign is proposed which will have an area of approximately 25
square feet and signage is proposed on the "bell-tower".
The applicant proposes to abandon a portion of West 10'"Street between the
railroad right-of-way and Thayer Street,the alley right-of-way within Block 9,
Roots and Coy Subdivision (block bounded by Thayer Street,West 10'"Street,
West 11'"Street,and the railroad right-of-way),and the portion of West 11"
Street between Jones Street and the railroad right-of-way.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO '-6763-A
The applicant notes the facility will include the following uses:
~Temporary living quarters —180 to 200 beds
~Office space —5,800 square feet
~Educational space -4,000 square feet
~Kitchen and dining areas
A Future Land Use Plan amendment has also been filed in association with the
proposed development (Item ¹15 File No.LU02-08-03).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The portion of the site along the north side of West 10"Street is vacant,grass-
covered and fenced.There are no trees on this portion of the site.The area on
the south side of West 10'"Street is also vacant and grass-covered,with a
scattering of trees.This portion of the site is where single family homes once
existed,and is 9 to 8 feet above the existing grade of West 20'"Street.
There is railroad right-of-way along the west boundary of the site,with industrial
buildings and single-family residences further west.There are two industrial
buildings and a monopole tower to the north,between this site and 1-630.There
is an auto salvage yard to the northeast at the southeast corner of Maryland and
Thayer Streets.There are four (4)single-family residences immediately east of
the proposed building,within the same block,with additional single family
residences further south across West 11'"Street and east across Thayer Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received several phone calls from persons requesting information on
this application.The Capital Hill,the Central High,the Capitol View,the
Downtown,the Pine to Woodrow and the Stephen Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the Public Hearing as well as residents within 300 feet of the site
who could be identified and all property owners within 200 feet of the site.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of West
10'"and Thayer Streets.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).Construct
one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.Applicant may petition to abandon West 10"Street.
Improvements are required on West 11'"Street and on Thayer Street where
they abut the property.
3
September 1LF,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
3.Submit petition to close alley.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.
5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering
at 501-340-4854 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
6.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
9.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)8 (d).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A '/Rn is the maximum meter size available off existing water mains.The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine if
additional public and/or private fire hydrant (s)will be required.If additional
fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fire Ce artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional details at 918-3752.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route /f3 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Central City Planning District
The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial,Industrial,Park /Open Space and
Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Office
Development to provide temporary lodging,offices,and social services.
A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on
this agenda (LU02-08-03).
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Stephens Area Neighborhood Action Plan.The Housing
goal recommends the removal of substandard houses and lots,with an objective
of providing a safer living environment.Actions statements support the removal
of burnt and unsafe buildings while cleaning vacant weed lots and alleys.
~hendeca e:A total of six fdt percent of the interior of the vehicular use area
must be landscaped with interior islands.This takes into account the reduction
allowed within the designated "mature area".Curb and gutter or another
approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular
traffic.
~Buitdin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:May 30,2002
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff briefly described
the proposed request noting the proposal was exactly the same as the proposal
reviewed by the Commission at their November 1999 Public Hearing.Staff
stated there were additions needed on the site plan,(building heights,dumpster
location,building dimensions,building setbacks).Staff also stated they would
need the days and hours of operation,the number of employees and the details
of any fencing.
Public Works comments were addressed.The applicant was told to either make
street improvements to West 10rh Street or petition the City for closure.Staff
stated a 20-foot radial dedication would be required at the corner of West 11rB
Street and Thayer Street,but the intersection would not be reconstructed at this
time.
Mr.Lawson stated the applicant should try to meet with the neighborhoods prior
to the Commission meeting.He stated his staff would contact all the persons
involved in the original application,both for and against,and invite them to a
community meeting.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the proposed rezoning to
Planned Office Development,to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has noted that the
Public Works comments will be complied with.
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:2-6763-A
The applicant proposes a six (6)foot high wood-screening fence adjacent to the
residential uses.The applicant is also proposing a 7.5-foot buffer along the east
property line (east of proposed building and east of parking area accessed from
West 11'"Street).
As noted in the Background Section and in Paragraph A of this report,the
applicant is requesting abandonment of three (3)pieces of right-of-way as part of
the development plan.By endorsing the proposed site development plan,the
Commission can recommend approval of the abandonment requests.The
applicant will need to file additional paperwork with Public Works and the City
Clerk prior to the application being forwarded to the Board of Directors.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
this application.Staff feels that the proposed development will have no adverse
effect on the general area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed POD zoning subject to the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the following abandonment's:
a.West 10'"Street,between Thayer Street and the railroad right-of-way
b.West 11'"Street,between Jones Street and the railroad right-of-way
c.Alley right-of-way within Block 9,Roots and Coy Subdivision
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 20,2002)
Mr.William Willis was present representing the application.There were several
objectors present.There were eight (8)Commissioners present.The Chairman stated
it was Planning Commission policy to offer a deferral to the applicant when fewer than
nine (9)Commissioners were present.The applicant requested a deferral to the
August 8,2002 Public Hearing.
The Commission voted to defer the application by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent
and 1 vacant position.
6
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a letter requesting this item be deferred to the September 19,
2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing.Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 8,2002)
The applicant was not present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request to defer the item to the
September 19,2002 Public Hearing.
Chairman Lowry asked if the persons in opposition were opposed to the item being
deferred.They stated they were not in opposition of the deferral.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent and
1 vacant position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.William Willis was present representing the application.There were numerous
objectors present.The Land Use Plan amendment Item ¹Cand the rezoning request
were discussed simultaneously.Staff presented each item and made a
recommendation of approval for each.
Mr.William Willis,General Manager of the Union Rescue Mission,was present
representing the application.He stated due to the Riverfront development the homeless
population had begun to move to the west.He stated the Union Rescue Mission had
made the request to locate at this site previously and was requesting endorsement once
again.He stated the Union Rescue had searched to find an alternative location but had
been unsuccessful.He stated the Union Rescue had looked at nine (9)alternative
locations,none of which were suitable for various reasons.
He stated the Commission had been given the crime rate for the areas in which the
Union Rescue Mission operated and the area,which the Union Rescue Mission wished
to locate.He stated the data indicated the crime rate was lower in areas where the
Mission was currently operating.
He stated the 1990 estimates of homelessness were 280 homeless and in 2000 the
number was closer to 1000.He stated the Mission felt the number was more near
7
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 F ILE NO Z-6763-A
2000.He stated additional beds would be needed since the Salvation Army was closing
its facility and the City of North Little Rock had bought the land of the current Mission
site.
He stated there were numerous businesses,homes and churches that support the
Mission and their efforts.He stated the Union Rescue was trying to fill a need with a
new facility.He stated the Mission was trying to fill a need,which was growing in the
direction of the central city already.
Mr.Henry Barton,President of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition of the development.He stated the size of the facility was too big for the
neighborhood.He stated the fear of the residents were those who would be released
into the neighborhood with out supervision.He stated there were 400+signatures in
opposition of the development.He stated to many unpredictable people visited the
Mission.He stated people who had been turned away because of drugs and alcohol
would have no place to go but into the neighborhoods.He stated the site selected was
not the site to place a Mission of this size.
Ms.Ethel Ambrose,President of the Central High Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.She stated it was not good practice to place a
Mission of this size in a fragile neighborhood.She stated there were currently 20 million
plus in restoration dollars being spent in the neighborhood.She stated businesses in
the area have expressed concerns with security.Ms.Ambrose stated,the area
currently houses 20+treatment facilities.She stated if there was nothing wrong with a
Mission then why did other residents not want the Mission in their neighborhood.
Mr.Larry Rogers spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated he would
like to call City staff on their endorsement of the proposal.He stated staff had stated
homelessness would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.He stated he
would disagree and so would the businesses downtown.
Mr.Rogers stated the Westside Jr.High School had recently been purchased and was
being renovated.He stated the Arkansas Children's Hospital was investing millions in
the neighborhood.He commented on various other projects currently under design or
construction within the neighborhood.He requested the Commission not put the
neighborhood back by approving the facility.
Ms.Susan Leslie,Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association President,
spoke in opposition of the proposed application.She stated the Union Rescue never
called to discuss the proposed project prior to receiving notification from the city,She
stated the group had document how the residents felt through the 400+signatures on
the petitions.She stated 70'lo of the beds would be transient beds and the holders
would be put into the neighborhoods daily.She stated the Mission in North Little Rock
currently had 30 beds.She stated this was a much easier number to control than 200
8
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
beds.She stated the proposed development was in conflict with the neighborhoods
action plan.She stated the eastern area of the neighborhood was proposed as a park
area with walking trails that were proposed to connect to the Millennium Trail.
She stated the Salvation Army site was located on the railroad and faced away from
residential neighborhoods.She stated the Thrift Store was the same distance from the
Salvation Army site as was the Thayer Street location.
Ms.Nettie Lawson spoke in opposition of the application.She stated she and her
husband had lived in the area for 38 years.She stated she and her husband had
retired and this was their retirement.She stated in the neighborhood everyone knew
each other and felt safe.She stated a neighborhood was not the place for a Mission.
She stated the Mission would serve 2000 people,which was to many people to bring
into a neighborhood.
PD Legoyet spoke in opposition of the proposal.He stated he had recently graduated
from college and was returning home.He stated he had plans to buy a home in the
area,as did some of his friends.He stated the area had significantly improved.He
stated there was a time when the area was riddled with gang activity and a high crime
rate.He stated the placement of the Mission would not help property values in the area.
Mr.Willis stated he would like to clear up a few comments.He stated Mayor Hayes of
North Little Rock was very supportive of the mission.He stated there were more than
25 beds in North Little Rock.He stated there was a great need for the Mission and
regardless of the location someone would oppose the location.
Commissioner Rahman questioned Mr.Willis on how clients found the mission.Mr.
Willis stated from various agencies such as the VA and from the network of homeless
persons giving the location.
Phil Hill,Director of the Men's program for the Mission,stated there were 30 to 40
people at the Mission on any given night.He stated the Mission had had as many as
200 people in one night but it was an extremely cold night.He stated if a client was
suspect then drug and alcohol testing was performed.He stated if a person tested
positive then their privileges were taken away leaving them no reason to be in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Allen asked if there was a screening process.Mr.Hill stated there was
not a background check performed.He stated the person was required to have an id
and be drug and alcohol free.
Commissioner Berry stated he had attended the three (3)neighborhood meetings
conducted and nothing had changed.He asked why the Mission wanted to pursue this
location.Mr.Hill stated the other locations were not suitable for various reasons,size,
9
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-6763-A
location,and cost.He stated it was important to have a location that did have access
not through the neighborhood.
Commissioner Berry stated the land was zoned 1-2 and listed uses which could locate
on the site without a hearing.He asked Ms.Ambrose how the neighborhood felt about
the possibility of these uses locating on the site.Ms.Ambrose stated the three
neighborhoods were in the process of developing a Design Overlay District for the area
and they were willing to take a chance.
Commissioner Faust questioned how small would the mission have to be to be
acceptable.Mr.Barton stated it was the use and the population that would be attracted
by the Mission was the neighborhood's concern.
Commissioner Nunnley stated the mission was a viable part of the city but not in a
residential neighborhood.He stated there was a vagrancy problem on 12'"and
Woodrow Streets.He stated a residential neighborhood was not the place for a Mission
and adding the Mission to this neighborhood was not a good alternative.
Commissioner Faust asked if neighborhoods were opposed to the Land Use Plan
amendment.Ms.Ambrose stated they were not opposed to the Land Use Plan
amendment.Susan Leslie stated Capitol View did not take a stand on the Land Use
Plan.
After a discussion as to if the two items were tied together and it was determined they
were not a motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment.The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes,0 absent and 1 recuse.
A motion was made to approve the rezoning of the site as requested by the applicant.
The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,8 noes,0 absent and 1 recuse.
Commission Rector stated he had left the room during the discussion due to a possible
conflict of interest.He stated he did have an economic interest in the area with a piece
of property he recently acquired.
10
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO '-7264
NAME:Gilliam Car Wash —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:4700 West 12'"Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:James Gilliam
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to permit a car
wash on this C-3 zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the northwest corner of West 12'"and Jefferson
Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This car wash is fairly unique in that the vehicle washing is to take place
within the first floor of a two-story commercial structure.No additional
buildings or expansions are proposed.The large,Madison Heights
housing development is located to the south of this site.A variety of
nonresidential,office and commercial uses are located along 12~Street.
Single family residences are located across the alley,to the north.With
appropriate screening and constraints on the operation,this proposed use
should be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Forest Hills,War Memorial,
Hope and Oak Forest Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
action.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Sufficient parking space is located on the paved lot adjacent to the west of
the building.Portions of the parking area are unpaved.The unpaved
area must be brought up to the code with required paving,landscaping
and screening.
The car washing takes place within the building which is accessed by
garage doors on both the east and west sides.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO '-7264
4,SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances will be
required with the paving of the parking lot.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.Provided change in use of property involves no new
construction.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Contact utility for approval of sandtrap.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Locateallutilities beforeexcavating.SWBT has a
buried plat in the west right-of-way of Jefferson Street.
Water:Due to the nature of the processes used in this facility,installation
of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
will be required on the domestic water service prior to any outlet.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No Comments.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 1,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and noted that
additional information was needed regarding signage,days and hours of
operation,number of employees per shift,fencing and trash pick-up.Staff noted
that it appeared some washing of vehicles was occurring outside of the building
and a portion of the parking lot had not been paved.Staff stated more details on
the operation itself were needed.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-7264
Public Works and Landscaping Comments were noted.
