pc_12 19 2002subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 19,2002
4:00 P,M.
I.Roti Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)In number.
Ill.Members Present:Judith Faust
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Jerry Mayer
Bill Rector
Fred Allen,Jr.
Gary Langlais
Qbray Nunnley,Jr.
Members Absent:Mizan Rahrnan
Rohn Muse
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the October 31,2tI02 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
DECEMBER 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.LU02-10-04 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
located in the 2700 Block of Walker Street changing from Single Family to
Multi-family.
B.1 Griffin Short-form PD-R (Z-7282),located at 2701 —2723 Walker Street
C.LU10-02-06 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
from Office to Commercial located in the 2000 Block of South University Avenue
on the West side of South University Avenue.
C.1.Yelenich Long-form PCD (Z-4644-B)—Located in the 2000 Block of South
University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue.
D.Threadgill Short-form PD-R (Z-7281),located at 12800 Arthur Lane.
E.Street Right-of-Way Abandonment G-23-317;described as approximately 25 feet
of the portion of Wingate Drive that exists onto West Markham Street.
F.Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Z-6178-F)-Located on the Southeast corner
of Stagecoach Road and Stagecoach Village Drive.
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Brimer Subdivision Replat (S-285-A),located at Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer
Street.
2.Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1363),located at
9400 Stagecoach Road.
3.Lawson Road Mini-storage Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1364),located at
15700 Lawson Road.
II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
4.Lot 1 Section "A"Wildwood Subdivision Short-form POD (Z-7325),located on the
southeast corner of Cantrell Road and South Katillus Road.
5.Lieblong Short-form PD-0 (Z-7326),located at 12900 Crystal Valley Road.
6.Shear Magic Short-form PCD (Z-7327),located at 1911 West 2"Street.
7.EmbraSuen,LLC Short-form PD-R (Z-7328),located on the northwest corner of
Woodlawn and Taylor Streets.
8.The Villages at Rahling Road Revised Long-form PCD (Z-6232-E),located on
Rahling Circle.
December 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.
~Re uest: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 '/4 of a mile
southwest of the applicant's property.
On February 15,2000 a change was made form Single Family to Low Density
Residential at Westglen Drive and Gamble Road about N of a mile southeast of the
application area.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Transition,Neighborhood
Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed Office
Commercial to Single Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,Mixed Office
Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,Commercial,and Community
Shopping along Kanis Road within a 1 mile radius of the property in question.
The applicant's property,as well as 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
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
with the existing 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 access would need to be
provided to those properties.Coleman and Farris streets could provide access to future
developments,or else future streets will need to be developed to provide access to
potential developments.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received two comments from area
residents.None are in support,both were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change to Multi-Family is not appropriate at this time.With an
impending review of a City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan,this change would
be premature.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 20,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
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.
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
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 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 and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and passed with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent,
5
December 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)
VARIANCESAWAIVERS 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.
December 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 right-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
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-7211
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP 8 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.
~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:
~Plannin 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).
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.
~kandsca e:The plan suhmilted does not show for the required nine lgl 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
December 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.
I L 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 Farffis 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
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-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
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO '.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had not resolved the street issues.Staff stated they were requesting this item be
deferred to allow the applicant additional time to resolve the street and alleyway
abandonment.Staff stated the application would be deferred to the December 19,2002
Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
application was originally filed for the May 9,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the
application was deferred to the to the June 20,2002 Public Hearing and then to
the August 8,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the applicant was present at the
September 19,2002 Public Hearing and the Commission deferred the item after it was
determined the design of the development was directly tied to the street closures being
proposed as a part of the development.The item was deferred until the applicant could
resolve the street issue.Staff stated the applicant had contacted them and was
agreeable for the application to be withdrawn until a new development plan could be
conceived.Staff stated at which time the applicant would refile all related applications
for the proposed development.
Staff presented a recommendation of withdrawal without prejudice to allow the applicant
time to resolve the street closure issue and then file the Land Use Plan amendment,the
rezoning request and the Street Right-of-Way abandonment applications.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
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 at24'"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 Familyto Office at 1911 John
Barrow Rd.about a "/~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'LAN:
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'"Street are
shown as collector streets.W.28'"Street is built to standard while Walker Street south
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
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.AII 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 so 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 O'Woods
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 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 and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and passed with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
3
December 19,2002
ITEM NO B 1 FILE NO.:Z-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)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS 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.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B.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
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-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 8 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.
Fptre Detartment: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
Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-10-04),
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.
~bandana e:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum nine fp)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
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B1 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.
~ttuttdin 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 28'"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 28'"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 "flushed out"at the Public Hearing.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B.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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a request for the item to be deferred to the December 19,2002
Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of this request.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had verbally requested this item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request for withdrawal.
Staff stated the applicant had indicated he was not ready to move forward with a
development at this time and would resubmit an application when his development
plans were firmed-up.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District
Location:South University just south of Boyle Park Road
~Re vest:Office to Commercial
Source:Mare Yelenich
PROPOSAL /REQUEST;
Land Use Plan amendment in the Bayle Park Planning District from Office to
Commercial.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale
sales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on the areas that they serve.
The applicant wishes to develop the property for self-storage and retail strip
development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately
10+acres in size.Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the
property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating
establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial.The land to the east across University
Avenue is wooded land north of the Cooperative Extension Service building which is
zoned R-2.The land to the south and west consists of property zoned R-2 and
developed with single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Singe Family to Park/Open Space at W.14"
Street and Pierce Street about a "/~mile northeast of the application area to recognize
Oak Forest Park.
On October 17,2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi-
Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and
Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question to recognize existing
conditions.
The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.The area to
the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University Avenue.
The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional.The remainder of the
land to the south and west is shown as Single Family.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built
to a four-lane width.Half street improvements would be needed to improve this section
of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards.There are no Bikeways
shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that
are located within an eight-block distance of the applicant's property.
Boyle Park,located at W.36'"Street and Boyle Park Road,is shown as a 50+acre
Large Urban Park located west of the applicant's property.University Park,located at
W.12'"Street and Leisure Lane,is shown as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest
of the study area.Boyle Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational
opportunities,while University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis
Center.Oak Forest Park,located at W.14'"Street and Pierce Street,is shown as a
mini-Park under 5 acres northeast of the property in question and is designed
specifically to serve the needs of the Oak Forest neighborhood,which surrounds the
park.Curran-Conway Park,located at W.24'"Street and Monroe Street,is shown as a
as a 20-50 acre Community Park located east of the UALR campus and is located the
furthest distance from the amendment area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the
neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern.The only practical access
to the property in question is from University Avenue.The neighboring houses are
oriented in such a way that the back yards face the applicant's property,The
Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue.
The wooded lot is accessed from University Avenue.The street pattern of the area
isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential areas.
The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues:traffic,topography,scale,
and massing.Commercial development on this property could increase traffic on a
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
portion of University Avenue that is not built to Principal Arterial design standards.
Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on which this
property is located.Development on this property would also need a sufficient buffer
between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-family residences to
compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on the property.Without
sufficient buffers,the neighboring properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on
the applicant's property.Although there is a change in topographical elevation between
the site and the surrounding neighborhood,this application would allow development
that could result in a non-residential intrusion into the neighborhood.The massing,
scale,visual impacts,and noise generation of any development on this site should be
minimized to isolate the affects of any non-residential development on the neighboring
single-family development.
Most of the land shown as Commercial located along the west side of University
Avenue is on average about 150'+deep.This application would allow the development
of Commercial uses on a piece of property that is about 605'+deep.This increase in
depth could change the character of the neighborhood and allow the development of a
large area shown as Commercial on University Avenue that is located about half way
between the intersections of the arterials at W.12'"Street and Asher Avenue.The thin
strip of land shown as Commercial north of the applicant's property separates the
houses to the west from the traffic on University Avenue while no such barrier is
provided for the houses to the south.Most of the businesses to the north are small
neighborhood businesses.Any turnover in the businesses to the north would
accommodate room for another small neighborhood oriented business to move in.The
application area is large enough to accommodate a larger Commercial use that would
draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the
neighborhood.
Currently,this portion of University Avenue acts as a buffer between the University to
the east and the residential area to the west.Commercial uses at this location would
erode that buffer.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association,
University Park Neighborhood Association,Westwood Neighborhood Association,
Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association.
Staff has not received comments from area residents at the time of this report.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO 'U02-10-06
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Commercial would extend the
strip of Commercial development to the south and intrude into the residential area to the
west.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission were
present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes,and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was notified that only eight members of the Planning Commission were
present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.The item was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,
and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission,Donna James,
City Staff,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 Long
Form Planned Commercial Development.
Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked if staff was opposed to the zoning change and a
discussion followed concerning staff recommendations on the two items.Ms.James
stated that staff opposed the Land Use Plan Amendment and the PCD as filed.
Mr.Minyard stated that the Plan Amendment was ddiven by the PCD application.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Secretary to the Planning Commission,stated that staff opposed the
Plan Amendment because the Commercial category is too broad in terms of the future
uses that could occur on the property in question.The PCD application is specific in
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
terms of what uses are allowed on the property and that staff was concerned about the
land alterations that could result from the PCD as filed.
Commissioner Nunnley asked why staff was opposed changing the land use category to
Commercial for the property in question.Mr.Lawson stated that the site is not
appropriate for all of the uses allowed in the Commercial Future Land Use category.
Mr.Lawson stated that staff supported limited commercial uses on the property but that
the current PCD application was too intense and that staff was concerned with cut and
fill issues.
Mr.Mare Yelenich,the applicant,spoke in support of the application.Mr.Yelenich gave
a brief description of the history of the property and stated that the most of the property
owners abutting the property supported his proposal.
Mr.Maury Mitchell,representing the current property owners,spoke in support of the
application and stated that this application would allow new development on University
Avenue.
Mr.Arthur Connerly,a member of the family that owns the property,spoke in support of
the application and stated his family's desire to sell the property.Mr.Connerly added
that he opposed past for developing the property but stated that the current application
would provide security for the property with the construction of a fence that would keep
vagrants off of the land.
Ms.Andrea Hooten,President of the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition to the application and stated that Mr.Yelenich did not survey enough
residents of the neighborhood to properly obtain the opinions of residents.Ms.Hooten
stated concerns about the possible storage of hazardous materials,security,traffic
generation,noise and light pollution,destruction of trees,and questionable retail uses.
Ms.Hooten closed her remarks by stating that the types of retail businesses that would
locate at this property would be undesirable.
Commissioner Norm Floyd asked Ms.Hooten what the proper use for the property in
question would be.Ms.Hooten stated that Single Family would be a proper land use
for the property.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was denied with a vote
of 0 ayes,8 noes,1 abstention,and 2 absent.
5
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
NAME:Yelenich Long-form PCD
LOCATION:2000 Block of South University Avenue;on the West side
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mare Yelenich ETC Engineers
110 South Shore Drive 1510 S.Broadway
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:10+Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3,with conditions,
for this site.The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping center
at this location.The applicant later withdrew the request and the property remained
zoned R-2,Single-family.
The Planning Commission later reviewed an application for the placement of non-
traditional multi-family housing on this site on February 14,2002.The proposed
development included dormitory style housing,four bedrooms sharing a common
kitchen and living area.The proposal included seven rows of structures,each separate
buildings,all three stories in height,all having a six car garage on the first level and two
levels of living area above.There were to be 43 buildings total.A building included
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO:Z-4644-B
eight bedroom facilities,four on the second level and four on the third level.The levels
each had four bedrooms and a separate bath,which could be secured,and were to
share a common open area and kitchen facility.The applicant proposed,in addition to
the garage parking spaces,an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the
perimeter of the property.
The applicant withdrew the proposal after receiving an abundance of neighborhood
opposition to the development.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision as a part of the application.On Lot
1,the applicant proposes the placement of 90,000 square feet of self-storage,
mini-warehouse.The facility will be buffered by an undisturbed and terraced
area,with ground cover between retaining walls.The applicant is proposing a
2-story 2,400 square foot resident manager's office as a part of the development.
The units will be ground level single story units.Approximately 25%of the units
will be climate controlled units.The applicant is proposing a sign located at the
entrance adjacent to South University Avenue.The sign is proposed to be a
monument style sign and be approximately 5-foot by 10-foot or 50-square feet in
area and have a time and temperature LED reader board.The applicant
proposes to operate a truck rental leasing service from the mini-warehouse office
building.
Lot 2 will consist of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3 uses being
requested.There will be approximately 10 individual business bays within the
development,however,the interior walls will be moveable to accommodate
various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants.The
applicant is requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot as well.
The sign will be located near the driveway at be approximately 10-feet by 15-feet
or 150 square feet in area.The applicant is proposing a LED reader board as
part of the signage.The applicant has indicated the building facade will have
sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site,which has been previously graded and
somewhat leveled.The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree covered
with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension Service
Center.Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as check
cashing,liquor store and restaurants.Uses to the south and west of the site are
single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O'oods neighborhoods.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this
location.Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the north
at Boyle Park Road.Currently there are plans to widen South University Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received several phone calls both in support and
opposition of the proposal.The applicant has met with the Neighborhood
Associations and the area residents prior to submission of his application.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site and the Broadmoore,the University Park,the Oak Forest,
the Point O'oods,the Curran Conway and the 25 residents who signed in at an
information meeting held September 23,2002 were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required
as indicated on the plans.
2.Provide design of street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct one-half
street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.This requirement will be waived if the bids have been opened
for the planned University widening project prior to approval of the building
permit.No new median cuts are allowed on University.
3.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.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property as indicated on the
plans.
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).Hillside cuts
must comply with the land alteration ordinance including but not limited to a
15-foot maximum cut between benches (the plan shows 17').Cuts over 10-
feet vertical must be faced with architectural stone.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO C 1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
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 at 688-1414 for
additional details.
EntercnE:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:A 10-foot utility easement along the north,west and south
property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be required.
Water:No objection.
~Fire Ce artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
CountOPlanning:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17,¹17A and ¹21 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial Development to allow a mini-storage development and
retail shopping.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.(Item ¹10 File No.LU02-10-06)
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:The proposed land use buffer along the northern and
southern perimeters are required to have an undisturbed average width of
twenty-one (21)feet.This takes into consideration the transfer allowed for the
wide buffer proposed along the western perimeter.The full undisturbed width
required without this transfer credit is twenty-eight (28)feet.The proposed
undisturbed buffer width along the southern perimeter is ten (10)feet.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO '-4644-B
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the
northern,southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide copies of
an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
~Bottdin Codes:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Mark Yelenich was present representing the application.Staff presented the
proposed development indicating additional information needed on the site plan.
Staff questioned if there was to be any outdoor storage,boats,campers,etc.
Staff also requested details of the proposed signage.Staff requested the days
and hours of operation and the estimated number of bays for the retail center.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to pay improvement cost for the
widening of South University Avenue if a building permit were obtained prior to
the letting of the bid on the publicly financed widening project.Staff stated there
would not be any additional median cuts allowed on South University Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated at least 70%of the buffer
was to remain undisturbed.Staff stated the southern land use buffer should
maintain an average width of 21 feet.
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 no outdoor storage on the site (no boats,campers,etc.)and has
indicated the dumpster location with the proper screening.The applicant has
also indicated the project will be built in three phases.Phase I will consist of
construction of the resident managers/office building and the construction of the
two mini-storage buildings,which run east and west.Phases II and III will
consist of the construction of the two additional mini-warehouse buildings and the
construction of the retail building.The applicant has indicated he will not
construct the retail center until he is 50%pre-leased.He has indicated he will
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
not construct the additional mini-warehouse buildings until Phase I of the mini-
warehouse is 70%leased.
The applicant has requested a 2-foot by 10-foot sign located adjacent to the mini-
warehouse development.He is requesting the sign be allowed LED time and
temperature display within the sign area.The signage for the commercial center
is proposed as a monument sign 3-feet by 10-feet sign area with a LED reader
board.The applicant also proposes to park a 16-foot moving van with an
advertising logo on the side adjacent to the street.The van will be made
available to persons renting the mini-warehouse units.Staff is not supportive of
the placement of the moving van on the site near the street.Staff feels (although
not an actual sign)it will have the appearance of a billboard.
The applicant proposes the self-storage hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday and
closed on Sunday.The gate hours are proposed to be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm
7 days per week.For an additional fee the applicant has indicated tenants would
have 24-hour access to the site.The intent is not to collect an additional income
but to limit the number of tenants entering after normal gate hours.The applicant
has stated the retail building will have approximately 10 different businesses and
their hours of operation may vary.Staff is not supportive of not limiting the hours
of operation on this site and leaving the possibility of 24-hour operations open to
a potential user.
The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental/leasing office (Penske Truck
Rental)from the site as well.The applicant has requested two spaces be
designated as truck parking.He has stated the site would not have more than
two truck on the site at a time but there were times when there would not be any
trucks on the site.Staff is not supportive of this request.