Staff stated they would contact the applicant to advise him of the issues.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The C-3 zoned property located at 4700 West 12'"Street is occupied by a two-
story,faux rock and stucco building.Garage doors have been placed on the east
and west sides of the ground floor.The applicant proposes to operate a car
wash on the site.Vehicles will be vacuumed on a concrete drive area behind the
building.Vehicles will then be driven into the building where washing will take
place.The applicant has contacted wastewater utility and Central Arkansas
Water regarding proper installation of a sand trap and a backflow preventer.The
applicant also owns the C-3 zoned parking lot adjacent to the west which will be
used for customer and employee parking.Portions of this adjacent lot are not
paved.The applicant has stated that lot will be properly paved and landscaped
by January 1,2003.The business is proposed to have 5 full-time employees,
with more employees to be added,as needed.The applicant proposes wall
mounted signs facing Jefferson and West 12'"Streets and a single ground
mounted sign (18 square feet)in front of the business.The car wash will operate
6 days a week,from 8:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday,
Staff is supportive of the request.With appropriate constraints on the operation,
it should be compatible with uses in the area.All vehicle washing must be limited
to within the enclosed building.Vacuuming should be limited to the concrete
area behind the building.The adjacent parking lot (Lot 5)is to be limited to
employee and customer parking.It is not to be used for vehicle service.
Staff supports allowing a deferral until January 1,2003 to complete the paving,
screening and landscaping of the adjacent parking lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,5
and 6 of this report.
2.All vehicle washing must be limited to within the enclosed building.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-7264
3.Vehicle vacuuming must be limited to the concrete area directly behind
(north)the building or within the building.
4.The adjacent parking lot (Lot 5)is to be limited to employee and customer
parking only.No vehicle service (washing,waxing,etc.)is to take place
on this lot.
5.Staff supports a deferral of the paving,screening and landscaping
requirement for the remainder of the adjacent lot (Lot 5)until January 1,
2003.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 22,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had only mailed the notice of public hearing two
days prior to the hearing,not 15 days as required by the Commission's Bylaws.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to use the correct notice form.The
Commission,after a discussion in the agenda session,informed the applicant
that the item needed to be deferred.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 19,
2002 meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes,0 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval,subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.There was no further
discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-7269
NAME:P.A.R.K.—Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:5900 Browning Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:P.A.R.K./McGetrick and McGetrick
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the
expansion of the P.A.R.K.recreational facility onto this R-2
zoned property.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the north side of Browning Road,one lot east of
Geyer Springs Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This lot is adjacent to and directly south of the P.A.R.K.facility.Vacant,R-2
and C-3 zoned tracts are located to the west and southwest.Office uses are
adjacent to the northwest.The single family residence adjacent to the east is
owned by P.A.R.K.Additional single family homes are located further to the
east.This outdoor recreation area will be enclosed by a privacy fence and will
be accessed only through the P.A.R.K.Facility.This proposed use,which really
is more of a park-like development,is compatible with uses in the area,
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the Wakefield and SWLRUP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of this action.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
No parking or drives are proposed.All parking takes place on the existing
P.A.R.K.property adjacent to the north.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The face side of the proposed wood fence must be directed outward.A water
source within 75 feet of all landscaped areas will be required.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-7269
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Browning Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial
street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to nMSPu (Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.(Note:half street width would be
15.5 feet to back of curb.)
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.It appears that Stormwater Detention Ordinance will not apply to the
improvements.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
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.An acreage charge of $150/acre currently applies in
addition to the normal connection charge for this parcel.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
~Count Ptennin:No Comments.
CATA:No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(AUGUST 1,2002)
The applicant was present.Staff presented the item and noted that additional
information was needed regarding days and hours of operation,typical activities on the
playing field and utilizing the pavilion and signage.Staff asked if other groups would
be able to use the park area or if it would be solely used by P.A.R.K.The need for a
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-7269
fence height vaffance was discussed.At the suggestion of the Committee,the
applicant indicated the proposed 8 foot fence would be reduced to 6 feet.
Public Works Comments were presented.It was suggested that Browning Road could
be improved to residential standard rather than commercial standard due to the nature
of this development and the adjacent neighborhood.
The applicant stated he would provide all needed information to staff.He was advised
to submit all information no later than noon,Wednesday August 1,2002.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The P.A.R.K.(Positive Attitude Reaches Kids)program occupies the large building
located on the l-2 zoned property at 6915 Geyer Springs Road.P.A.R.K.has
acquired the R-2 zoned property adjacent to the south,between the P.A.R.K.Facility
and Browning Road.This R-2 property consists of two lots;one containing a single
family residence and the other being vacant.P.A.R.K.proposes to develop the vacant
lot for outdoor recreational activities.The site will be developed with walkways,a
pavilion,restrooms,picnic tables and a playing field.The area will be used primarily
until 8:00 p.m.or dark,Monday through Friday,with some weekend usage.The area
will not be lighted other than for the pavilion.Activities planned for the playing field
include flag football,soccer,softball,etc.The entire site will be enclosed by a 6 foot
tall fence.On the south,east and southern 150 feet of the west perimeter,the fence
will be solid wood with the finished side facing outward.The remainder of the fence on
the west perimeter will be vinyl coated chain-link.The fence on the north perimeter
will be wrought iron.Access to the area will be from the north,through the P.A.R.K.
Facility.A service gate will be located on the south,off of Browning Road.Use of this
outdoor area will be limited to representatives of P.A.R.K.It will not be available to
outside groups.An architectural element consisting of 6 foot tall letters reading
"P.A.R.K."located in a landscaped bed will be located near the pavilion.This element
will be visible only from the P.A.R.K.Facility and is to be used as a backdrop for photo
opportunities and presentations.
On August 7,2002,the applicant submitted an addendum to his cover letter,
addressing those issues raised at Subdivision Committee and summarized above.
Staff is supportive of the proposed use.Allowing development of this outdoor
recreation area in conjunction with the P.A.R.K.program should be compatible with
uses in the area.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-7269
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with
the description in the applicant's cover letters and compliance with the staff comments
outlined in Sections 4,5,and 6 of this report.
Staff recommends that Browning Street be constructed to residential standard rather
than commercial standard.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the proposed 6 foot tall fence within
the setback adjacent to Browning Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 22,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Letters of support had
been submitted by the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and Wakefield
Neighborhood Associations.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
failed to complete the required notification.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the September 19,2002
meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes,0 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
in the "Staff Recommendation"above.There was no further discussion.
The item,including the variances,was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved
as recommended by staff.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:6-46-X
NAME:Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Vantage Point Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Pfeifer Development Company White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 99 ¹24Rahling Circle
N.Little Rock,AR 72115 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:3-West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT:22.01
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:15-foot platted front building line.
Lot depth to width ratio for Lots 116A and 117.
A.PROPOSAL:
The area was preliminary platted in the mid-1960's with the majority of the lots
having been developed with the exception of a few dozen lots on the southern
portion of the plat.A revision to the preliminary plat was submitted in 1987,
which increased the number of lots by two in this area.
The applicant now proposes to replat two (2)previously approved lots into three
(3)single family lots.The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15-foot
platted building line on all three (3)lots and a variance from the lot depth to width
ratio for Lots 116A and 117.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lots are extremely steep falling from the road with topography ranging in
elevation from 475-feet to 525-feet.Single-family homes have developed in the
area in similar conditions.The site is wooded with a ravine running along the
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-X
south and west.Foxcroft has developed to the south of the site across the
ravine.Single-family homes are located north of the site abutting the river.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners abutting the site along with the Robinwood and Overlook
Property Owners Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located on site.Show existing easement with
new lot configuration to assure service can be provided to all three new lots.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~pire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
CountOPlanning:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on the
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~hendeca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff introduced the item noting additions needed on the proposed
plat.Staff stated there was one if not two variances from the Subdivision
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:6-46-X
Ordinance.Staff stated two of the three lots would require a depth to width ratio
variance (Lots 116 and 117).Staff stated if the lots would have a 15-foot front
platted building line this would also require a variance.
Wastewater and the Fire Department comments were also noted.There being
no further issues to discuss the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS;
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff including the additional information
requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has requested
the appropriate variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the plat to
develop in the manner desired.The applicant has indicated a 15-foot front
platted building line and a variance for the depth to width ratio for Lots 116A and
117.The applicant has indicated the three (3)lots will be accessed by individual
driveways extending from Vantage Point Drive.
Staff is not supportive of the requested replat.The site is extremely steep
sloping downward into a ravine.The homes in this area have developed in
similar situations but are located on larger lots and the terrain does not appear to
be as steep.The average size of the existing lots ranges from 34,000 square
feet to 45,000 square feet.The proposed lots will range from approximately
21,240 square feet to 43,700 square feet.The proposed lot size is slightly
smaller than other lots in this general area.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow the 15-foot front platted
building line.The previously approved plat for the area was final platted with a
25-foot front building line and for the most part lots in the general area have
developed with a 25-foot building line.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance for the Lot Depth to Width Ratio
Variance request for Lots 116A and 117.The remainder of the Subdivision has
developed without this variance.These lots were previously preliminary platted
without requesting any variances and these lots should develop a previously
proposed.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed replat of Lots 116 and 117 into three
single-family residential lots and the requested variances associated with the
proposed replat.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-X
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White was present representing the application.There was one objector present.
Mr.White stated the objector had questions concerning the Bill of Assurance and
requested the item be deferred to the October 3,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the By-Laws.A motion was made to
waiver the By-Laws.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Deferral to the October 3,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
4
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-57-LL
NAME:Riverdale Addition Replat and Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Riverfront Drive at Morgan Keegan Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Irwin &Saviers McClelland Consulting Engineers
1701 Centerview Drive,Suite 201 900 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:7.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD and 0-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:4 —Heights/Hillcrest
CENSUS TRACT:15
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:Increased sign area (120 square feet).
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing a three (3)lot subdivision and a zoning site plan
review.A portion of the site was Final Platted in February of 2001 (Tract RH-5 a
2.87 acre site).The applicant is proposing to combine unrecorded Tract 7 and
Tract RH-5 to form three (3)non-residential lots.The lots are currently zoned
0-2 (Tract 7)and PCD (Tract RH-5).The proposed lots range in size from 2
acres to 2.22 acres.The applicant will be closing the existing central cul-de-sac
to allow for full development of the middle two (2)acre lot (Lot RH-SB).
The applicant also proposes a zoning site plan review for the southern lot (Lot
RH-7A).The applicant has indicated the new office building will house the
corporate office headquarters of Winrock Enterprises,which will employ
approximately 65 professionals.The proposed building will be two (2)story and
contain 22,000 square feet.The site will be landscaped and the building will be a
"Green Building",incorporating elements of sustainable design,such as
collection of rain water for reuse in landscape irrigation,natural daylighting,many
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO S-57-LL
features which reduce energy consumption,and use of recycled building
materials.The applicant is also requesting a single ground mounted sign to be
located near the southern driveway.The applicant proposes the sign area to be
120 square feet or 30-foot in length and 4-foot in height.
There are limited parking spaces proposed in the front of the building adjacent to
River Front Drive.A remote parking lot is planned at the north end of the
property (Lot RH-5A).A parking agreement will be executed to allow a shared
parking situation between the three (3)lots and Lot RH-SA,which will house the
parking lot.There will also be a cross access walking trail to connect the three
(3)lots and the parking lot on the northern lot.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant grass covered site with office buildings backing up to the
Arkansas River to the east.Southwest of the site is a vacant field used by the
Little Rock Soccer Association as game and practice fields.A residential
subdivision,Canel Pointe,is located to the south of the site and a vacant lot
(zoned PCD)is located to the north of the site.Other uses in the area include
office and multi-family.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
Cedar Hill Terrace Property Owners Association and all property owners within
200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 376-2903.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:A 10-foot utility easements along new property lines is
required (5-foot each side of lot line).Contact Southwestern Bell at 373-5112
for additional details.
Water:8 inch water main will have to be relocated at the developer's expense,
A water main extension will be required to serve Lots RH-5A and RH-5B.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-57-LL
~pire Ce artmenb Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is located on Bus Route 421 and has no effect on bus radius,
turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~hendeca e:Interior landscape islands must be at least 7 N feet in width in order
to count toward fulfilling the 8%interior landscaping requirement.
Irrigation will be required to water landscaped areas.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to submit an approved
landscape plan with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Ron Tabor was present representing the application.Staff presented the
item stating the application was a two part proposal.Staff stated first the item
was a plat/replat combination.Staff stated a lot,which,had been previously final
platted and an unrecorded tract,were proposed to be platted as three (3)lots of
approximately 2 acres each and the second was an office site plan review of an
office building for Winrock International on the southern lot,Lot RH-7 currently
zoned 0-2.
Staff stated there were easements,which needed to be included on the proposed
plat along with driveway location and curb cuts clearly identified.Staff stated the
parking area to the north would be required to be shown as a cross access
parking agreement between the three lots on the plat.
Landscaping comments were addressed along with the comments from the
Water,Wastewater and Fire Department.Staff noted the comment from
Southwestern Bell requesting easements be shown on the Final Plat.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-57-LL
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted to staff a revised drawing indicating all driveway
locations,the trail as a cross access easement and the parking lot located on
Lot RH5-A as a cross access and parking easement.
The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted sign to be located near the
south driveway entrance.The sign will be approximately 30-foot long and 4-foot
high (120 square feet in area)with 12-inch lettering on the west face.There will
be ground lighting on the front of the sign for illumination.The permitted sign
allowable under the Ordinance [Section 36-553 (a)(2)]is 64 square feet.Staff
is supportive of the request to allow the increased sign area since the face side
lettering would only be 30 square feet in area.The sign would act as a
decorative wall in the landscaped area and not strictly a monument sign with
lettering on the entire face of the wall.
The applicant also proposes the building to be no more than 45-feet in height as
required by 0-2 zoning district.The applicant proposes the building to be
approximately 22,000 square feet in area.Minimum estimated parking required
for a building would be 52 spaces or 95'/G of one space per 400 square feet of
gross floor area.The applicant proposes the placement of 16 on-site parking
spaces and a cross access easement with a parking area to the north containing
215 parking spaces.Although,the parking lot will be shared between all three
lots in the preliminary plat there should not be any adverse impact with regard to
parking and the proposed lot should be sufficient to meet the parking demands of
the area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat and the office site plan review.