The applicant proposes a resident manager on-site for the mini-warehouse
development.The development will consist of a two (2)story 30x40-foot
structure to act as both the office/retail sales area/break-room with the living
quarters upstairs.
The applicant proposes the office/residence to have either standing seam metal
or asphalt shingle roofing material with a 20-foot eave height;the roof will be
constructed on a 6 on 12 pitch.The self storage buildings are proposed with
standing seam galvanized metal roof with an eve height of 10.5 feet;the roof will
have a ~/~on 12 pitch and will not be colored.Staff recommends the roofs be
constructed of non-reflective matedals to lessen the heat vapors and to avoid any
potential impacts to surrounding neighbors.The applicant proposes the retail
center to be either a standing seam or screw down metal roof with a front eave
height of 21-feet.There will be a parapet on the front of the building,which
6
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
would add an additional 9-feet to the finished building height.The maximum
building height in C-3 zoning district is 35-feet,consistent with the applicant's
proposal.
The applicant has indicated undisturbed areas to the north,south and west
property lines consistent with the land use buffer requirements.The applicant
has also indicated a cut and two (2)benches in 10-foot intervals along the
western boundary to eliminate concerns of the Land Alteration Ordinance.The
applicant is proposing riprap along these benches,which from an engineering
standpoint is a workable alternative.From a design standpoint it is not a
workable alternative.Staff is not supportive of the request to place riprap along
the entire area.Staff feels the applicant should install a split faced block wall
along the top terrace,which will be visible from the street and the riprap
treatment along the lower terrace.
Although Staff has some concerns with the proposed development,the
workability of retail on South University Avenue without a median break,Staff is
inclined to support the proposed development.The addition of mini-warehouse
to this site,Staff feels is a viable development approach.Typically mini-
warehouse development is a low traffic generator,destination bound
development and the hours of operation are not typically intrusive to the
neighbors.Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to do too much on the site.
Staff cannot support the unlimited hours of operation for the retail or the mini-
warehouse center.Staff feels the development should be limited to hours of
operation consistent with development in the area.
Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the applicant's truck to be parked
adjacent to South University Avenue and act as additional signage.Staff also
does not support allowing the applicant to operate a truck rental business from
the site.Once again Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to conduct to many
activities on this site.
Staff cannot support the proposed treatment of the slope on the rear (western
boundary)of the site.Staff would recommend the applicant install an
architectural wall on the top portion of the sloped area and then the riprap along
the lower tier.Even though motorists are traveling at a somewhat higher rate of
speed through the area,the rock will be visible from the street and the parking
lot.Staff feels the addition of the block wall will enhance the development adding
to the design theme the applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue.
7
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
Staff is in support of the concept to the proposed development.Staff feels
should the applicant revise his application to include the recommendations
included above and limit the number of uses proposed on the site after which
Staff could possible support the proposed development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the development
plan as filed.Staff stated they were supportive of the concept to allow a mini-
warehouse and commercial building to develop on the site but there were concerns with
the hours of operation of the mini-warehouse,the placement of a truck rental business
on the site,the placement of the applicant's moving van adjacent to South University
Avenue and the treatment of the cut located on the western portion of the property.
8
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
Staff stated the applicant had indicated he would comply with the Land Alteration
Ordinance.Staff stated they felt the placement of a split face block wall was more
appropriate in this location for aesthetic reasons.Staff stated since the request was a
rezoning to a planned development the request was not out of line.Staff stated the
applicant had indicated he would construct a quality development.Staff stated in their
opinion meeting the minimum requirements of the ordinance did not constitute a quality
development.
Mr.Yelenich presented his proposed development plan to the Commission indicating he
was agreeable to not have the ancillary service of a truck rental business on the site.
He also stated he was willing to locate his companies moving van to the rear of the site
behind the commercial building.
Mr.Yelenich requested the hours of operation for the mini-warehouse to remain at 24-
hour access.He stated currently at his other two (2)locations only ten (10)percent of
the customers opted for the 24-hour access and of that only five (5)percent accessed
the site after the gates were closed at 10:00 pm.He stated based on a survey of the
yellow pages over fifty (50)percent of the current facilities offer this service.He stated
some customers who used this service,such as pharmaceutical representatives or
doctors,needed to access their storage unit after hours when they were leaving town
early to call on customers.
Mr.Yelenich stated he had also agreed to place non-reflective roofs on the units as
requested by Staff because he also felt this was a good idea.He stated he was willing
to assist the city with reducing heat effect caused by reflective roofs.
Mr.Yelenich stated with regard to the treatment of the slope he was willing to place the
split faced block wall on the top terrace if and where required.He stated he was no
longer requesting rip-rap on the lower terrace.He stated a geo-technical engineer had
stated the slope appeared that it would maintain without terracing the cut.Mr.Yelenich
stated he was willing to install an erosion control mat and hydro seed creeping love
grass on both terrace areas,which in his opinion,would be more aesthetically pleasing,
Mr.Maury Mitchell spoke in support of the proposed development.He stated the
approval of the development would only add to the revitalization efforts of South
University Avenue.He stated the proposed use would not generate a large amount of
additional traffic since mini-warehouse was typically a low generator of traffic.
Mr.Arthur Connerly spoke in support of the proposed development.He stated with the
proposed development the site would be fenced thus adding additional security to the
adjacent residences.
Ms.Andrea Hooten spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated she
was the President of the Broadmoore Neighborhood Association and the Association
was not in support of the proposed development.She stated the concern was related to
9
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4644-B
the unregulated storage of materials on the site and the possible contamination of the
air and/or ground and stormwater.She stated the neighborhood also had concerns with
allowing 24-hour access to the site.She stated this would only invite an element of
crime to the neighborhood.
She stated the site did not have a median break.She stated this would cause motorist
to make u-turns south of the site at the traffic light at the U of A Cooperative Extension
Service building intersection or to "cut-through"the neighborhood.She stated the
applicant had stated there would be an estimated 50 cars per day visiting the site.She
stated this was a significant number of cars which would be exiting the site and looking
for avenues to travel north.She stated without the median break there were concerns
that the site would not draw stable businesses.She stated this would not enhance the
redevelopment of South University Avenue but hinder the redevelopment with increased
business vacancies.
Ms.Anne Wasson chose not to address the Commission.
There was limited discussion concerning the applicant's revision to his application and
the treatment of the western slope.The applicant indicated he would revise his
application to limit the hours of operation of the retail business to 12:00 midnight,to limit
the number of occupants who had 24-hour access to the mini-warehouse to 10 percent
of the customers,to not allow the truck rental business as an ancillary service and to
place his moving van behind the commercial building away from South University
Avenue.
Mr.Yelenich stated he was willing to comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance.He
stated he was not willing to install a split faced block wall on the upper terrace for the
entire length of the western cut only for aesthetic reasons.He stated the placement of
the block would cost an estimated $150,000,which would place the development cost
to high to receive a return on his investment and put the project out of reach.He stated
he was willing to place split faced block if and where needed and in other locations to
place a erosion control matting and hydro seed creeping love grass on both terraces.
There was a motion to accept Mr.Yelenich's proposal as amended.The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and 2 absent.
10
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO Z-7281-A
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 NUMBEROF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET;0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Townhouse development (6 units total or 13 units
per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 19,2002 Public Hearing of the Planning Commission,an application
for the placement of eight units of townhouse development was denied.The
Commission also voted to allow the applicant to resubmit a site plan at a lesser density
without paying a filing fee should the applicant resubmit a plan within a three-month
time period.The Commission also indicated the applicant would not be required to file
a Land Use Plan amendment if the proposal was a lesser density.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
A.PROPOSAURE VEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of six (6)townhouse residential units on
these three lots.There are three (3)units proposed to be located on the south
property line (to back-up to Arthur Lane)and three (3)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 and 5 are proposed at 1440 square feet with a 240 square foot garage.
Units 1,3,4 and 6 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
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 has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Arthur
Lane and Atkins Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three lots one of which (the western-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 with no sidewalk.Arthur Lane is a narrow chip seal roadway with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber 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.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 "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with the planned development.Sidewalks must be continuous
across all street frontage with appropriate handicap ramps.
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,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 688-1414.
AP &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
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
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 Ce artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
CountcPlanntn L:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route f/5 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
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 a six (6)unit
townhouse development.The applicant previously filed a Land Use Plan
Amendment with his proposal which was heard at the September 19,2002 Public
Hearing (LU02-18-04)and was denied by the Commission.It was Staff's
understanding the applicant would not be required to file a Land Use Plan
amendment if he resubmitted his proposal at a lesser density,although the
density proposed with the current development plan results in 13 units per acre
or multifamily density.