The proposal includes a variance to allow an increased sign area,which staff
supports.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat of Lots RH-5 and Tract —7 into
three (3)non-residential lots and the zoning site plan review for Lot RH-7 subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested sign variance,as proposed.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-57-LL
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Ron Tabor was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item stating Staff was unaware of any unresolved issues
associated with the project.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
proposed Replat of Lots RH-5 and Tract-7 into three non-residential lots and the zoning
Site Plan Review for Lot RH-7 subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the
"Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff stated they also recommended approval of the requested sign variance as
proposed.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1042-S
NAME:Villages of Wellington Preliminary Plat Phase X
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Wellington Village Road and Loyola Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Company White-Daters and Associaties
2222 Cottondale Lane ¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:12.46 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:23 FT.NEW STREET:1750
CURREN'T ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:19 —Chenal
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:Deferral of street improvements to Wellington
Village Road adjacent to Lot 1,Block 16.
Waiver of sight distance requirement in certain locations.
Waiver to allow street grades of 10 k in certain locations.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 12.46-acre tract into 23 single-family
residential lots.The average lot size proposed is 115-feet wide by 150 feet deep.
There is a single entrance serving the proposed development.The proposed
street functions as a loop street with a short cul-de-sac extending to the
southeast.The applicant is requesting the street be classified as a Minor
Residential Street (50-foot right-of-way and 24-foot pavement width),
The slope of the site ranges from 6/o to 20'/o with an average slope of 10'/o.The
applicant is requesting a waiver of sight distance requirements at certain
locations and a waiver to allow a 10'/o street grade at certain locations.The
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1042-S
applicant is proposing a 25-foot front platted building line on all the proposed lots.
The applicant has indicated the development will be developed in one phase.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with several grade changes.Immediately
east of the site is the Property Owners Association Community Park,the Park at
Wellington,complete with swimming pool and playground equipment.The
proposed subdivision abuts the single family subdivisions of St.Charles and
Villages of Wellington.The area to the north is vacant R-2 zoned property as is
the area to the west.The area to the east remains undeveloped R-2 zoned
property but was recently reviewed and approved by the Commission for a
115 lot single-family subdivision.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The St.Charles Neighborhood Association and all abutting property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.(The Plan indicates
stormwater detention ordinance does not apply to this property.)
2.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
501-379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 376-2903.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension will be required in order to provide water service
to this property.An acreage charge of $600.00 and $2500.00 per acre
currently apply in addition to normal charges in this area.Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1042-S
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptannrn Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff presented the item to the Committee noting the requested
waivers and variances were related to street design.Staff stated the applicant
was requesting a 24-foot back of curb to back of curb minor residential street,
which was supported by Public Works,as a part of the development.Staff
requested a phasing plan from the applicant.
Comments from Public Works were addressed.Staff stated the stormwater
detention ordinance did apply to the site.Staff also requested a letter of pending
development with regard to streetlights.
Comments from Wastewater,Water and the Fire Department were noted.There
being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff on September 4,2002 addressing
most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant
has indicated stormwater detention has been addressed for the entire subdivision
through a previously approved drainage plan.
The applicant is requesting a sign to be located at the entrance to the
subdivision.The applicant is requesting entry walls (a maximum of six feet in
height)to be located on each corner of Wellington Colony Place adjacent to Lots
1 and 18 of Block 16 and lettering on one wall of the entrance.This complies
with the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-552 (a)(1)).The signs will be located in a
sign easement within the 25-foot building line.The area will not exceed
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1042-S
Ordinance standard or 32-square feet.Staff is supportive of the request to allow
the subdivision to have one identification signs but the location is within the blind
intersection and will require Public Works Traffic Engineering approval prior to
construction.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of street improvements to Wellington
Village Road adjacent to Lot 1 Block 16 just short of the intersection with
Wellington Place.The applicant has indicated the street improvements and
street intersection design will be completed when the adjoining phase of Villages
of Wellington Phase 9 (approved by the Commission at their August 8,2002
Public Hearing)is constructed.Staff is supportive of the requested deferral of
street improvements on this roadway segment.
Staff is supportive of the requested preliminary plat.The proposed preliminary
plat meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to
building line setback,minimum lot size,street design etc.and is similar to the
development pattern of the area.The requested waivers and variances are
related to street design and may be approved by the Commission.The proposed
development should have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood
should the subdivision develop as proposed.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat for the Villages of Wellington
Phase X subject to compliance with the conditions outlined the Paragraphs D,E
and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral of street improvements to Wellington
Village Road adjacent to Lot 1,Block 16,as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a positive
recommendation subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
Staff also presented a positive recommendation of the deferral of street improvements
to Wellington Village Road adjacent to Lot 1,Block 16,as requested by the applicant.
Staff stated they recommended approval of the requested waiver of sight distance
requirements in certain locations and approval of the requested waiver of street grade
requirements in certain locations.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1042-S
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff.The motion carried by a vote of
11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-943-A
NAME:Boen 430 Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Northeast corner of 1-430 and Colonel Glenn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Leonard Boen McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 President Clinton Avenuae
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT:11 —1-430
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED;None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
A preliminary plat was filed for the site and approved May 19,1992 for a four lot
subdivision.As a part of the proposal a variance request was approved by the
Board of Directors at their June 16,1992 meeting to allow a variance of the
minimum pavement width and right-of-way width requirements (27-foot pavement
width and 50-foot right-of-way).The lots were not Final Platted prior to
expiration of the preliminary plat.
The applicant now proposes a preliminary plat for a three lot subdivision with a
60-foot access easement with 36-feet of pavement.There are no additional curb
cuts proposed for Lots 1 and 3.These lots will take access from the access
easement.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO '-943-A
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The land area has been modified with the removal of trees and natural growth.
There is a grade on the site,which varies from the Colonel Glenn right-of-way to
the north at which point there is a significant hill mass with a large water tank.To
the east,is the Clear Channel Metroplex facility and to the west is 1-430.South
of the site is vacant undeveloped C-3 and 0-3 property in which the developer is
currently installing basic infrastructure.
A portion of the street improvements have been made adjacent to the Clear
Channel Development but are not in place adjacent to the site.The road is a two
lane roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
Stagecoach Dodd and the John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were notified
of the Public Hearing along with all abutting property owners.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.A minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will
be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
4.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
7.A Grading Permit will be required per Sec.29-186 (c)8 (d).
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
501-379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 376-2903.
2
September 1ct,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-943-A
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension will be required in order to provide water service
to this property.An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre currently applies in
addition to normal charges in this area.Due to the operation and
maintenance of the tank and pump station north of this site,the natural
drainage across this site should not be obstructed.
~Fire De artment:Approved as sunm tted.
CountOPlanninp'o comment race ved.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick and Ms.Laura McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick
Engineers were present representing the application.Staff introduced the item to
the Commission stating a preliminary plat had previously been filed for the area
but was never final platted.Staff stated the time for final platting had expired and
the applicant was now requesting a similar preliminary plat.Staff stated the
previously approved preliminary plat contained four (4)lots and a single access
easement from Colonel Glenn Road where the current proposal included only
three (3)lots.
Staff stated there were items,which needed to be shown on the proposed
preliminary plat (building setback lines,water and wastewater supply and
disposal,zoning of abutting properties).Staff also stated the Water Department
should be contacted regarding their comments.
3
f
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 4 Cont.F ILE NO.:S-943-A
Public Works comments were addressed in detail noting the road widening of
Colonel Glenn Road adjacent to the applicant's property.There being no
additional issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The proposal includes the
proposed source of water (Central Arkansas Water),the means of wastewater
disposal (Little Rock Wastewater Utility),the minimum lot size and the average
lot size and the front yard building setback shown on the plat.The proposal
includes three lots with an average size of 1.40 acres.The lots are currently
zoned C-3,General Commercial and the applicant has indicated a 35-foot platted
building line adjacent to Colonel Glenn Road.
The lots will be accessed by a private 60-foot right-of-way and 36-foot of
pavement private roadway.Lots 1 and 3 are adjacent to Colonel Glenn and will
have no access to Colonel Glenn Road.The proposed plat should show a 10-
foot platted no access easement along Colonel Glenn for these two lots.
Lot 2 is located at the rear of the site and has some terrain problems on the north
and west sides of the lot.Central Arkansas Water also owns property located to
the north of the site where a water tower is located.It is important the applicant
note the comment from Central Arkansas Water with regard to blocking of the
natural drainage way across the site.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed preliminary plat complies with the
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Staff is supportive of
the proposed request.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat for Boen Subdivision
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E,F and H of
this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.Staff presented the item with a positive recommendation subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the Staff report,
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISIGN
ITEM NG.:4 Cont.FILE NG.;S-943-A
The~e was no further discussion.Tlhe item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 eyes,fI noes and
0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO S-1352
NAME:Whitfield Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Asher Avenue at Whiffield Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Al Hougland McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
1100 Brockington Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Sherwood,AR 72120 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:10.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3 and MF-12
PLANNING DISTRICT:10 —Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2002,Public Works received a complaint that a number of large trees had beencutandfillhadbeenplacedatthesubjectproperty.Upon investigation,it was foundthatJCI,the owner of the property,was conducting the clearing and filling activities.
Public Works'nvestigation further revealed that JCI was the general contractor for the
ongoing Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department project to improve and
widen Asher Avenue.According to JCI personnel,the company purchased the propertytostoreequipmentandplaceexcavatedmaterialfromtheprojectandplannedtosell itatcompletionoftheproject.JCI was given a notice for violating Section 29-186 (b)oftheLittleRockcodeforclearingoralteringlandwithouttherequiredpermitsandorderedtoremovethefillmaterialanddiscontinueworkuntildevelopmentplanshadbeensubmittedandapproved.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
JCI requested a grading permit to continue operations and it was denied because no
apparent construction was imminent.JCI was also issued a citation and stop work
order.
The case was heard in Environmental Court on July 25,2002.JCI pled guilty and
agreed to submit a plan of development to the Commission no later than August 12,
2002 and appeal grading permit denial.The agreement further provided JCI would
begin cleanup activities at the site.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a restoration plan and preliminary plat as the
development plan.The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into a two lot
subdivision.One of the lots will contain 4.08 acres and is zoned C-3 and the
other lot will contain 6.09 acres and is zoned MF-12.The applicant has
indicated his restoration plan will include Bermuda grass sown over the entire
site with 43 water oak trees (2 —2.5 inch caliper,10 —12 feet tall planted around
the exterior of the property.The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain
along the southeastern part of the site.
The issues before the Planning Commission;whether JCI's plan (s)should be
approved and a grading permit issued based on the preliminary plat or should the
applicant also submit the proposed commercial and multi-family site plan or
should the applicant even be allowed a grading permit and should the preliminary
plat filed be approved for the subdivision of the site into two parcels.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a vacant cleared site with a large amount of spoil from the
Asher Avenue widening project being dumped on the southern portion of the site.
Prior to the clearing of the site,the site once contained a grassed meadow with a
creek flowing north to south that was lined by mature hardwood trees.
The site gently slopes from north to south (40"Street to Asher Avenue).There
are a few trees remaining on the northern portion of the site near West 40'"
Street.Whiffield Street is an unimproved roadway which dead ends prior to
reaching Asher Avenue.The City is currently widening West 40'"Street as a part
of a Community Development Block Grant Project.
Other uses in the area include single-family to the north and east,a vacant
MF-12 zoned site to the west bordering single-family further to the west and
various non-residential uses to the south along Asher Avenue.The Borden
Plant,now Oxford Printing is located adjacent to Asher on the western boundary
of the site and a Hometown Grocery Store is located adjacent to Whitfield Street
to the east.The Criminal Institute is located across Asher Avenue to the south.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from interested persons
stating objection to the proposed development.The John Barrow,the Westwood
and the Campus Place Neighborhood Associations and all property owners
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Whitfield Street and 40'"Street would be classified under this proposal on
the Master Street Plan as a commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Whiffield and West40'"and Whitfield and Asher.
3.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.Where Whiffield has not been
constructed,pave to 2-lane width of 22'.
4.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic
Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Easements for
proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.Property depth is not great enough to have two driveways and meet
driveway spacing requirement.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located on the site.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this
development.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be
required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the
Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO.'-1352
~pire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on bus route ¹14and has not effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
~Plannin Division:No comment.
~hendeca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application.Staff presented the item and stated they needed
guidance from the Committee.Staff stated the applicant was currently under
enforcement for clearing a site without a land alteration permit.Staff stated the
ordinance requires the applicant to submit a development plan but does not
outline what a development plan is to contain.Staff stated the ordinance
indicates two ways of appeal;one a grading permit and the second an appeal of
the grading permit being denied.
Staff stated the applicant had filed three applications.One was for a preliminary
plat to subdivide the site into two lots and the other two consisted of a site plan
review for Lot 1 a commercially zoned site,and a site plan review for Lot 2,a
multi-family zoned site.Staff questioned if the two site plan reviews were
necessary.
After a discussion,the Committee determined the proposed plat did meet the
intent of a development plan and the other two applications were not required
unless the applicant did have intentions of developing the site,as submitted.Mr.
McGetrick stated he would contact the owner and see if he wanted to proceed
with the site plan review applications.
Staff stated the additional information required for each item had been provided.
Staff stated if there were any questions,to please contact staff for specific
guidance.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
H.ANALYSIS:
Preliminary Plat:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated the
proposed source of the water supplier,the means of wastewater disposal and the
names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed preliminary
plat conforms to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.The
platting along the zoning lines make logical sense for a future development
pattern for the site.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed plat should
have no adverse impact on the area,if platted as proposed.