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 to act as a buffer between single family and more
intense non-residential uses.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 falls short of the required nine (pi foot viide land
use buffer along the northern and southern 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.
~Buitdin Codes:No comment received.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
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 noted the applicant had a
proposal before the Commission at their September 19,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the applicant had reduced the density and resubmitted his
development plan.
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.The applicant indicated he would construct "/~street improvements to
both streets.
Staff noted comments from the various utility companies noting a sewer main
extension and a water main extension would be required along with easements.
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 located two
(2)feet off the property line.A six (6)foot open-air wood fence will separate the
units and act 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 landscaping along the north and south property lines is insufficient when the
patios are added.The landscaping strip along the northern and southern
perimeter should maintain a minimum of nine (9)feet in width and at no point fall
below 6.7-feet.The addition of the patio in this area leaves a minimal side yard
setback (2-feet).The applicant has indicated the area will be surrounded by a
six-foot wooden fence and even if a setback were in place and landscaping
installed the adjoining property owners would not see the area.(The reduction
is a land use buffer issue and the reduction maybe approved by the Planning
Commission.)Staff is supportive of the reduction of landscaped area since the
applicant has increased the street buffer area and has increased the buffer area
adjoining the single-family to the west.The applicant has also increased the
number of trees proposed in this area to act as future screening from the second
floor of the units.
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
The applicant has narrowed the turnaround along the western driveway and
proposed the installation of flat landscaping stones and mondo grass between
the stones to allow for additional landscaping in the turn-around.Staff is
supportive of this request.The stones add a residential character to the
development and the addition of the grasses will break the hard surface areas.
Although,Staff was not supportive of the previous proposal Staff feels the current
density could be workable with the neighborhood.The proposed development
results in 13 units per acre on three (3)previously platted lots.The proposed
development includes six (6)units,which is double the number of units allowable
by right on the site.Staff feels comfortable with the proposed density on the
site.
The applicant is proposing two story buildings.The building height proposed is
not any higher than a two-story single-family home,which could be constructed
on the site.Staff feels window placement is important so as to not intrude on the
single-family residence located west and north of the site.The applicant has
indicated the second story will not have windows facing the western property line.
The applicant has also indicated the placement of trees along the western
perimeter to further screen the homes to the west.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Atkins
Road and to Arthur Lane.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Planned Residential Development
for Threadgill Short-form PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
6
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:2-7281-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing,
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated
although the development equated to 13 units per acre the development was double the
density currently allowed or six (6)units instead of three (3)units.
Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women's Voters of Pulaski County,spoke in opposition of the
proposed development.She stated the density proposed was too great for the area.
She also stated the design of the development did not lend itself to the character of the
neighborhood.She questioned if the units were to be renter or owner occupied.Staff
stated the applicant had indicated the units would be owner occupied.
Ms.Mary Douglas spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated the
design of the proposed development was not compatible with the neighborhood or with
the concept of new urbanism.She stated the demand of town home buyers was more
for the trend of a detached housing feel although the units were attached.
Ms.Douglas stated the area around the site was developed to the north with smaller
homes on larger lots.She stated the front of the buildings were not facing the street as
would enhance the proposed development.She also stated the scale of the
development did not fit with the neighborhood.
Ms.Douglas stated the change in the zoning would be a change to multi-family in the
heart of a single-family neighborhood.She stated the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action
Plan called for a balance of office and multi-family in the area and the change would not
maintain that balance.
Ms.Shirley McFarland spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated
the area nearer Markham Street was previously zoned for an office development in
which only one office building had been constructed.She also stated in an unscientific
survey of the area driving west only there were 5 apartment complexes with 1400 rental
7
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
units and numerous small scale townhouse developments within a five (5)minute drive
area.She stated the rents in the area ranges from $500 -$1000 per month.
Ms.McFarland stated that Mr.Threadgill had indicated he would offer these units for
sale at a sales price of $120,000 to $125,000 per unit.She stated the Census median
sales price for a condo unit in the areas was only $95,600.She stated the units were
priced well above the median price range.
Ms.McFarland stated the area residents were opposed to the rezoning request.She
stated this should be apparent by the sixty-one (61)signatures previously submitted in
opposition to the proposed development.
Commissioner Faust stated she was not supportive of the proposed development even
though she was an advocate for mixing densities.She stated the proposed
development did not take in consideration scale and compatibility to the neighborhood.
She stated the proposed development would be a better fit to the neighborhood if the
buildings were oriented towards the street.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the density.
Commissioner Faust questioned Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,as to the
areas that could be considered when approving a planned development.Mr.Giles
stated in a planned development the Commission could require and impose conditions
on an application as a condition of approval.
A motion was made to accept the application as filed.The motion failed by a vote of
5 ayes,3 noes and 3 absent.
8
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:G-23-317
Name:Wingate Drive Abandonment
Location:A portion of Wingate Drive lying north
of Markham Street in Little Rock,
Pulaski County,Arkansas
~Owner/A licene Thomas L.Jones,Meredith Taft;Clyde
Karnes,Betty Karnes
Receuest:To abandon approximately 25'f that
portion of Wingate Drive lying north of
Markham Street.Existing right-of-way
width is 50 feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Wingate Drive is a residential street providing access to the Wingate
subdivision located north of Markham and west of Mississippi Streets.
Wingate Drive intersects with Markham Street approximately 400 feet
west of the Markham and Mississippi intersection and Mississippi Street
approximately 300 feet north of the intersection.
Early this year,Wingate residents complained that Wingate Drive was
being used as a ncut through"between Markham and Mississippi to avoid
the intersection.According to the residents,both the volume and speed of
the cut through traffic caused a hazard to the neighborhood.
Public Works conducted traffic counts on Wingate Drive in August 2001
and January 2002.The 2001 count indicated 377 west bound vehicles
and 187 east bound vehicles in a 10-hour period at a median speed of 22
miles per hour and an 85'"percentile speed of 28 mph.
The 2002 count indicated 344 east bound and 492 west bound vehicles in
an 11 hour period at a median speed of 22 mph and an 85'"percentile
speed of 28 mph.
In April of this year,Public Works erected temporary barriers to close the
entrance off Markham Street and few complaints have been received as a
result of this closure.In June,residents brought an application to the
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
Board of Directors to close Wingate Drive at its intersection with Markham
Street and the Board referred the action to the Planning Commission for
recommendation.
The applicants are property owners abutting Wingate Drive at its
intersection with Markham Street.
2.Master Street Plan
Wingate Drive is classified as a local street.Both Markham Street and
Mississippi Street are classified as minor arterials.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
The current right-of-way width of Markham Street at this location is 60'.
The Master Street Plan calls for a width of right-of-way of 70 feet at this
location.Five feet of right-of-way will be retained at the intersection of
Wingate with Markham (35 feet from the centerline of Markham)to provide
the required Master Street Plan right-of-way width.
4.Develo ment Potential
This is an established area consisting of mostly single family homes.
There is little re-development potential in the vicinity of Wingate.
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
This established area along Markham and Mississippi has been
developed for many years and the majority of land use in the immediate
vicinity is single family.In the past,because Wingate drive connects to the
south to Markham,and to the east to Mississippi,Wingate has been used
by some drivers as a way to bypass the intersection of Mississippi and
Markham.This "cut-through"traffic has been cited by the applicants as the
reason for requesting closure.Closing this portion of Wingate would mean
that only local traffic in the neighborhood would use this street.
Closure would also limit alternatives for local traffic to enter and leave the
subdivision.All traffic would have to enter and exit the subdivision from
Mississippi Avenue.Traffic Counts on Mississippi are 17,000 vehicles per
day,and 20,000 vehicles per day use Markham.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and neighborhood associations were notified
of the public hearing.At this writing,one objection to the closure from a
landowner in Wingate has been received.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Several utility companies have facilities located in the existing right-of-
way.There is no objection to closure of the right-of-way,provided a utility
easement is retained.
Fire Department —has no objection to the abandonment
8.Reversiona Ri hts
All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property owners.
A utility and access easement will also be retained in the former right-of-
way.
9.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Permanently abandoning this segment of Wingate will reduce traffic on
this local street,and would be expected to enhance public safety for those
residents living on Wingate.However,closure would also limit the options
residents have for entering and leaving the subdivision,routing all traffic to
a single entrance on Mississippi.