Land Alteration Restoration Plan:
JCI submitted plans for an apartment complex on the northern half of the
property and an unidentified commercial development on the southern half.At
the subdivision subcommittee meeting,the applicant's engineer advised that
construction of neither project would likely be forthcoming.He was advised to
submit a restoration plan instead.
The submitted restoration plan shows bermuda grass sowed over the entire site
with 43 water oak trees (2-2.5 in caliper,10-12 ft tall)planted around the exterior
of the property.The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain along the
southeastern part of the site.
Public Works has consistently taken the position that the site should be restored
as required by the ordinance.
The issue before the Planning Commission is whether JCI's plan(s)should be
approved and a grading permit issued.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report,
Staff recommends denial of the restoration plan.
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
applicant.The applicant was also present.There were numerous objectors present.
Staff introduced the item and stated there were several issues before the Commission.
Staff stated a preliminary plat had been filed as a restoration plan.Staff questioned if
the plat would suffice as a restoration plan.Another issue was should JCI be issued a
grading permit based on the preliminary plat and the two (2)site plans submitted,which
the applicant had not intentions of constructing.Staff stated they felt the restoration
plan should include landscaping.
Commissioner Faust stated the subdivision Committee members had reviewed the
issues and felt that a restoration plan was more in order than an inventive development
plan.
Dottie Funk spoke in opposition of the development.She stated the land alteration task
force was appointed four (4)years ago and two (2)years ago the ordinances were put
in place.Ms.Funk stated her request was for the Commission to honor the ordinances.
She stated as far as the litigation,since the site was cleared,instead of punishment a
compromise would be more trees or more landscaping on the site.She stated the
applicant should give 50%more than was required by the ordinance.
Ms.Carolyn Hitman spoke in opposition of the proposals.She stated she was the
secretary of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Association had met
with the developer.She stated the clearing of the site had resulted in the loss of a bird
sanctuary and a buffer.She stated a majority of the trees were located on the south
side of the property near the Borden Dairy property.She stated the neighborhood
would like the application deferred until the developer could work with the neighborhood
to develop a restoration plan.
Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the development.He stated he would like to see
the site restored as required by the ordinance.
Mr.Pat McGetrick spoke on behalf of the applicant.He stated the restoration plan
would include leveling the site,adding 2 inches of top soil and place 45 to 50 trees of
2 inch caliper or greater on the site.He stated the applicant would work with the
neighborhood and staff with regard to placement on the site of the trees.
Commissioner Rector questioned what the ordinance required.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the restoration was to be
made as practicable as possible.He stated staff did not recommend approval of the
invented development plans.
6
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
Commissioner Allen questioned 50 trees.He stated if the 50 trees were not enough
then what.
Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Commission was to determine what
was enough.
Mr.Lawson stated at some point in the future the site would develop.He stated it was
important to not place the trees in areas,which would once again be removed.
Commissioner Faust asked if anyone knew how many trees were on the site prior to the
removal.Mr.McGetrick stated the exact number of trees was unknown.
Commissioner Faust stated the application before the Commission was not a
restoration plan.She stated the applicant should bring back a true restoration plan and
not a plat for the site,which was not reflective of the restoration plan.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the restoration plan and what the plan
should include and the punishment the applicant should received for the violation of the
ordinance.
Mr.Lawson stated the Planning Commission should see a plan on paper prior to a vote.
Commissioner Lowery stated he strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the City
Beautiful Commission and seek their participation.
There was a motion to withdraw the building site plans and the plat and submit a
restoration plan in their place.The restoration plan would be heard at the October 31,
2002 Public Hearing.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
7
September 19,2002
ITEM NO 6 FILE NO.:S-1352-A
NAME:Whiffield Addition (Lot 1)Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Asher Avenue at Whitfield Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Al Hougland McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
1100 Brockington Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Sherwood,AR 72120 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT:10 —Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the October 31,2002
Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr,Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had requested
the item be deferred to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing to determine the outcome
of the preliminary plat/restoration plan,which was filed as a separate item on the
agenda,Item ¹5(S-1352).Staff stated if the Commission accepted item ¹5as the
development plan/restoration plan the applicant would then withdraw this request.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.;S-1352-A
There was no further discussion.The Chairman placed the item on the Consent
Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
After subsequent discussion of Item ¹5(S-1352)the applicant requested this item be
withdrawn.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.'-1352-B
NAME:Whiffield Addition (Lot 2)Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Asher Avenue at Whiffield Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Al Hougland McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
1100 Brockington Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Sherwood,AR 72120 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:6.19 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-12,Multi-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:10 —Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the October 31,2002
Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were objectors present,Staff stated the applicant had requested
the item be deferred to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing to determine the outcome
of the preliminary plat/restoration plan,which was filed as a separate item on the
agenda,Item ¹5(S-1352).Staff stated if the Commission accepted Item ¹5as the
development plan/restoration plan the applicant would then withdraw this request.
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352-B
There was no further discussion.The Chairman placed the item on the Consent
Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
After subsequent discussion of Item ¹5(S-1352)the applicant requested this item be
withdrawn.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
NAME:Rush Engine Revised PCD
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Asher Avenue and Elm Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Bill Rush Garver Engineers
4100 Asher Avenue 1010 Battery Street
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72204
AREA:3Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Mixture of Commercial and Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mixture of Commercial and Industrial and the Addition of Motorcycle
Sales and Display and Outdoor Storage
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 6,1995 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.14,925 which rezoned
this property from C-3 to PCD for a mixed commercial/industrial development.The
applicant later applied for a revision to the PCD which was approved by Ordinance No.
18,178 on January 4,2000 which subdivided the site into two lots and added a new
commercial building on the site and an expansion to the Rush Engine Building.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
The new building was proposed to be 7000 square feet in area and used for auto part
sales.The building was to be located at the southeast corner of the property on the
newly created Lot 1.Rush Engine proposed an addition (14,600 square feet)to their
existing facility (currently 24,760).The development was to share a cross access
easement along the common lot lines.
The site contained a third building located on the southwest corner of the site in which
C-3 permitted uses were requested and approved.
The applicant proposed the following hours of operation for the three (3)buildings:
Rush Engine -8:00 am —5:00 pm,Monday —Friday
Commercial Building (southwest corner of the property)
—10:00 am —7:00 pm,Tuesday —Saturday
Advanced Auto Parts —8:00 am —9:00 pm,Daily
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved site plan to include
the addition of motorcycle sales and display and an area to be dedicated to outside
storage.The applicant is now displaying motorcycles outside the building along
the building frontage and adjacent to Asher Avenue.The applicant has also added
signage advertising the motorcycles,which was not approved as a part of the
previous PCD.Located on the east property line,in the area labeled for future
expansion on the attached site plan,the applicant has engine blocks stored along
with several other items (old automobiles,boats,lighting)also not approved on the
previous site plan.There is a six-foot chain link fence with razor wire along the
east property line (Elm Street)and along the front of the storage area.A six-foot
wood fence is along the rear of the property line the entirety of the site adjacent to
the single-family.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted,there are three (3)existing commercial buildings on the site.A 24,760
square foot building is located within the north one-half of the property,with an
1810 square foot building near the southwest corner of the site being operated as
a restaurant.Advanced Auto Part has constructed a new facility located on the
southeast corner of the site.The site is concrete or paved from property line to
property line.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the east and west along the north side
of Asher Avenue and to the south across Asher Avenue.There is a church
across Lewis Street to the west,with single-family residences further west.
There are also single-family residences and a church to the north and east
2
September 1LF,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
across Elm Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The Love and Midway Neighborhood Associations,all property owners within
200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of
the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903
for additional details.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:No objection.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for additional details at 918-3752.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹14and ¹16and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~Plannin Division:This reauest is located in the 1-630 Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for the site.The applicant has applied for
a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development to allow additional
C-3 uses (motorcycle sales and display)and outside storage on the site.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Oak Forest Neighborhood Action Plan.The Economic
Development goal of creating a healthy economic climate in the neighborhood
with the objective of strengthening neighborhood commercial locations is
supported by an action statement calling for the promotion of Asher Avenue
as a commercial and service oriented corridor.
~Lendsce e:No comment.
~Bcitdtn Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item indicating there were
items now present on the site which were not a part of the previous approval.
Staff stated the applicant had begun the sale of motorcycles and displaying them
outside adjacent to Asher Avenue and the applicant was also storing items (old
automobiles,engine blocks)on the site in areas,which were not previously
approved.Staff stated they would contact the applicant to address concerns
with regard to the site plan.
H.ANALYSIS:
There are two issues associated with the proposed revision to the existing PCD
for Rush Engine.One is the sale of motorcycles and the outdoor display.The
second is the storage of excess inventory on the site.Staff is supportive of the
addition of the sale of motorcycles to the site.Staff feels there should not be any
additional signage added to the site and any additional signage to advertise the
sale of the motorcycles should be added to the exiting signage.Staff also feels
the display of the motorcycles adjacent to Asher Avenue should not be permitted.
The applicant may however,display the motorcycles in close proximity to the
building in the parking lot area.
The second issue is the use of the future expansion area as outdoor storage.
Staff feels this is not an appropriate use of the site.The storage area contains
an excessive number of engine blocks along with old automobiles,boats and an
array of other items,which is an neye sore"to the neighborhood.There are
single family homes to the north of the site and churches and non-residential
uses located east and west of the site.The applicant has installed a wood fence
along the north property line (the rear)to screen the single family structures but
along Elm Street and Lewis Street and the front adjoining the parking lot,the
fence is a chain link fence which offers no screening.
In summary,Staff recommends the applicant be allowed the sale of motorcycles
with any signage advertising the sales be added to the existing signage of the
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
site.Staff also recommends the outside display of the motorcycles be allowed
but not adjacent to Asher Avenue.The outside display should be located in an
area in close proximity to the building.Staff recommends the outside storage of
excess inventory (old automobiles,boats,engine blocks,and the array of other
items)be removed immediately from the site.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested revision to the existing Planned
Commercial Development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Bill Rush was present representing the application.There were objectors present.
Staff introduced the item stating the item was an enforcement issue.Staff stated there
were two requests as a part of the application.One was to allow the sales of
motorcycles and the outdoor display of motorcycles,and to allow additional signage to
advertise the product.The second was to allow outdoor storage of inventory,engine
blocks.
Staff stated there were supportive of the request related to the motorcycle sales but not
to add any additional signage only to allow advertising on the existing sign area but
were not supportive of the request to add the additional storage of excess inventory to
the site.
Robert James of the Lewis Street Church of Christ spoke in opposition to the
application.Mr.James stated the membership of the church was 600+on Sunday and
300+on Wednesday evenings.He stated he was working with a group of
businesspersons to beautify the Asher Avenue Corridor.He stated what Mr.Rush was
doing was degrading to the area.He questioned how the group could clean Asher
Avenue when the outdoor storage was allowed.He stated Mr.Rush should be required
to install a wooden fence to screen the area.
Mr.Derek Moore spoke in opposition of the project.He stated the Commission should
vote against the additional storage and vote to clean up or screen the area.
Chairman Lowery questioned the opponents to their position of allowing the motorcycle
sales.Mr.Moore stated the addition of motorcycle sales would add to the loudness and
would also result in patrons working on the motorcycles in the parking lot,
Reverend James stated the church had supported the addition of the auto parts store if
there would not be any outside working on cars.He stated this had not been the case.
He stated customers were constantly changing batteries,lights,etc.in the parking area.
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
Mr.Bill Rush spoke on behalf of the application.He stated he was not asking for
additional storage only that the business be able to keep the existing storage.He
stated his company was an industry that was going under tremendous changes as was
the automobile manufacturing industry.He stated one of the results of the change was
the additional of motorcycle sales to the business.He stated in January of this year his
company had moved their entire operation to the Asher Avenue site.He stated he
agreed the outdoor storage was unsightly at best.He requested the Commission assist
him with a solution for the addition of the storage of raw materials on the site,which was
a vital part of the business.He stated he was very supportive of the Asher Avenue
Redevelopment Corridor Committee and their efforts.He stated he would assist the
City in anyway possible but the raw materials were vital in the business since the
business was in business to repair engines.He stated occasionally a customer would
not retrieve their automobile after the work had been completed.He stated there was a
time period the business had to retain the customer's automobile before it could be
disposed of to collect the repair fees.
Commissioner Nunnley stated the current zoning of the site was PCD,which was a
result of compromise.He stated a Planned Development allowed something to go into
an area that normally would not go into an area.He stated if Mr.Rush had requested
these uses originally then his business would not have been allowed to go on this site.
He questioned if Mr.Rush's business had reached a point that he should consider
moving the business to a new location more suitable for the requested uses,He stated
his original request did not allow service,which Mr.Rush had indicated he was shifting
to,and one of the selling points of moving into the current site was that all the business
would be conducted indoors.
Mr.Rush stated the business did not work on autos on a daily basis.He stated the
property was for sale and the business was looking to move to a new location.He
stated he could move the major in fractions in a few months.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned how long it would take to construct a wooden fence
to screen the area.Mr.Rush stated the addition of a wooden fence would invite an
element of crime.He stated a wooden fence would only invite crime on the site since
the site would no longer be visible from the street.
Commissioner Floyd stated Mr.Rush should build the "future area expansion"and put
the inventory inside.
There was a general discussion concerning the status of the enforcement action.
Commissioner Mazan made a motion to approve the application as filed.There was a
second.
The vote failed 0 ayes,10 noes and 1 absent.
6
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4452-C
Commissioner Rector made a motion to allow the addition of motorcycle sales to the
site.The outdoor display was to be adjacent to the building in the parking stalls,not
stacked,and as many as the applicant could place in this area,not including the
handicap stalls.There was a second.
The motion passed 7 ayes,3 noes and 1 absent.
7
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-5139-B
NAME:Harvest Foods Revised PCD
LOCATION:Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop
DEVELOPER;ENGINEER:
Vogel Enterprises The Mehlburger Firm
11219 Financial Centre Parkway 201 South Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:5.994 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Food Store
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3,General Commercial Uses
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site contains a single story 47,675 square foot commercial building and 157 parking
spaces.The site is an existing developed site,which met the intent of the Highway 10
Design Overlay District some years ago when developed.