Wingate is a local street not a part of the Master Street Plan network,
Local streets are typically designed to carry up to 2500 vehicles per day,
however,peak traffic counts on Wingate were 836 vehicles per day.
Closure would have no measurable impact on traffic safety operations or
the arterial network.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Since the proposed closure will have no
significant impact on traffic operations and is primarily a neighborhood
consideration,Public Works supports the closure.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION (JUNE,2002)
The applicants originally filed the petition for abandonment directly with the Board
of Directors.Rather that requesting closure under the statute for unused right-of-
way,the petition requested closure under the State statute for closure under the
general police powers of the Board.The Board declined to hear the petition and
referred it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated
the notices mailed to the area residents stated November 14,2002 as the Public
Hearing date.Staff stated they were supportive of the request to defer the item
to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was present.There were objectors and supports present.
Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners
were present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present.
The applicant requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public
Hearing.There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item
and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Since the initial write-up,the fire department has changed their position and does
not support the proposed closure because of the reduced access options in the
area.Staff was hoping to obtain a letter from the Fire Department to include in
the write-up,but to date they have not responded in writing.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Staff introduced the item and stated the Fire Department has changed their
recommendation from the recommendation printed in the agenda.Staff stated
the Fire Department had indicated all the Captains who worked on the change in
recommendation were out and the basis for the change in the Fire Department's
recommendation was not readily available.Staff stated they had been in contact
with the City Manager and his suggestion was for the Commission to hear the
item and prior to the Board of Directors meeting Staff and the Manager's office
would work to resolve the issue.
Staff stated traffic counts were perlormed on Wingate Drive prior to the
revamping of the intersection of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue.
Staff stated there were 564 vehicles per day at an 85-percentile speed of 28
miles per hour and after the change in the traffic light there were 836 vehicles per
day at an 85-percentile speed of 28 miles per hour.Staff stated since the street
had been temporarily closed there were 184 vehicles per day.
Staff stated Public Works maintained a natural position on the closure since the
closure appeared to have no significant impact on the street network within and
around the city.
Chairman Lowry asked the number of automobiles traveling Mississippi Avenue
and West Markham Street daily.Staff stated there were 1000 vehicles traveling
south bond on Mississippi Avenue and 1100 vehicles traveling northbound
between 4:00 and 5:30 pm.Chairman Lowry questioned if motorist had a
tendency to change into the right-hand lane when persons trying to cross traffic
blocked the left lane.Staff stated this was true.Chairman Lowry questioned if
the sight line was longer on West Markham Street or on Mississippi Avenue.
Staff stated since Mississippi Avenue was hilly the sight line was longer on West
Markham Street.Chairman Lowry stated he was concerned with only one
access point into a subdivision in an emergency situation.
After Chairman Lowry stated his concerns he stated would abstain from voting on
the matter.He stated he was also not going to continue as Chair on the item and
was going to turn the meeting over to the Acting Vice-Chair Commissioner
Nunnley.
After a general discussion between the Commissioners concerning which
entrance should be closed the Acting Chair asked for citizen comments.
Mr.Richard Cook spoke in support of the closure.He stated he lived at 30
Wingate Drive and asked the residents in support of the closure to please stand.
Mr.Cook stated the traffic volume and congestion of West Markham Street and
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
Mississippi Avenue was significant.He stated both streets were classified on the
City's Master Street Plan as Minor Arterials,which were designed to travel large
amounts of traffic.He stated currently Mississippi Avenue carried an estimated
17,000 vehicles per day and West Markham Street carried an estimated 20,000
vehicles per day.
Mr.Cook stated Wingate Drive was not intended to function as a cut-through
street.He stated to avoid the congestion at the intersection of West Markham
Street and Mississippi Avenue Wingate Drive had become a cut-through street.
He stated the change in the traffic light at the intersection earlier in 2002 had had
a dramatic negative impact on the neighborhood.Mr.Cook stated the pattern
had been established and would continue to worsen.He stated the
neighborhood was in need of a solution to a problem and the solution was to
close the street at the West Markham Street intersection.
Mr.Ed Matthews spoke in support of the closure.He gave a brief history of the
neighborhood stated when the two (2)entrances were installed they were for
convenience of the residents of the neighborhood.He stated this was no longer
the case.Mr.Matthews stated there was a significant amount of traffic on West
Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue,which at the time the subdivision was
developed West Markham Street was a two-lane road and Mississippi Avenue
was a gravel road.
Mr.Mathews stated the significant increase in the number of cars cutting-through
the neighborhood had created safety concerns of the residents for children.He
requested support of the Commission for closing the street.
Mr.Terry Patterson stated safety and security as concern for closing the street.
He stated since the street had been temporarily closed the number of vehicles
traveling through the neighborhood had decreased significantly.He stated
Wingate Drive was a curving and sloping street.He stated prior to the street
closure there were several residents who had experienced break-ins and thefts
but since the street had been temporarily closed the number of crimes had
decreased.
Mr.Patterson stated during a snow last year the children in the neighborhood
had built a snowman in his yard.He stated at a later time a motorist traveling the
street took the liberty to drive through his yard to destroy the snowman.He
questioned what would have happened if the children had been hiding behind the
pile of snow at the time the motorist drove through his yard.
He stated his desire was to permanently close the street at the West Markham
Street intersection and for the City to be proactive at this time rather than reactive
when there was a death of a loved one.
6
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the applicant had
indicated some concern with the number of voting members present.
Mr.Lawson stated he had had a conversation with the Mayor's office earlier in
the day and the consensus was the item would be forwarded to the Board of
Director's to be heard in January regardless of the vote or no vote from the
Commission.
Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Commission could forward
the item to the Board of Directors without a recommendation.He stated this was
not like a rezoning where Stated Law required a recommendation by the
Commission prior to Board of Directors action.
Commissioner Allen stated he did not have a problem hearing the item.He
stated if the neighborhood was going to ask for the Commission to not make a
recommendation then this was the time to do so.He stated if the item was to be
heard entirely then he was going to ask the Commission for a vote.
Commissioner Nunnley stated there were two (2)items he would like included in
the minutes but did not want answers to.He questioned if there were traffic
counts to support the neighborhood claim of the intrusion into the neighborhood.
He also questioned what current traffic control measures were in place in the
area and what measures were proposed.He stated perhaps the Board of
Directors should consider speed breakers and signage.
Chairman Lowry stated with every street closing there were things to consider.
He stated every citizen pays taxes and has a right to travel on streets.He stated
the freeway network should not be used to manage traffic and that
neighborhoods should be open to all.He stated we have certain societal
responsibility to not make gated and walled neighborhoods.He stated cut-
through traffic was a way of life in the city.He stated if a street becomes
dangerous to life and limb then the city should look at the closure of a street but
not at the expense of others.
A motion was made for the Commission to take no action on the item and send
the item to the Board of Directors without a recommendation.The motion carried
by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
7
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
NAME:Stagecoach Village Revised PCD
LOCATION:On the Southwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and
Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Finley &Company Hurricane Valley Engineers
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118
Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807
AREA:1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Selected Office and Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3 Uses
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 5,2000,the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,342
establishing Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)Short-form PCD.The applicant proposed to
construct a 3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial
building and 54 parking spaces.At the time of approval,the applicant proposed to
convert the bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses)if a bank tenant could
not be secured.The site plan was later revised (June 26,2001)at a Staff level to
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO '-6178-F
remove the bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage
was increased to 10,800 square feet.The applicant proposed the building to be used
as 80%commercial (C-2 uses)and 20%office (general and professional).
The previous proposal included two driveway locations onto the site.The site has
developed with only one driveway location.
The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
A.PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development to add the following..listed uses as alternative uses for the site and to
market the site for 100%commercial uses.
The requested uses include:Amusement (commercial,inside),Animal clinic
(enclosed),Antique shop,with repair,Appliance repair,Bakery or confectionery
shop,Bank or savings and loan office,Barber and beauty shop,Cabinet and
woodwork shop,Camera shop,Catering,commercial,Church,Clinic (medical,
dental or optical),Clothing store,Custom sewing and millinery,Day nursery and
day care center,Day Care center,adult,Drugstore or pharmacy,Duplication shop,
Eating place without drive-in service,Establishment for the care of alcoholic,
narcotic or psychiatric patients,Establishment of a religious,charitable or
philanthropic organization,Feed store,Florist shop,Food store,Furniture store,
Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork,Hardware or sporting goods store,
Health studio or spa,Hobby shop,Jewelry store,Key shop,Laboratory,Laundry
pickup station,Laundry,domestic cleaning,Lawn and garden center,enclosed,
Library,art gallery,museum or similar public use,Lodge or fraternal organization,
Medical appliance fittings and sales,Office (general or professional),Office
showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed),Office equipment sales
and service,Optical shop,Paint and wallpaper store,Pet shop,Photography
studio,Private school,kindergarten or institution for special education,Retail uses
not listed (enclosed),School (business),School (commercial,trade or craft),
School (public or denominational),Secondhand store (used furniture or rummage
shop),Shoe repair,Studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance or other artistic
endeavors),Studio broadcasting and recording,Tailor,Taxidermist,Tool and
equipment rental (inside display only),Travel bureau.