Ordinance No.15,718 dated August 1,1989 rezoned the site from R-2,Single-family to
PCD to allow Safeway to open a grocery store on the site.The site operated as a
grocery store until Affiliated Foods "down-sized"their operation closing several stores in
the central Arkansas area.The site has been vacant since that time.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5139-B
Certain criteria were placed on the development as conditions of approval.Those
included:truck deliveries were to be coordinated from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm seven (7)
days per week,all trash compacting was to be done inside the store,the dumpster pick-
ups were to be made between 7:30 am and 9:30 am Monday through Saturday and the
dumpster was to be located in a fenced area,there was to be nothing stored outside of
the building and the parking area clean-up was to be conducted during regular business
hours.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to add selected C-3,General Commercial uses to be
allowed as alternative uses for this existing site.The uses the applicant has
indicated as uses for consideration are Bank or savings and loan office,book and
stationary store,church,cigar/tobacco and candy store,clinic,clothing store,
custom sewing and millinery,drugstore or pharmacy,duplication shop,eating
place without drive-in service,florist shop,food store,furniture store,
handicraft/ceramic sculpture or similar artwork,hardware or sporting goods,
health studio or spa,hobby shop,jewelry store,lawn and garden center—
enclosed,office (general and professional),office/showroom with warehouse
(with retail sales),office equipment sales and service,optical shop,paint and
wallpaper store,pet shop.The applicant desires that these uses listed as well
as any combination of these uses be allowed if one tenant cannot occupy the
entire space.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-story vacant commercial building.The parking area is
in tact with minimum chipping.Ingress and egress to the site are provided in
two key locations.The site has access to Highway 10 near the west property line
and to Taylor Loop Road via a stub-out extending east to the roadway.Adjacent
to the site on a separate lot there is a vacant structure,formerly a framing studio,
which is set to be removed and a bank constructed on the site in the near future.
Uses adjacent to the site along Taylor Loop include single-family residences,
office uses and a beauty shop.
Uses along Highway 10 include a mixture of office and commercial uses.
Directly across from the site are both occupied and vacant abandoned single-
family structures.South of the site is the Westchester Subdivision and west of
the site vacant R-2 zoned property which is shown as Transition on the Future
Land Use Plan.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5139-B
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association,the Charleston
Heights/Rahling Road Neighborhood Association and the Westbury
Neighborhood Association,all property owners within 200-feet of the site as well
as all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~Fire De altment:App oved as submitted.
CountOPlanninq:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:The request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for the site.The applicant
has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development to
add additional commercial uses to the site.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The Goals
and Objectives listed do not address issues relevant to this case.
~bandana e:No comment.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5139-B
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins of Mehlburger Engineering was present representing the
application.Staff stated the site was a Planned Development approved for a
grocery store only.Staff stated the applicant was requesting selected C-3,
General Commercial uses as alternative uses for the site.Staff stated there
were certain conditions placed on the site when originally approved with regard
to site management.Staff stated as a part of their recommendation these
conditions would continue to apply.
Staff also stated the existing site did not meet the landscaping which was
previously approved.The applicant indicated the landscaping would be "brought-
up"to compliance with the original approved PCD.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant indicated he would comply with the items requested at the
Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated there will be no
additional ground mounted signage.Any additional building signage would
comply with Section 36-355 with regard to facade area and will be low level
lighting in intensity.
The original PCD was approved with landscaping requirements,which were in
place at the time of approval.(This is not the current landscaping requirement
and the applicant will not be required to bring the site up to current code.)There
was however a large native tree located near Highway 10,which has since died
and several plantings which have since died.The applicant will be required to
install additional landscaping in areas,which fall below the approved landscaping
requirement at the time of approval in 1989.
Additionally,as indicated in the Background Section,there were certain criteria
put in place with regard to site management.Staff recommends these conditions
be placed on this development as well.Should the site be broken into multiple
uses additional doors would be required for fire exits.Staff feels the doors
should not be any more than required by the fire marshal for safety.
The trash pick-up should be made between the hours of 7:30 am and 9:30 am
Monday —Saturday and all trash compacting is to be done inside the store.The
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5139-B
dumpster is required to be placed in a fenced area by the exiting ordinance.All
truck deliveries are to be made between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm seven
(7)days per week.Additionally,the parking area clean up is to be conducted
during regular business hours and there is to be nothing stored outside.
Staff is supportive of the request as filed.The proposed uses listed in Paragraph
A should have no adverse impact on the site.The uses listed are for the most
part neighborhood commercial uses with no outside storage allowed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the selected C-3 uses as
listed in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E,F and H of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19 2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and recommended approval
of the proposed request to allow the selected C-3 uses listed in Paragraph A of this
report as alternative uses for the site 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 for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-5654-A
NAME:Garden Ridge Revised PCD
LOCATION:11801 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
South Square LLC Bartlett &West Engineers
2851 Lakewood Village Drive 1701 Centerview,Suite 210
North Little Rock,AR 72116 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:11.17Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Home Quarters/Garden Ridge
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:The addition of a second building on the site to be used as a
restaurant.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.16,415 dated May 4,1993 established the Pilgrim Road Long-form PCD.
The proposal included the placement of a Home Quarters facility on the site with
104,000 square feet of building and 30,000 square feet of garden center.The
development also included the placement of 507 parking spaces with access provided
off both Bowman Road and Hermitage Road.Two streets were closed as a part of the
action,Alhambra Court and Pilgrim Road,both of which were streets bisecting the site.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5654-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to add a single-story 5,662 square foot restaurant
building on the site in addition to the existing tenant Garden Ridge,which
occupies 104,450 square feet of building space.The applicant proposes 491
parking spaces as a part of the development.
There is a single ground mounted sign proposed as a part of the development
located adjacent to Chenal Parkway.The sign is proposed to be a ground
mounted monument style sign and 72 square feet or a maximum of 7'-1"x 9'-10"
in area.In addition building signage will be utilized on the front and sides of the
building.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be seven days per
week,Sunday —Thursday from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm and Friday from 11:00am
to 12:00 pm.The applicant anticipates a maximum of 34 employees (not on the
same shift)with a minimum of four (4)employees on duty at a time.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single building (Garden Ridge)and an abundance of hard
surface parking.The land area has a slight elevation change from the
Hermitage/Bowman area falling to the east toward the Parkway at Autumn Road,
The area around the site is a major commercial node that has developed
intensely with a mixture of uses.There is a new restaurant under construction on
the corner adjacent to Hermitage/Autumn Road.Directly across Hermitage Road
is a office/mini-warehouse development and a strip center faces Bowman Road.
Wal-Mart and Sam's are across Bowman Road to the west of the site,
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The Birchwood and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations along with all property owners within 200-feet of the
site and all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet of the site were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5654-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required forthe project.Grease Traps are required forrestaurants.Contact
Little Rock Wastewater at 376-2903 for additional details.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Any trees should be planted a minimum of 5-feet from the water main in
Hermitage Road.
~pire De artment:Approved as submitted.
~Coun Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:The request is located in the I-430 Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows commercial for this property.The applicant has applied for
a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development to add a restaurant
building to this lot.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:ANeighborhoodAction Planis
under development.
~hendeca e:The street butler along Hermitage Road must not drop below a
width of fourteen (14)feet.Irrigation will be required to water landscaped areas.
Buildinrl Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Gregg Muller was present representing the application.Staff stated the
original proposal was for the Home Quarters,which had since vacated the site,
and the Garden Ridge Hobby Shop was now occupying the building.Staff noted
a second building was now proposed for the site;a restaurant.Staff stated
wastewater had noted a grease trap would be required for the development.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5654-A
Staff also noted there were additional questions,which needed to be answered
for the development (outdoor seating,outdoor music,drive-thru window),etc.
Staff also noted only one ground mounted sign would be supported by Staff.
Landscaping comments were addressed along with the comment from the Water
Department.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there
would be limited outdoor dining.The applicant has also indicated there will not
be a drive-thru window as a part of the development.The dumpster has been
shown behind the building,adjacent to Hermitage Road,with the required
screening (three sides with an opaque screen at least two (2)feet above the top
of the dumpster).
The applicant has also indicated one monument style ground mounted sign.The
applicant has indicted the size to be 72 square feet in area or 7'1"by 9'10".The
sign area is consistent with the Chenal Design Overlay District requirement.
The applicant is proposing the addition of a restaurant building on an existing
site.The applicant has indicated the proposed building will be 5662 square feet
in area.The applicant has indicated 57 parking spaces will be designated for the
restaurant use.Typical parking requirements for a restaurant of this size would
be 56 spaces or 1 space per 100 square foot of gross leaseable floor area.
The applicant has indicated the street buffer along Hermitage Road will be
maintained at a minimum of 14-feet and irrigation will be installed to water
landscaped areas.
Staff is supportive of the application.The proposed development,a restaurant,
should have minimal to no adverse impact on the area.The area is developed
primarily as non-residential uses and the addition of an additional non-residential
use should go unnoticed.The proposed development has sufficient parking for
both businesses.The applicant is proposing days and hours of operation to be
consistent with the area businesses (seven days per week,Sunday —Thursday
from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm and Friday from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm),The
applicant anticipates a maximum of 34 employees (not on the same shift)with a
minimum of four (4)employees on duty at a time.The applicant is not proposing
any additional curb-cuts to Hermitage Road and the applicant has indicated
required landscaping will be installed.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5654-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request for Garden Ridge Revised
PCD subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F
of the Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Gregg Muller was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item was a positive recommendation.Staff stated the
proposed revision was to an existing PCD and was to allow a restaurant building to
locate on the site.Staff stated they were supportive of the modification 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 for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO '-6051-H
NAME:Centre at Chenal Revised POD
LOCATION:11801 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Hank Kelley White-Daters and Associates
Flake and Kelley Management ¹24Rahling Circle
P.O.Box 990 Little Rock,AR 72223
Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:11.0Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:Various retail and office at a mix of 75'/o retail.
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised POD
PROPOSED USE:Various retail and office at a mix of 80'/o retail.
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The tract was preliminary platted on July 18,1996 along with lots east and south.One
lot out of the plat and a segment of street was final platted for a post office.The lots
were platted for office uses and zoned office in accordance with the land use plan.
Ordinance No.17,623 dated December 2,1997 rezoned the site from 0-2 to POD and
established Arkansas Systems Long-form POD.The site was planned as a mixed office
and retail development at 75'/o retail and 25'/o office.The buildings fronting the
Parkway were to be marketed to office uses and the retail uses were to be located in
the buildings facing the north and east of the development.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6051-H
The applicant indicated the purpose of the development was to provide services to the
surrounding neighborhoods.The applicant was granted specific office and commercial
uses as follows:antique shop,beauty shop or barber,cigar (tobacco shop),clothing
store,florist shop,dry cleaners pickup station,copy center,physical therapy clinic,car
shop,restaurant (non drive through),art/music/speech/drama studio,bakery,book or
stationary store,card store,drug store,hobby shop,art gallery,real estate/insurance,
travel agency,gift shop,bank,camera shop,medical clinic,duplication shop,jewelry
store,photography studio,catering (for commercial purposes)optical shop along with
0-2 District uses eliminating a lodge,mortuary or funeral home and nursing home or
convalescent home.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the Planned Development to allow additional
office and commercial uses to locate on the site,to not have a requirement of
placement of office uses facing the Parkway (Building A)and to revise the
percent mix requirement.The original approval included a 75%retail and 25%
office mix on the site.The applicant is now requesting an 80%retail and 20%
office use mix.
In the original POD,Building A was to be marketed to a specified list of uses
which were primarily office uses.The applicant now wishes this requirement be
eliminated and to be given the flexibility to place tenants at will within the
development.
The applicant has requested the following office and commercial uses be
considered as allowable uses for the site regardless of building location:antique
shop (with repair),bakery or confectionary shop,bank or savings and loan office,
barber or beauty shop,beverage shop,book or stationery store,butcher
shop/meat market,camera shop,catering commercial,cigar/tobacco and candy
store,clinic (medical,dental or optical),clothing store,college,university or
seminary,commercial catering,community welfare or health center,consignment
or 2"'and store,custom sewing or millinery,drugstore or pharmacy,dry
cleaning drop station,duplication shop,establishment for a religious,charitable
or philanthropic organization,florist shop,furniture store,handicraft,ceramic
sculpture,printing or blueprinting,hardware or sporting goods store,health studio
spa,hobby shop,jewelry store,laboratory,laundry mat and pickup,library,art
gallery museum or similar public use,lodge or fraternal organization,medical
appliance fittings and sales,office (general or professional)office equipment
sales and service,optical shop,paint and wallpaper store,pet shop,photography
studio,restaurant without drive-in but with a possible lounge as a part of the
restaurant,school (business),school (public or denominational),shoe repair,
studio broadcasting or recording,studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance or
other artistic endeavors),tailor,travel bureau,video rental store (excluding adult
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:2-6051-H
entertainment),window blind or interior decorator shop.
The applicant has indicated there are four building sections to the development
containing 50,662 square feet.Section A contains 15,768 square feet,Section
B-1 contains 17,298 square feet,Section B-2 contains 15,543 square feet and
Section B-3 contains 12,053 square feet.There are 217 parking spaces within
the development and the site has a cross access and parking agreement with the
Euronet Building to the north.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a developed office/commercial strip center with the majority of the
bays occupied.The area to the east is developed as office uses including a bank
on 0-2 property and a PD-0 for the Post Office.There is also a daycare center,
Kidco,further to the east behind the Post Office.Northeast of the site is a large
office building housing ARSYS.Directly north of the site is the Euronet Building
an office use as well.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
The St.Charles and Parkway Place Neighborhood Associations,all residents
within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified,and all property owners within
200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.Grease Trap are required
for food preparation facilities.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 376-2903 for
additional details.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6051-H
~Fire Ce artment:Approved as submitted.