The applicant is not proposing a change to the hours of operation or any site plan
modifications as a part of this request.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a strip retail center.There are seven bays with four
being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners,Subway,
beauty supply,gift shop).Other uses in the area include an office located on the
northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road.A Planned
Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and
is beginning to develop.
The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building.Access to the
site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one phone call from an area resident.The Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,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 CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entercny:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~fire 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 not effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is located in an area
covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-
friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal.The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and
between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.The plan also contains a
statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb
cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Bottdin Codes:teo comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant was requesting
additional C-3 uses to be considered as alternative uses on the site.Staff stated
they had contacted the applicant and were working to resolve concerns
associated with a few of the requested uses.Staff stated they would continue to
work with the applicant to resolve as many concerns as possible prior to the
Public Hearing.
There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised list to Staff indicating uses,which the applicant
and Staff agreed were acceptable,non-obtrusive uses to the neighborhood.The
applicant has agreed there will be no outdoor display or sale of merchandise on
the site.The hours of operation will remain as previously approved (8:00 am to
10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday).
The applicant has also requested the center be allowed to be marketed to 100%
commercial uses.Based on Shopping Center parking ratio (1 space per 225 square
feet)the typical minimum parking requirement for the site would be 48 spaces.The
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.'-6178-F
site has developed with 54 spaces,adequate to meet the typical minimum parking.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow the site to be marketed as 100%
commercial.
The site is shown on the Future I and Use Plan as Mixed.The is to be a planned
development if the use is entirely office or commercial.The applicant has met
this criteria by filing for a PCD.The site is also a single lot of a larger PCD with
has developed as office,commercial and residential.Staff feels the request to
market the site as 100%commercial is an acceptable request due to the overall
development pattern in the originally approved PCD.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge;there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request to revise the previously approved planned development to
allow the uses listed in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to revised the previously approved
planned development to allow the listed uses in Paragraph A as alternative uses for
the site and to market the site to 100%commercial uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Olan Asbury was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to
revise the previously approved planned development to allow the listed uses in
Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site and to market the site as 100%commercial
uses.
Mr.Asbury stated the site was a developed site.He stated the overall development
consisted of 20+acres and was shown as Mixed on the Future Land Use Plan.He
stated the commercial building was approved with a mix of commercial and office uses.
Mr.Asbury stated with the proposed mix the development would not be allowed to
develop to full potential.He stated with the entire area under ownership developing as
a mix the need to hold the commercial site to a mixed use development was not as
critical.
Mr.David Henning spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated his
disagreement was in principal.He stated the original PCD was approved with a ground
mounted sign and the development had erected a pole mounted sign with back lighting.
He stated the original approval also included the removal of the driveway for Lot 2 off of
Stagecoach Road and onto Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Henning stated this had not
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO Z-6178-F
happened and with the current street design it appeared the driveway was not going to
be removed.
Mr.Asbury stated the driveway was to be removed at the time Lot 2 was Final Platted.
He stated a driveway to Lot 2 was in place on Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Asbury
stated the driveway from Stagecoach Road was being used by truck traffic to develop
the residential development to the west of the site.He stated when the applicant was
ready to develop Lot 2 then the driveway would be removed from Stagecoach Road and
access would be from the driveway that had been put in place from Stagecoach Village
Drive.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the existing sign and the approved signage.
Staff stated the previous PCD approved a single ground-mounted monument sign.Staff
stated the request before the Commission did not include the sign issue.
Mr.Asbury requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing to
allow himself and Staff sufficient time to research the issue of signage with respect to
the previously approved PCD.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and
4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing to allow the applicant additional time
to work with the neighbors concerning the sign issue.Staff stated the request would
take a waiver of the By-Laws to allow the deferral.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-laws to allow the
deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.A motion was
then made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a letter to Staff on December 4,2002 requesting the application
be withdrawn without prejudice.Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal
request.
6
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:1 F I LE NO.:S-285-A
NAME:Brimer Subdivision Replat
LOCATION:On the south side of Mabelvale Cut-off and north of Brimer Street near the
intersection of Mabelvale Cut-off,University and Woodbridge Streets
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mystery Properties Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick
P.O.Box 56403 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72215 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,CUP
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.05
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:In-lieu contribution for street construction to
Mabelvale Cut-off.
BACKGROUND:
On July 13,1982,the Planning Commission approved a two-lot plat (and a CUP for a
Church on Lot A)for the Light House Baptist Temple Lots A and B.The plat was final
platted and recorded December 1,1982.The current proposal includes the land area of
Lot A,which has not developed.(Lot B was replatted into Courtney Subdivision.)
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to replat Lot A into eight (8)single-family residential lots.
The lots will have street frontage on Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer Road.The
lots average 7020 square feet;adequate to meet the minimum requirement of the
Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant proposes a 35-foot platted building line
adjacent to Mabelvale Cut-off and a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to
Brimer Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 Cont.FILE NO.:6-285-A
The applicant has indicated right-of-way will be dedicated and one-half street
improvements made to Brimer Road.The applicant has indicated right-of-way
dedication but is requesting an in-lieu contribution for street construction to
Mabelvale Cut-off.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant with a scattering of trees.Brimer Road is a narrow
unimproved (no sidewalk)roadway with open ditches for drainage.Mabelvale
Cut-off is an unimproved roadway also with open ditches for drainage.One-half
street improvements have been made to the property located to the west of the
site on Mabelvale Cut-off.
There are single-family residences located in the immediate area with the homes
south of Mabelvale Cut-off being on large lots.The homes north of Mabelvale
Cut-off,in the Woodbridge Subdivision,are located on similar sized lots as the
lots proposed.There is a relatively new single-family home located immediately
west of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
West Baseline Neighborhood Association and Southwest United for Progress,
along with all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Mabelvale Cut-off is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required (the
proposed dedication is acceptable).
2,Brimer Road is classified as a local street and a right-of-way width of 50-feet
is acceptable.
3.Provide design of Brimer Street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot
sidewalk with the planned development.Provide contribution in-lieu of
construction for Mabelvale Cut-off.
4.All residential lots should take driveway access from Brimer or a single
access point on Mabelvale Cut-off.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
2
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 Cont.FILE NO.'-285-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if
service is required for Lots 1 through 3.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at
688-1414 for additional details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection (s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether
additional public 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 at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Count Plannin:No comment received.
CATA: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:No comment.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present
representing the application.Staff gave an overview of the proposed
development to the Subdivision Committee indicating there were additional items
necessary on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the proposed source of
water and the proposed means of wastewater disposal were needed in the
General Notes of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the applicant was to
include the number of lots and the average lot size in the General Notes as well.
3
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO '-285-A
Staff stated there was a concern related to three driveway locations onto
Mabelvale Cut-off and requested Mr.McGetrick try to minimize the number of
driveway locations.Mr.McGetrick indicated the proposed development would
have two driveway locations with Lots 2 and 3 sharing a driveway on the lot line
and Lot 1's driveway would be located as far as feasible away from this break as
possible.Staff requested Mr.McGetrick indicate the driveway locations on the
proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated there were some concerns of the
buildability of Lot 1 and requested Mr.McGetrick indicate on the proposed
preliminary plat the buildable area of Lot 1.
Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater
requesting Mr.McGetdick contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
I L ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to Staff addressing most of the
issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has
indicated in the General Notes the proposed source of water (Central Arkansas
Water Association)and the proposed means of wastewater disposal (Little Rock
Wastewater Utility).The applicant has also indicated the average lot size and
the number of lots.
The applicant has indicated on.the preliminary plat the proposed dedication of
right-of-way to both streets,Brimer Road and Mabelvale Cut-off,and indicated
street improvements will be made to Brimer Road.The applicant has also
indicated an in-lieu contribution for Mabelvale Cut-off rather than street
construction.Staff is supportive of this request.