~Count Piann n:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:The request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows office for the site.The applicant has applied for a
revision of an existing Planned Office Development to add additional uses 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.
~Landsca e:No comment.
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Hank Kelly and Mr.Michael Mitcham were present representing the
application.Staff presented the issue stating the applicant was requesting a
revision to a previously approved POD to allow additional uses on the site and to
not limit the retail uses away from the Parkway.Staff stated there were
additional questions,which needed to be addressed with the regard to an
outdoor deck,which had been mentioned but not indicated on the site plan.Staff
also questioned if the deck would involve any outdoor music or entertainment.
Staff noted the comment from the Wastewater Department regarding the addition
of grease traps for food preparation uses.
After the discussion,it was determined there were no additional issues for
discussion and the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter indicating the additional items
requested by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
the proposed deck addition will not be covered at this time but he would like the
flexibility to cover the deck with a canopy at some point in the future.The only
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6051-H
flexibility to cover the deck with a canopy at some point in the future.The only
music,which will be offered on the deck will be piped mood music and no
outdoor live entertainment.The proposed deck will occupy one parking space of
the existing development.A fence will be added to allow access control to the
deck but will be constructed of an ornamental wrought iron.The deck should
have no adverse impact on the development since the development has
sufficient parking and a cross access easement for additional parking with the
office building to the north.
The applicant proposes additional uses to the site.The applicant has requested
the use of the site for a lodge or a school.The applicant has indicated these
uses would be self policing and Staff is somewhat agreeable.The applicant is
requesting the use of the site for a school such as a satellite campus.Staff feels
the current parking situation would regulate the usage of the site and is
agreeable with the alternative uses listed for the development.
The applicant has also requested the percentage mix of the development to be
changed from a 75%commercial 25%office to a 80%commercial 20%office.
The applicant is also requesting the retail uses be allowable in Building A,the
building facing the Parkway.Staff is also agreeable to this request.The size of
the development and the available square footage in Building A should not have
a adverse impact on the area even if the Building were to develop totally as retail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request to allow the development to
develop at an 80%commercial and 20%office use mix with no regard to building
placement.Staff recommends approval of the requested uses listed in
Paragraph A as alternative uses for the development subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19 2002)
Mr.Hank Kelly and Mr.Michael Mitcham were present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a positive
recommendation to allow uses listed in Paragraph A,of this report,as alternative uses
for the development subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
Staff also recommended approval of the proposed request to allow the development to
develop at an 80%commercial and 20%office use mix with no regard to building
placement.
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6051-H
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
6
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-6232-D
NAME:The Villages at Rahling Road (Lot 10A)Revised PCD
LOCATION:Rahling Circle
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates¹7Chenal Circle ¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.53 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:C-2 Permitted uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5,1997,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,542 which
established The Village at Rahling Road PCD.The PCD established a 14 lot
development with C-2 uses being permitted.The initial action approved a site plan for
Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots
would be brought to the Commission on an individual basis as a particular development
was proposed.Subsequent actions have been approved to allow three small buildings
on the properties immediately west of the site.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO Z-6232-D
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the PCD to allow the construction of a
6960 square foot office building on unrecorded Lot 10A.The applicant has
indicated the site will be used as a medical office type use.The applicant
proposes the placement of 20 parking spaces in the rear of the building to be
accessed by a shared 30-foot Public Access Easement located on the north
property line as are the existing buildings in the area.The applicant proposes
the placement of the building at a 12-foot building line and has indicated the
building height will not exceed 35-feet.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am
to 9:00 pm six (6)days per week.The applicant has also indicated signage will
comply with city ordinance standard for office zones (not to exceed six (6)feet in
height and 64 square feet in area)and the architectural design elements of "The
Village of Rahling Road".
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is cleared flat site with street improvements in place.The property was
cleared and graded with initial development of the PCD.Access to the lot is via
Rahling Circle,off of Rahling Road.The 0-2 and PCD zoned properties
immediately south and east of the site are undeveloped.A similar office building
is located adjacent to the west.The larger buildings of the multiuse PCD are
located north of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All owners within 200 feet of the site and residents within 300 feet,who could be
identified,were notified of the Public Hearing.There is no City recognized
neighborhood association within the vicinity of the site.As of this writing staff has
received one informational phone call concerning the development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP &L:No comment received.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6232-D
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Water service is available.Developer must extend water service to back
of sidewalk.For a dental office,installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly will be required on the domestic water
service.
~Fire De artmenb Approved as submitted.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
E.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptannrn Division:This request s located in the Chanel planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant has
applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development.
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:A portion of the proposed landscape strip south of the proposed
parking lot drops below the minimum 6.7-foot width required by the
Landscape Ordinance.A water source within seventy-five (75)feet of all
landscaped areas will be required.
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff stated the PCD was an overall development plan for the
Villages at Rahling Road knowing that as each lot developed the PCD would be
required to be revised.Staff stated the current proposal was for a dentist office
on an unrecorded lot in the subdivision.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to indicate the number of doctors
and the number of employees on the site plan.Staff also stated any additional
site lighting must be low level and directed away from residentially zoned
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-6232-D
property.
Comments from the Water Department were noted and the Landscaping
comments were briefly discussed.Staff stated any variance from the Landscape
Ordinance would require City Beautiful Commission approval.
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
there will be two (2)doctors serving the facility.Typically this would require 12
parking spaces and the applicant has indicated there will be 20 on-site parking
spaces.In addition,there is a large parking area across the street should
parking ever become an issue for the site.The applicant has also indicated a 10-
foot landscaping strip along the southern perimeter adjacent to the property line
and the parking lot.
The applicant has indicated water will be extended to the site by the developer as
required by Central Arkansas Water.The applicant has indicated the site will
utilize city service for garbage collection and there will not be a dumpster located
on the site.
Staff is supportive of the request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow
a dentist office to be located on proposed Lot 10A.The area is developing as
non-residential neighborhood commercial and office type uses.The applicant
has indicated signage and lighting will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the
Chenal Design criteria.The applicant has indicated Lot 10A will be final platted
prior to development.The applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be
from 7:00 am to 9;00 pm six (6)days per week.The proposed use and hours of
operation is consistent with the development pattern in the area and should have
no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the PCD to allow Lot 10A
to develop with an office building subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of the Staff Report.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:2-6232-D
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented the proposed development with a
positive recommendation 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 for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-7256-A
NAME:Kincaid's Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:Northwest Corner of Kavanaugh Boulevard and Midland Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Johnny Kincaid White-Daters and Associates
100 Morgan Keegan Drive ¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.28 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family District
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The existing site is approximately 70-feet wide by 165-feet deep.The site
contains a single-family residence facing Hill Road and is the rear yard and
vacant to Kavanaugh Boulevard.The applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into
two single-family lots to allow the development of a second single-family
residence on the site facing Kavanaugh Boulevard.The northern lot would be
approximately 70 feet by 90 feet and the southern lot would be approximately
70 feet by 75 feet.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.'3 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7256-A
The northern lot will have approximately a 40-foot rear property line setback (for
the existing home).The southern lot would have a front yard setback of 10-feet,
side yard setback along Midland Street of 5-feet and a rear yard setback
(adjacent to the existing residential structure)of 5-feet.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a steep site sloping extremely from Hill Road to Kavanaugh Boulevard
and contains a single-family structure facing Hill Road.The site is grass covered
with a scattering of trees.Uses in the area include a duplex across Midland
Street and multi-family one lot removed to the west (a pair of two-story duplexes).
Across Valentine Street there is a multi-family structure containing 6 units
fronting onto Kavanaugh Boulevard.The remainder of the area appears to be
single-family.
Midland Street is an unimproved roadway with no sidewalk and open ditches for
drainage.Kavanaugh Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the road and
curb and gutter.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one informational phone call concerning the
application.The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association,all property
owners within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,
within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available not adversely affected.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Water meter serving the existing residence may need to be relocated at
developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water for additional details
at 992-2438.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7256-A
~prre Ce artment:Approved as submitted.
CountaPlanning:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on dedicated Bus Route ¹1and ¹8and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Development —Residential for residential uses.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan.The Housing goal of
establishing design guidelines for the construction of new housing in the Hillcrest
area is supported by an objective of regulating construction and redevelopment
by using Planned Unit Developments as recommended in one of the action
statements.
~Landsca e:No comment.
~Buildin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff stated wastewater had concerns with the sewer service serving
the lot adjacent to Hill Road being accessed across the lot adjacent to
Kavanaugh Boulevard.Staff stated the applicant should work with wastewater to
resolve this issue.Staff stated the only other issue was that the site plan
indicated the property would be owned under a horizontal property regime.Staff
questioned if this would be the case or if the lots would be final platted as two
separate lots.
The Committee then determined there were no further issues to discuss and the
item was then forwarded 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 reached an
agreement with the Little Rock Wastewater Utility concerning sewer line
availability and the use of an easement to service the lot facing Hill Road.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7256-A
Staff is supportive of the application.The applicant proposes to establish lot
sizes and building setbacks through the Planned Development process.
Although,the proposed lots sizes are not consistent with the minimum lot size
required for R-2 zoned property,the proposed lot sizes are similar to the lot size
in the area.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed development.The proposed development should have no adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood if developed as planned.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed rezoning.Staff presented a positive recommendation
of the PD-R 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 for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
4
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:LU02-08-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Central City Planning District
Location:2812 S.Ringo St.
~Re uest:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Clifton White
~PIannin Division:
This request is located in the Central City Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows
Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development-
Residential to convert an existing duplex into a fourplex.
Since this application is an existing structure and does not change the footprint,the
base use of the application is residential,and the structure can be converted back to its
original use,a land use plan amendment is not necessary.
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:14.1 FILE NO.:Z-7280
NAME:White Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:2812 South Ringo Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Clifton R.White Marlar Engineering Co.,Inc.
5401 Dreher Lane 5318 John F.Kennedy Boulevard
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:0.32Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-4,Two-family District
ALLOWED USES:Residential —Duplex
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Fourplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the conversion of an exiting structure (a duplex)into a
fourplex.Two units currently exist on the top floor and the applicant proposes
the addition of two units on the lower level.The upper units will have access
from both the front and the rear the lower units will have access from the rear
only.
The applicant proposes the placement of four (4)parking spaces adjacent to the
south property line in the rear of the structure and to utilize the two (2)existing
single car parking pads adjacent to South Ringo Street on the north and south
property lines.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing duplex currently under rehabilitation.The structure
sits on two 50 by 100 foot lots in the area which was hard hit by the 1999
tornado.There is a duplex located on the southeast corner of West 28'"and
South Ringo Streets with the remainder of the area single-family in appearance.
Several of the units are vacant and boarded (two of the three units to the south
accessed by the alley and the units immediately to the north and south of the
site).There are two vacant lots immediately south of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Wdight Avenue,the Downtown,the MLK and the Southend Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who
could be identified,within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
As of this writing staff has not received any co'mment from the area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional water meters are needed
at 992-2438.
~Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
C~ount Piannin:No comment received
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ff2 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~ptannin Division:This request is located in the Central City planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development —Residential to convert an existing duplex
into a fourplex.Since there will be no change to the building footprint of the
structure a Land Use Plan amendment is not necessary.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the South End Area Improvement Plan.The Residential
Development goal is supported by an action statement,which recommends that
new multifamily housing design be compatible with existing patterns of massing
and setting backs characteristic of the neighborhood.
~bandana e:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum B.y-foot wide
perimeter buffer and landscape strips required along the southern and northern
perimeters required by both the Zoning and Landscape Ordinances.The existing
screening fences need to be secured in order to make them stable.
~Buttdin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.White,the applicant,was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item to the Commission indicating the intent of the development
was the conversion of an exiting duplex into a fourplex.Staff stated there were
technical issues associated with the proposed development and requested the
applicant indicate on the site plan the proposed parking space dimensions.
Landscaping issues were addressed.Staff stated the applicant should secure
the wooden fence on the north and south property lines if the fence was to be
used as screening.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant has indicated the addition of four parking spaces to the rear of the
structure.The applicant notes the parking spaces will be a minimum of nine (9)
feet in width and 20.8 feet in length.The applicant has not requested a waiver of
the hard surface parking area,which is required by ordinance.The applicant will
utilize two (2)existing spaces located adjacent to Ringo Street for the upstairs
units.The parking proposed is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO '4 1 Cont.FILE NO '-7280
requirement for a multi-family development of this size (typical six (6)spaces
required).
There is an existing six (6)foot wooden fence along the north and south property
lines.The applicant proposes the fence to act as screening for the development.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development.The site is located near the
1999 tornado area and the neighborhood is very fragile at best.The area is a
single-family neighborhood with a duplex located several homes away at the
southeast corner of 28'"and Ringo Streets.The existing single-family homes are
well kept homes but there are several boarded homes in the area.With the
conversion of this duplex into a fourplex,this could be the start of the conversion
of additional homes into multi-family units.Staff feels the current density of a
duplex is suitable to the neighborhood.The existing parking is sufficient to meet
the needs of the development with two (2)spaces adjacent to Ringo Street.With
the conversion to a fourplex,additional parking will be required,in the rear of the
structure,resulting in a hard surface parking area taking away the residential
character of the structure.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed Planned Development request to allow
a duplex to be converted into a fourplex.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had failed to notify property owners within 200-feet as required by the
Planning Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of
the request.
There was no further discussion.The Chairman placed the item on the Consent
Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
4
September 19,2002
ITEM NO:15 FILE NO 'U02-18-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:12800 Arthur Lane
~Re uest:Single Family to I ow Density Residential
Source:Richard Threadgill
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family
to Low Density Residential.Low Density Residential accommodates a broad range of
housing types including single family attached,single family detached,duplex,town
homes,multi-family and patio or garden homes.Any combination of these and
possibly other housing types may fall in this category provided that the density is
between six (6)and ten (10)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop
townhouses.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is occupied by a small house and is currently zoned R-2 Single Family
and is approximately .47+acres in size.All of the surrounding property is zoned R-2
Single Family.The land to the West,North,and East is developed with single-family
housing.The land to the south is vacant.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001 a change was made from Mixed Office Commercial,and Commercial
to Single Family in an area bounded by Bowman Rd.,Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit
Rd.,and Brodie Creek starting about 1 mile south of the applicant's property.This
change was made to revert to the previous use as the result of the revocation of a
Planned Unit Development.
On February 15,2000 a change was made from Single Family to Low Density
Residential on West Glen at Gamble about "/~mile south of the property in question.
This change was made to allow the development of town houses.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Low Density Residential,
Transition,Neighborhood Commercial,Park/Open Space,Multi-family,Mixed Office
Commercial,Office,and Suburban Office,to Single Family,Low Density Residential,
Suburban Office,Mixed Office Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,
Office,Neighborhood Commercial,and Community Shopping within a 1 mile radius of
the study area along Kanis Rd.These changes were made to recognize existing
conditions.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-04
The applicant's property as well as all of the surrounding property is south as Single
Family on the Future Land Use Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Arther Lane and Atkins Road are-residential streets.Arther Lane would need to be
widened and have curbs and gutters installed to meet the Master Street Plan
standards for a standard residential street.Atkins Road has curb and gutters on the
east side but would need a curb and gutter installed to replace the open ditch on the
west side.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 no City of Little Rock recognized historic districts 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 is supported by an objective of
encouraging lower density development in the area.Action Statements include using
multi-family housing to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and
limiting the density and square footage of multi-family developments.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a stable neighborhood of single-family
residences.Although higher density residential uses are located in the surrounding
neighborhood to the north,the applicant's property is isolated from residential uses of
higher density.Most of the trend for higher density housing is located at the northern
and southern area of the neighborhood along Minor Arterial and Collector streets.The
applicant's property is near the heart of the area shown as Single Family and is
located at the intersection of two residential streets.A change to Low Density
Residential would increase the density of residential units for a small area in the
neighborhood and introduce a land use that would be incompatible with this part of the
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-04
neighborhood.The proposed density is almost three times the density of the single
family areas to the east and north.
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 1 comment from area
residents opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Low Density Residential
would introduce an isolated incompatible use to the neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the Commission.Donna James
made a presentation of item 15.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion
for item 15.See item 15.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form
Planned Development-Residential.
Terry Haley,of 515 Trumpler Street,spoke against the application concerning density
and the proximity to his back yard.
Shirley McFarlin lives south of the application and wants a small neighborhood feel.
Mary Douglas,of Atkins Road,worked on the neighborhood action plan and does not
want the Land Use Plan amended.
Bill Gentry lives in the area and thinks that this change would have a negative effect
on the property values.
Commissioner Faust stated that she was going to vote against it and asked about the
location of windows on the sides of the units.
A motion was made to approve the application as presented and was denied with a
vote of 2 ayes,8 noes,0 absent and 1 abstention.
A motion was made to waive the filing fee for reapplication within three months and
was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:15.1 FILE NO.:Z-7281
NAME:Threadgill Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:12800 Arthur Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Richard Threadgill Donald Brooks
2303 East Grand Avenue 20880 Arch Street
Hot Springs,AR 71901 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.46Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential (6 units per acre)
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Townhouse development (17 units per acre)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:Waiver of street improvements to Arthur Lane.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of eight (8)townhouse residential units on
these three lots.There are four (4)units proposed to be located on the south
property line (to back-up to Arthur Lane)and four (4)units to be located along the
north property line.There will be a single concrete drive access point to the site
from Atkins Road entering the center of the development.
Units 2,3,6 and 7 are proposed at 1440 square feet with a 240 square foot
garage.Units 1,4,5 and 8 are proposed at 1656 square feet with a 240 square
foot garage.The applicant has indicated all units will be two-story.The units will
consist of concrete block foundation,concrete slab on the first floor,wood
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 151 Cont.FILE NO.Z-7281
framing,drywall interiors,composition shingles and brick and vinyl siding
exteriors.
The applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wood fence along the north,south
and west property lines and a wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins
Road.The development will utilize city garbage pick-up with residents taking
their trash to the street side.
The applicant has stated the units are for resale as individual homes and a
Property Owners Association will be formed for maintenance and upkeep of the
common areas.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Arthur Lane.The
applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Atkins Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three lots one of which (the southern most lot)contains a
single-family residence facing Arthur Lane.The site is zoned R-2,single-family
as is the area surrounding the site and is shown as Single Family on the Future
Land Use Plan.The area to the east is a developed single-family subdivision
(Point West Subdivision)and the area to the north and west are developed with
single-family residences.The area to the south of the site from Atkins Road to
Nix Road is vacant (with the exception of a few homes located on Atkins Road)
down to Kanis Road.
Atkins Road is a two lane roadway with curb and gutter on the east side of the
road but has no sidewalk.Arthur Lane is a narrow chip seal roadway with no
curb,gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and the Gibralter Heights/Point WestfTimber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations,all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet
of the site and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing.Staff has received several phone calls and letters in opposition to
the proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Atkins Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281
2.Arthur Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Atkins Road and
Arthur Lane.
4.Provide design of the streets conforming to eMSPe (Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Curb radius of
driveway at Atkins needs to be 10'inimum.
6.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic
Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements is service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 376-2903.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension,installed at the expense of the developer,will
be required to provide domestic service and adequate fire protection.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 expense of the
developer.An acreage charge of $600.00 per acre and a development fee
based on the size of the connection currently applies in addition to normal
charges in the area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the i ittle Rock Fire
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route /f5 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 151 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Development —Residential to build an eight (8)unit
townhouse development.A Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on
the agenda (LU02-18-04)
Ci 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 is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density
development in the area.Action Statements include using multi-family housing
to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the density
and square footage of multi-family developments.
~Landsca e:The plan submitted falls short of the required nine (9f foot wide land
use buffer along the northern and western perimeters of the site.Additionally,a
portion of the landscape strip west of the proposed paved area drops below the
6.7-foot minimum width requirement of the Landscape Ordinance.A water
source within seventy-five (75)feet of all landscaped areas will be required.The
face side of the proposed wood fence must be directed outward.
~Buildin Codes:No comment recei ed.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.Staff presented
the item to the Committee noting additions,which were needed on the site plan
(Signage,height of the wrought iron fence).Staff stated there were questions
with regard to maintenance of the development and the common areas.Staff
questioned if the units were to be sold what portion would the homeowner own;
the unit or would the land area be final platted in some configuration of lots such
as zero lot line housing.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated street improvements
would be required to both Atkins Road and Arthur Lane.Staff also stated a 20-
foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the two roadways,
Staff noted comments from the various utility companies noting a sewer main
extension would be required and a water main extension along with easements.
Staff also noted the comment from the Little Rock Fire Department and
suggested the applicant contact the Fire Department and Water Department to
determine the cost of placement of the fire hydrants.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281
There being no further issues to discuss,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
patios to be attached to each structure within the side yard setback and a six (6)
foot wood fence separating the units and acting as a screen.The applicant
proposes a six (6)foot wooden fence located along the north,south and west
property lines with a six (6)foot wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins
Road.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Arthur Lane.The
applicant has indicated the roadway is a narrow road and the residents will not
be taking access from Arthur Lane therefore the development will not increase
traffic on this roadway.The applicant has indicated street improvements will be
constructed to Atkins Road per the Master Street Plan requirements.Staff is not
supportive of the requested waiver of street improvements to Arthur Lane.Staff
feels without knowing the potential development in the area,streets should be
constructed per the Master Street Plan requirements.
The landscaping along the north and south property lines is insufficient when the
patios are added.The landscaping strip along the northern and western
perimeter should maintain a minimum of nine (9)feet in width and at no point fall
below 6.7-feet.This is a land use buffer issue and the reduction can be
approved by the Planning Commission.Staff is not supportive of the reduction of
landscaping.The site abuts single-family in each direction and the single-family
should be buffered per the Ordinance requirement.Additionally,the applicant
should consider the narrowing of the turnaround along the western driveway to
five (5)feet instead of the 7.8 feet shown.Staff recommends the applicant install
flat landscaping stones and mondo grass between the stones to allow for
additional landscaping in this area.
Staff is not supportive of the application as filed.Staff feels the proposed
development is too intense for the site and should be developed with single-family
homes.Similar developments have been approved and developed to the north of
the site,nearer West Markham Street,but were developed adjacent to multi-family
and were in areas shown on the Future Land Use Plan for more intense
developments.The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Single Family as
is the area to the south of the site.The development pattern along this section of
Atkins Road has not yet been established although,there are newer (within the last
5
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15.1 Cont.FILE NO '-7281
15 -20 years)single-family subdivisions located immediately east of the site and
immediately west of the site.As stated Staff feels the area would be better served
if the site developed as single-family homes.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested Planned Residential Development for
Threadgill Short-form PD-R.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were numerous
objectors present.The land use plan and the rezoning request were discussed
simultaneously.
Staff introduced the items with a recommendation of denial on each item.Staff stated
the density requested was too intense for the proposed site.
Mr.Terry Hailey spoke in opposition to the request.He stated he lived at 515 Trumpler
Street just west of the site.He stated the land use plan indicated single family for the
site.Mr.Hailey stated the proposed development offered a small buffer.He stated the
two-story development would impede on his existing privacy.He stated property values
in the area could be adversely affected.Mr.Hailey stated he felt the Planning
Commission should adhere to the land use and zoning plans for the area.He stated
when he purchased his home he did have these two issues in mind and did check the
zoning of surrounding properties.He stated he had made an attempt to meet with the
applicant and Mr.Threadgill was not responsive to a meeting.
Ms.Shirley McFarland spoke in opposition to the proposed development.She stated
her opposition was based on the proposed density.She stated she represented the
persons who signed the petition but were not asked to attend the meeting.
Ms.Mary Douglas spoke in opposition of the proposal.She stated her home was on
Atkins Road nearer Markham.She stated the staff analysis wording confused the
meaning of the intent of the neighborhood action plan.She stated the intent was to
encourage lower density development and not multi-family developments in the area.
She stated these developments were proposed to act as a buffer between the single
family and the non-residential developments in the area.She stated the proposed
development was mid block,surrounded by single family.She stated the Commission
should adhere to the land use plan and not place multi-family mid block.
6
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281
Bill Gentry spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated the proposal
would change in the character of the development pattern in the area.He stated the
Commission should uphold the existing land use plan for the site.
Mr.Threadgill spoke on behalf of the application.He stated there were three lots and
he proposed to combine the lots into one lot.He stated the units would be brick and
siding.He stated development would be an investment into the neighborhood,which
had been stagnate.He stated a property owners association would be formed to care
for the maintenance of the grounds and buildings.He stated the units would be for
resale and not held as rental units.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned of the orientation of the buildings could be changed
to break up the concrete areas.Mr.Threadgill stated staff was not supportive of the
request to change the orientation because of the number of curb cuts that would be
required.
Commissioner Berry questioned the street conditions in the area.Staff stated Arthur
Lane was an unimproved chip seal roadway with open ditches for drainage.Staff also
stated they did not support the waiver of street improvements.
Commissioner Berry questioned Ms.McFarland as to an appropriate number of units for
the site.She stated the site should be developed as single-family.
Commissioner Allen asked Mr.Threadgill what would happen to the units if they did not
sell.Mr.Threadgill stated the units would then be rented for approximately $800 per
month.
Commissioner Faust stated the proposal was too dense.She stated the proposal did
not feel compatible to the neighborhood.She stated buffers and screening would be a
requirement.
Mr.Threadgill stated six (6)units would be acceptable and requested to amend his
application.
Mr,Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the application would
have to be reviewed with regard to buffers,screening and setbacks.
There was a motion to approve the land use plan amendment as filed.The motion
failed by a vote of 2 ayes,8 noes and 1 absent.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to approve the application as filed.The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes,11 noes and 0 absent.
7
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15.1 Cont.FILE NO Z-7281
There was a motion to waive the filing fee for the applicant should he revise his plan
and resubmit to staff within three (3)months.The motion carried 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
8
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO 'U02-10-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District
Location:2701 -2723 Walker St.
Receuest:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Christopher Lee Griffin
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Single Family to
Multi-Family.Multi-Family accommodates residential development of ten (10)to thirty-
six (36)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop the property for an
eighteen-unit apartment complex.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately
.75+acres in size.All of the surrounding property is land zoned R-2 Single Family
developed with single-family housing.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On September 4,2001 a change was made from Park/Open Space to Multi-family at
24'"St.and Junior Deputy Rd.about 9/10 of a mile west of the area in question.This
change was made to allow for the expansion of a retirement community.
On March 6,2001 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 1911 John
Barrow Rd.about a V~mile northwest of the applicant's property.This change was
made to allow the expansion of a proposed medical office development.
On September 19,2000 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 2109
John Barrow Rd.about 1/3 of a mile northwest of the application area.This change
was made to allow the development of medical offices.