The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,
being greater than 60-feet in width and more than 7,000 square feet in area,as
required for R-2,Single-family zoning.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Although,the lots are
somewhat smaller than the land area of homes located around the site,the lots
average 7,020 square feet comparable to the lots to the north of the site in the
Woodbridge Subdivision.The applicant has indicated the buildable area for Lot 1
and in that area it appears that a 1,800 —2,000 single-story home could be
constructed on the lot.
To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed preliminary plat.Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat for
the Brimer Subdivision as presented.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 1 Cont FILE NO '-285-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for
street construction of Mabelvale Cut-off.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetdck Engineers was present representing the
application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning
Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine
(9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8)
Commissioners present.
Mr.McGetrick requested the item be deferred to the January 23,2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
5
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1363
NAME:Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:9400 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
ERC Development Group LLC The Hill Firm
815 Fort Street 222 South 16'"Street
Barung,AR 72923 Fort Smith,AR 72901
AREA:10.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-12
ALLOWED USES:Multi-family 12 units per acre
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.14,816 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5,
1985 rezoned this property to MF-12 along with four (4)additional parcels to various
other zoning classifications.The plan included 50.4 acres of Multi-family zoning,12.6
acres of commercial zoning and 8.6 acres of office zoning.
An application was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their April 4,
2002 Public Hearing requesting properties to the north of this site to be rezoned (a 100-
foot utility easement)from R-2,Single-family to MF-12.The Little Rock Board of
Directors later denied this request.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO S-1363
A.PROPOSAL/RQUEES:
The applicant proposes to construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a
Clubhouse/Leasing Office.There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of
the development.Site amenities include a swimming pool and playground area.
The building materials are proposed as wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl
siding.The roof will be constructed of composition shingles.
The applicant proposes Building Number 1 and 2 to be one story with the
remainder of the buildings to be two-story.The applicant proposes six (6)of the
one-story units to be one bedroom (721 square feet each)and four (4)of the
one-story units to be two bedrooms (960 square feet each).The two-story
structures proposed include two,three and four bedroom units.There are fifty-
six (56)units (912 square feet each)of the two bedrooms and forty-eight (48)
units (1085 square feet each)of the three bedrooms and eight (8)units (1288
square feet each)of the four bedrooms.
The entire site will be landscaped and irrigated to comply with the Little Rock
Landscape Ordinance.The applicant proposes the placement of a six (6)foot
wooden fence around the north,south and western perimeters of the property
with no fencing proposed along Stagecoach Road.There is a single non-gated
entrance to the community with no traffic routed through any residential
neighborhood.There is no parking proposed parallel to Stagecoach Road.The
existing pond at the south side of the site will remain as a natural area.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant wooded,mostly flat site,with an abundance of undergrowth,
There is a major transmission power line located to the north of the site and two
churches located east of the site,across Stagecoach.There is a relatively new
single-family subdivision located to the south of the site,Westfield,and
undeveloped MF-12 zoned property located to the south of the subdivision.
Other uses in the area include two parcels of vacant 0-1 zoned property to the
east and vacant R-2 zoned property located to the southeast.To the north of the
site are two PCD's;only one of which has developed and Stagecoach Village,a
PRD in which single-family detached and attached housing is currently under
construction.
Stagecoach Road is a four-lane roadway complete with curb and gutter,and no
center turn-lane at this location.There are not sidewalks in place adjacent to the
site but are in place to the north and south of the site.There is an open drainage
ditch located along the south property line.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.2 Cont FILE NO '-1363
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Otter Creek Homeowners Association and Southwest United for Progress,
along with all property owners within 200 feet of the site,were notified of the
public hearing.As of this writing,Staff has received several informational phone
calls concerning the proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be
required.
2.Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master
Street Plan.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
4.Plans for all works in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work.
5.A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works.
Also,contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to
construction to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit.
6.Contact the US Army Corps of Engineers,Little Rock District,for approval
prior to start of work,regarding wetlands.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Easements for
stormwater detention are required.
8.Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q)entering and leaving the
property.Demonstrate adequate capacity of on-site and down stream
structures to convey all storm water through the property.
9.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD District Vl.
10.Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width.
Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet.
11.Provide any documentation or assurance,as required by State and Federal
agencies or lending institutions,that the development will meet
environmental,historic and cultural regulations.
12.Provide a left turn lane on Stagecoach Road into the proposed
development.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
property line.Private sewer system including gravity mains,manholes,pump
station and force main approved for on site.Capacity Contribution Analysis
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363
required,contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water:The facilities on-site will be private.When meters are
planned off private lines,private facilities shall be installed to Central
Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will
be inspected by an engineer,licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas.
Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required.A Capital
Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to
this project in addition to normal charges.The Little Rock Fire Department
needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or
private fire hydrant(s)will be required.Meter sizes indicated appear to be
larger than would be required for this development.Contact Central Arkansas
Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.if the developer installs a
gated entrance the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening.Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
DovntOCPlannin:No comment received.
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.
~hendeca e:Areas set aside for land use and street huffers meet with ordinance
requirements.However,it will be necessary to show placement of on-site utility
easements.Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use
buffer area.
A total of seventy (70)percent of the land use buffers along the northern,
southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed.The average width
of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty-
seven (27)feet and twenty-nine (29)feet along the western perimeter.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO S-1363
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the
northern,southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit,an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of
a Registered Landscape Architect will be required.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on this site.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Paul Hill of the Hill Architectural Firm and Mr.Aaron Robinson of Bond
Engineering Company were present representing the application.Staff
presented an overview of the proposed development to the Committee members.
Staff stated the proposed development was a subdivision multiple building site
plan review.Staff stated this review was a technical review of the ordinance
requirements.
Staff stated there were general questions related to the proposed development,
which would need to be indicated on the proposed site plan.Staff requested all
easements on-site and adjoining the proposed development be indicated on the
site plan.Staff also requested the applicant indicated the roof treatment,facade
treatment and building materials along with the maximum building heights on the
site plan.
Staff questioned if there would be a development sign.The applicant indicated
there would be a sign.Staff stated the sign along with details (height/area)
should be indicated on the site plan.Staff questioned if the proposed
development would be developed in phases or in one phase.The applicant
stated the proposed development would be constructed in one phase.
Staff questioned if one dumpster location was proposed.Mr.Hill stated the
proposal included a trash compactor in one location.He stated this type
collection system was currently being used at other locations and was working
well.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed drive was to
be a maximum of 36-feet with 18-foot entrance lane width.Staff stated the
proposed right-of-way indicated for Stagecoach Road was to be 45-feet from
centerline in all locations.Staff stated in one area the right-of-way appeared to
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363
be a "little short".Staff stated drainage on the site was very critical.Staff stated
hydraulics for the highway culvert and water movement through the site were
critical.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated all utility easements were
necessary on the proposed site plan.Staff stated utility easements could not be
counted as land use buffers.Staff stated the proposed development appeared to
meet with the ordinance requirements but without the location of easements it
was impossible to tell for certain:
Staff stated it would be necessary to locate all trees 6-inch caliper and greater on
the proposed site plan.Staff stated City Beautiful Commission recommended
preserving as many trees as feasible on the site and extra credit could be given
when properly preserving the trees of this caliper.Staff stated at least seventy
percent (70%)of the land use buffer must be preserved.
Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater
utility.Staff suggested the applicant contact each agency for specifics
concerning their comments.There was some general discussion concerning the
placement of fire hydrants.Staff stated the Little Rock Fire Department could
clarify the placement.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
FL ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted revised comments to Staff addressing some of the
issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting but to date a revised site
plan has not been received.
Based on comment received the applicant has indicated the development will not
be gated and there will not be any fencing along Stagecoach Road.A six (6)foot
wooden fence will be placed along the northern,southern and western
perimeters of the site.
The applicant proposes the placement of a single-trash compactor location on
the site.The applicant has indicated one central drop-off location for garbage
has been successfully tried in other locations.
Based on the initial drawings the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the
typical minimum required parking demand.The applicant is proposing to
construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office.
6
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:8-1363
There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.The
typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 183
parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit.
In addition,the applicant is proposing site amenities to include a swimming pool
but has not indicated a playground area.These are items not regulated under
the site plan review and not a requirement under the City's existing ordinances.
The applicant has stated the exterior construction is proposed as a wood frame
with brick veneer and vinyl siding.The applicant has indicated both one and two
story buildings to be located on the site.The applicant proposes the maximum
building height to be 35-feet.The proposal includes a roof treatment of
composition shingles.