The applicant's property,as well as all of the surrounding property,is shown as Single
Family on the Future Land Use Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Walker Street north of W.28'"Street is a Residential Street with open drainage,Curbs
and gutters would need to be installed to bring Walker Street up to Standard
Residential Street standards.Both W.28'"Street and Walker Street south of W.28"
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
Street are shown as collector streets.W.28'"Street is built to standard while Walker
Street south of 28'"is not.There area no Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan
that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The applicant's property is located five block west of Boyle Park,which is shown in the
2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a large urban park of 243 acres
featuring multiple forms of active,and passive recreation facilities.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no City of Little Rock recognized historic districts that would be affected by
this amendment.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood
Area Plan.The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal of improving the
overall appearance and safety of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of
reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units,which is
supported by an action statement stating that the design of new residential units
should be compatible with existing architecture in the area.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a established residential neighborhood.The
houses to the north and east are relatively new and built on streets with curb and
gutter.The remaining houses are older and built on streets needing improvements to
conform to Master Street Plan standards.All of the combined surrounding property
firmly establishes the residential character of the neighborhood.Although the
applicant's property is located on a street corner at the intersection of two Collector
Streets,a change to Multi-family would substantially increase the density of residential
units of the neighborhood and introduce a small area that would be incompatible with
the neighborhood.Land shown as Multi-family could increase the variety of housing
types available in the neighborhood and allow for the development of more housing
units in the neighborhood at higher densities but would do at the expense of land
shown as Single Family.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Leander Neighborhood Association,Point
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
O'Woods Neighborhood Association,University Park Neighborhood Association,and
Westwood Neighborhood Association.Staff has not received any comments from
area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Multi-family would introduce
an isolated use that is incompatible with neighboring uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 31,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-
day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.That motion to waive
the bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of
11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.
3
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:16.1 FILE NO '-7282
NAME:Griffin Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:2701 —2723 Walker Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Christopher L.Griffin Marvin T.Griffin
8212 Pine Summit Court 11324 Kanis Road
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:0.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family (24 units per acre)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of 18 units of multi-family housing on
this 0.75 acre site.The site will be accessed by a single entry from Walker Street
with all the parking spaces heading into the buildings.There are 32 parking
spaces proposed as a part of the development.
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant,flat,grass covered site and the few trees,which once
occupied the site have been removed.The area is primarily developed as single-
family in all directions around the site.There is a sidewalk along West 28"Street
adjacent to the site and running west but not extending any further to the east.
West 28'"Street also has curb and gutter in place.Walker Street is an
unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from the
neighborhood concerning the development.The John Barrow,the Campus
Place,the Westbrook,the Kensington Place Neighborhood Association,all
residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet of the site and all property
owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Walker Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at 28'"Street and
Walker Street.
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.(Street width on 28'"Street is
adequate.)
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Edge of
driveway on Walker must have minimum 25'pacing from property line.As
an alternative,take access from 28'"Street.
5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.
6.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact
Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more
information.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance does not apply to this property.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO '-7282
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Capacity Contribution Analysis is required.Contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for additional details.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding water service to
this development.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.
~pire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA:The site is no located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:The request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development —Residential for apartments (18 Units).A
I and Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-10-04),
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The housing and
neighborhood revitalization goal of improving the overall appearance and safety
of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of reviewing design
standards for new construction of residential units,which is supported by an
action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be
compatible with existing architecture in the area.
~kandsca e:The plan suhmilted does not allow for the minimum nine fht foot
wide land use buffer,or the minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the
northern perimeter of the site.A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a
3
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO '-7282
wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen
plantings,is required along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the
site.
~Bottdin Codes:No comment received.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item to the Committee
indicating the intent of the development.Staff stated there were technical issues
associated with the proposed development and Staff would work with the
applicant to resolve these issues prior to the Commission meeting.
The Committee then determined there were no further issues for discussion.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant has not submitted a revised plan to staff therefore,there are
several technical issues which still need to be resolved.The applicant has not
indicated the location of the dumpster.It is possible the dumpster could be
located at the end of the driveway in the parking area to the north.The applicant
will be required to fully screen the dumpster as required by the ordinance,three
sides at least two feet above the top of the dumpster.
The applicant also has not relocated the driveway.In Staff's opinion the
development and the neighborhood would be better served if the driveway were
moved to West 28th Street and access were not allowed from Walker Street,
There would be an estimated 150 to 200 trips per day generated from the
development.West 28rB Street,in some areas,has been constructed to Master
Street Plan Standard and is classified as a collector street while Walker Street is
an unimproved roadway adjacent to the site and is classified as a residential
street.(The portion of Walker Street south of the site,from West 28rB Street to
Asher Avenue is classified as a collector street and has been constructed.)Staff
feels the bulk of the traffic should be routed to the collector street.
The applicant has also not indicated screening and landscaping.The applicant
will be required to install a nine (9)foot wide buffer along the northern perimeter
of the site and a six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or dense
evergreen plantings,along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the
site.
Although,there are many technical questions left unanswered,Staff feels the
issues can be fflushed out"at the Public Hearing.
4
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO '6.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
Staff is not supportive of the application,as filed.The proposed density of the
development is too intense for this site.The site is situated in the heart of a
single-family neighborhood and the area of the proposed development is much
too small to accommodate a development of this intensity.Furthermore,Walker
Street is an unimproved chip seal roadway with open ditches for drainage.Even
though the applicant would be required to install street improvements adjacent to
the site,the remainder of Walker Street would remain in its current conditions.
The area has "turned around"in the past few years with several new single-
family homes having been built.A development of this intensity could reverse
the trend of the neighborhood and cause the area to begin a decline or become
stagnant.Staff feels a development of this intensity would be better served by
locating nearer Asher Avenue,John Barrow Road or West 12'"Street.Staff does
not feel the placement of 18 multi-family units on this site is an appropriate
measure.Staff feels a development of 24-units per acre is much too intense for
this site but a development of lower density might be appropriate as in-fill.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested application for Griffin Short-form PD-R
as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19 2002)
Mr.Christopher Griffin was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
October 31,2002 Public Hearing to allow Mr.Griffin time to work with the neighborhood
on issues associated with the proposed development,to review the proposed density
and possible reduce the density.Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the
By-Laws.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-Laws and place
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing.
The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for Deferral and approved,as
recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
5
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO '-4470-C
NAME:Chenal Commercial Park (Lot 3R)Short-form PD-C —Time Extension
LOCATION:Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Wellington Village Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Saturn West LLC.The Mehlburger Firm
1700 North Shackelford Road 201 South Izard Street
Little Rock,AR 72212 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:4.2Acres NUMBEROF LOTS:1 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-C
PROPOSED USES:Auto dealership
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Requested.
BACKGROUND:
November 11,1999 the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed revision to a
preliminary plat for the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision to add approximately 1.74
acres to Lot 3 and a request to rezone Lot 3 from 0-3 to PD-C to allow an auto
dealership.
The applicant proposed two (2)buildings for the site.A 15,000 square foot
office/showroom/service building and 2,500 square foot auto detail building,The
applicant noted the buildings would not exceed 28-feet in height.The Planning
Commission placed several conditions on the recommendation of approval,which the
applicant agreed to comply with should the Board of Directors approve the request.The
conditions were no vehicular display within the first 20-feet of the property on the street
sides,the service entry doors were to be located on a side of the building other than the
Chenal Parkway side,no test drives were to be taken through the Wellington Village
neighborhood,there was to be no body shop located at the site and the proposed hours
of operation were to be from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm,Monday —Saturday (no Sunday
hours).
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO '-4470-C
Ordinance No.18,187 approved by the Board of Directors on January 4,2000 approved
the rezoning for the site to allow Parker Cadillac to construct a Saturn car dealership
with the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant has requested approval by the Planning Commission of a three
year time extension for implementation of the improvements associated with the
establishment of the Saturn auto dealership.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded.The property slopes upward slightly from
Chenal Parkway and Wellington Village Road.There is a church immediately to
the west of the site,with undeveloped 0-3 and C-2 zoned property to the north
and east,across Wellington Village Road.The One Source Home Center is
located across Chenal Parkway to the south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as of this writing.The St.
Charles and Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public
Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENT/UTILITY COMMENT/SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
COMMENT:
This item was not transmitted to agencies for comment or the Subdivision
Committee for comment.
E.ANALYSIS:
As per Section 36-454 (e)"...the applicant shall have three years from the date
of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the
final development plan.The applicant may request a three-year time extension
prior to expiration of the approval by submitting a request to the Planning
Commission".
The applicant wishes to retain the option of developing the site as originally
planned.The PD-C will expire January 2003 and the land will revert to its former
zoning classification unless the time extension is approved.
2
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4470-C
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested three-year time extension subject to
compliance with all conditions previously imposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Rick Parker was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a positive recommendation of the request to allow a
one-year time extension subject to compliance with all conditions previously imposed on
the PD-C.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Approval and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and
0 absent.
3
September 19,2002
ITEM NO.:18
Name:Sardis Road Land Alteration for
Fenceline Clearing
Location:11210 Sardis Road in Little Rock,Pulaski
County,Arkansas
~Oner/A t cant:Kerry Haley,property owner
~Re uest:Appealing a Notice of Violation (ANOVn)of
the land alteration regulations (29-166)for
altering land by clearing more than 7 trees
without a grading permit to:1)rebuild
approximately 1000 feet of fencing along
southern property line and 2)construct 1000
feet of 16 foot wide drive along the fenceline
for access to his property and future
residence.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Master Street Plan
This portion of Sardis Road is a minor arterial.
2.Develo ment Potential
This site along Sardis Road is a 38 acre residentially zoned property.The
adjacent property to the south and north is zoned industrial with the land across
Sardis Road being residential.
3.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The general area is primarily undeveloped pasture and woods with adjacent
residential development.This area has a history of pastureland use for
livestock.
4.Nei hborhood Position
Neighborhood has not been notified by Public Works.
September 1-,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18
5.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
A 100 feet utility ROW crosses the property with overhead power lines.See
attached site drawing.
6.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
No apparent adverse effects on the public welfare and safety.
STAFF ANALYSIS Mr.Haley owns property adjacent to Sardis Road and north of
Alexander Road that has long been used as agricultural property but is zoned for
residential use.A few months ago,Mr.Haley began installing a fence on his property
and in the process cleared about 15 trees within an approximate 250 ft x 20 ft area.
Mr.Haley also has plans to construct additional fencing.Public Works issued Mr.
Haley a notice he had violated section 29-170(h)of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances
by clearing trees greater than 6 inch diameter without a grading permit.The notice
required that Mr.Haley restore the land to its original condition as required by Section
29-170(c).
Mr.Haley has chosen to appeal the notice of violation to the Planning Commission as
provided for in Section 29-170(e).Mr.Haley believes that a grading permit should not
be required for this activity because the land has been historically used for agricultural
purposes and because the ordinance exempts land zoned for agricultural and forestry
uses.See Little Rock Code Section 29-187(1).
Staff is reluctant and does not believe it proper to recommend approval or denial of the
appeal since this is part of an ongoing enforcement action.It would simply prefer for
the Commission to decide whether the notice of violation and the corrective action are
proper based on the facts of this action.If the Commission decides to overturn the
notice of violation,then it should also decide whether a grading permit is required for
this work.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Kerry Haley was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff introduced the item indicating the application was an enforcement
issue.
Mr.Haley spoke on behalf of the application stating the area in question was an
existing fencerow.He stated the fence was in need of replacing and the only feasible
2
September 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO '8
way to replace the fence was to remove a few of the trees.He stated he had not
removed any to the trees which were not on the property line and the in the direct line
of the proposed fence.
Mr.Don Thompson spoke on behalf of the application indicating he was the adjoining
property owner.He stated the trees removed were to place the fence on the property
line to avoid adverse possession of the property.
City Director B.J.Wyrick spoke on behalf of the application.She stated the fencing
was in need of replacing and it was important to place the fence on the property line.
She stated the current fence would not contain the livestock in the pasture.She stated
this could cause risk to persons or damage to property.
Ms.Dottie Funk spoke in opposition of the proposed removal of the trees.She stated
the Tree Ordinances were put in place to protect all areas of the city.She stated if this
applicant were not punished then future violators could indicate their reasoning for
removing of trees was agricultural related.She stated if the property were zoned
agricultural then the removal of the trees would not be an issue.
Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition to the proposal.He stated he was requesting the
Commission to uphold the existing ordinances.He stated should tree removal for
agricultural purposes be allowable without proper zoning then this could possibly lead
to future violations claiming the clearing was agricultural related.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the application and the rights of the
property owner.The Commission then voted to approve a grading permit for the
applicant by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
August 13,2002
Kerry Haley
P.O.Box 1056
11210 Sardis Road
Mabelvale,Ar 72103
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to appeal,to the planning commission,the Notice of Violation of
Little Rock City Code sec 29-186 (a}k (b}.The land alteration was done in an attempttobuildfencingalongtheSouthernpropertyline,for approximately 1000'.
I would like to continue with restoring my fencing around the remaining property
line,the area being afFected would be approximately 20'ide.
Plans also include constructing a drive (16'ide)along my Southern fence line;
this will be to access a bam,a future home,and the western part of my land.This part of
the plan will not have confIict with the Land Alteration Ordinance.
Kerry Haley(,~-330~)
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE
l
MEMBER 'B&E 2 3V '7 (i i i,i
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
BERRY,CRAIG
FAUST,JUDITH
FLOYD,NORM
LOWRY,BOB
MEYER,JERRY
MUSE,ROHN
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.
RAHMAN,MIZAN
RECTOR,BILL
STEBBINS,ROBERT
ne u*tu "»d t uAue end-,tgl +d.L»5
MEMBER jjj ..5 .rdr5 js
ALLEN,FRED,JR.~»q q,-~v v v w e 8 u'e v
BERRY,CRAIG e V Y ~V
v'AUST,JUDITH V-V V 4 dj vV 4 +V &~V»
FLOYD,NORM v-+V V djj 0 y 1 0 V P een V
LOWRY,BOB y V v 0 ~v'V
MEYER,JERRY V I en'rg V ~v
MUSE,ROHN L~~@~~~V v u o V a ~4
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.'V I v +p gg v V
v'AHMAN,MI ZAN gd V v'0 0 V v ~
RECTOR,BILL V g 0 4&g v v
STEBBINS,ROBERT V e V''b
Wgj»HAPP.~rje&LL p',jgje
Meeting Adjourned ~r&P.td.
j AYE +NAYE A ABSENT ~ABSTAIN K RECUSE
September 19,2002
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned
at 8:15 p.m.
to (Oz-
Dat
Ch r an ecr t