The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground-mounted development
sign to be located near the entry drive but the exact location has not been
identified due to the lack of a revised site plan.The revised comments indicate
the sign will be constructed of wood and masonry and be a maximum of eight (8)
feet in length and five (5)feet in height or forty (40)square feet in area including
the support columns.Allowable signage in multi-family zones is not to exceed
twenty-four (24)square feet in area and six (6)feet in height not including the
main supporting structure but all other ornamental attachments.Staff
recommends the sign area denoting the complex not exceed the allowable sign
area permitted in multi-family zones.
The applicant has indicated there is an existing on-site detention pond,which will
be utilized as a detention basin.The applicant has suggested the pond will
remain in a natural state.Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant
will be required to submit detailed drainage plans for review and approval.
The applicant has indicated all drive lanes will be maintained at 18-feet and the
proposed development will not be a gated community.The applicant has also
indicated the maximum driveway width will be 36-feet as requested by Staff.
At this writing,review is on-going regarding the drainage issues and the capacity
of the AHTD culverts under Stagecoach Road.
The requested site plan review is a technical review.From the comments
received the applicant has indicated the minimum requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance with regard to building height,landscaping,land use
buffering and parking ratios will be complied with.Without a revised drawing it is
difficult for Staff to make this determination.Staff has requested all on-site and
off-site easements be indicated on the site plan.As per the ordinance
easements are not allowed to count as land use buffers.As indicated in the
7
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363
landscape comments section the areas set aside appear to meet the minimum
requirements.
The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as multi-family.The proposed
development density is consistent with the existing zoning.
The applicant has tried to minimize the negative impacts of surrounding existing
residential neighborhoods by placing the buildings within the development away
from the southern property line and has indicated they will preserve as many
existing trees and as much existing vegetation as feasible during the
development.This would further buffer the existing single-family homes in the
adjoining neighborhood to the south.
If in fact,all the issues raised above are met to Staff's knowledge,there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for the subdivision
multiple building site plan review as presented.Staff recommends approval of
the request should the applicant comply with land use buffers,compliance with
signage allowable in multi-family zones and that the development will meet
environmental,historic and cultural regulations.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan in response to Subdivision
Committee review.Staff does not anticipate that there will be substantial
changes in the site plan.However,Staff is withholding their recommendation
until such time as the revised site plan is submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19 2002)
Mr.Paul Hill was present representing the application.There were objectors present.
Staff stated the applicant was given a condition after Subdivision Committee Meeting,
the addition of a turn lane,which he had not been able to resolve.Staff stated the
applicant was required to resubmit revised plans within one (1)week of Subdivision
Committee meeting or the item was deferred.Staff stated the applicant was not notified
of the turn lane until four (4)days before the Commission meeting not allowing him
sufficient time to resolve the issue.Staff stated if the applicant was required to "play by
the rules"then the City should also be required to "play by the rules".Staff stated the
applicant was working with a traffic engineer to determine the traffic counts in the area
and less than one (1)week was not sufficient time to generate traffic counts.Staff
stated a deferral request was not out of line in this case since the applicant was not
given ample notice to resolve the turn lane concern.
There was limited discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23,
2003 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and 2 absent.
8
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1364
NAME:Lawson Road Mini-storage Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:15700 Lawson Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Rick Millerick Donald W.Brooks,Inc.
15401 Woodstone Drive 20820 Arch Street Pike
Roland,AR 72135 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:2.01 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:l-3,Industrial district
ALLOWED USES:Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT:18
CENSUS TRACT:42.10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Deferral of the hard surface parking area until
Phase II develops.
A.P ROPOSAL/RE VEST:
The site is currently zoned 1-3 and located in front of the "old rock plant".The
applicant proposes to construct two (2)single-story mini-warehouse buildings
and a single-story security office/resident managers unit (maximum height
20-feet)on the site immediately and five (5)mini-warehouse buildings in the
future.The applicant proposes all the mini-storage units to be constructed of
non-reflective colors and the maximum building height of nine (9)feet.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1364
The applicant is proposing gravel drives and parking areas with Phase I.The
applicant has requested a deferral of the hard-surface parking area and has
indicated the hard-surface parking area would be constructed with Phase II.
The proposed site plan indicated dedication of right-of-way as required per the
Master Street Plan.The applicant is proposing the placement of landscaping
along the road right-of-way and the eastern and western property lines as
required by the ordinance.The applicant proposes the placement of a single
ground mounted sign to be located along the western property line within the
landscaped area.The sign will be a maximum of 12-feet in height and 32 square
feet in area.
The applicant proposes one (1)employee,who will live on site.The applicant
proposes the days and hours of operation to be seven (7)days per week and
from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with dirt work in process.The site is a former quarry with
the bluff being to the north of the site.Other uses in the immediate area include
a concrete plant,welding and a storage site.The site is surrounded with a six (6)
foot chain link fence with barbed wire located on the top.
The area is primarily undeveloped and very rural.There is a large tract of 0-2
zoned vacant property located to the west of the site and small piece of 1-1 zoned
property located to the east of the site.Near the site is the Crystal Hill Church
located on the east side of Crystal Valley Road and the Church's Family Life
Center located on the west side of Crystal Valley Road.There is also a general
office located on 0-3 zoned property located near the intersections of Lawson
Road and Crystal Valley Road.
Lawson Road is an unimproved two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage
and no sidewalk.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
There is not an active neighborhood association near the site.As of this writing,
staff has not received any comment from area residents.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.;S-1364
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Outside service boundary.No comment.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:The Fire Department having jurisdiction 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.
FFire De Fartment:Place fire hydrants per code.If the developer installs a
gated entrance,the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening.Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~ount Plannin:County Staff requires submission of a plat that has a
surveyor and an engineering stamp that shows all standard information,a Bill
of Assurance and a summary of the development plan.If the
engineer/surveyor needs a copy of the County Rules and Regulations contact
Pulaski County Planning Staff at 340-8267.
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.
~hendeca e:A twenty-three (23t foot wide on-site street buffer is required along
Lawson Road.Additionally,a nine (9)foot wide landscape strip will be required
along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the first fifty (50)feet
from the right-of-way of Lawson Road.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.S-1364
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Rick Millerick was present representing the application.Mr.Jim Narey,
Director of Planning Pulaski County,and Ms.Lou Dreher,Project Coordinator
Pulaski County,were in attendance to discuss the County comments related to
the proposed development.
Staff gave a brief overview of the proposed development and indicated there
were additional items needed on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the
requested waiver of right-of-way dedication would not be supported and
suggested the applicant rethink his request.Staff stated the request for a
deferral of the hard surface parking area was a feasible request.
Staff stated the fencing was currently located within the right-of-way and a
franchise agreement would be required to allow the fence to remain in its current
location.The applicant stated his intention was to replace the fence,at which
time,the fence would be relocated outside the right-of-way.
Staff requested the days and hours of operation be indicated on the site plan.
Staff stated if the applicant intended to utilize an on-site dumpster it would be
necessary to locate the dumpster on the site plan along with the required
screening.Staff stated a phasing plan was needed on the site plan to indicate at
which point the future buildings would be added to the site.
Mr.Narey addressed the County comments stating the County would require the
site to be platted.He stated Staff would work with the applicant to address all the
relevant information needed on the plat.He stated the County would require a
registered surveyor or engineer stamp for final approval.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the street buffer should be
twenty-three (23)feet.Staff questioned if the units would be double or single
loaded units.Staff stated if the units were single loaded then the driveway
adjacent to Lawson Road could be removed.The applicant stated the units
would be double loaded and the driveway adjacent to Lawson Road was
necessary to access the units.Staff stated a nine (9)foot wide landscape strip
would be required along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the
first fifty (50)feet from the new right-of-way line for Lawson Road.
There was no further discussion.The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
4
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO..3 Cont FILE NO '-1364
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated the
new right-of-way line for Lawson Road on the proposed site plan along with the
required dedication of right-of-way
The applicant proposes the placement of two rows of mini-warehouse buildings,
both double loading in Phase I along with an office/resident managers building.
The site will be gated with a single access from Lawson Road.The gate will
maintain the requested 20-foot opening of the Little Rock Fire Department.
The second phase will include the construction of five (5)additional buildings.All
buildings will be constructed with non-reflective metal roofs.The applicant
proposes the maximum building height of the office/residence to be 20-feet.
The applicant has proposed landscaping adjacent to Lawson Road somewhat
consistent with the ordinance requirement.The applicant has indicated a
landscape strip of 15 feet in which the applicant has proposed the placement of
crape myrtles and shrubs.The applicant has also proposed the placement of a
nine-foot strip along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the first 50
feet as required by the ordinance.Staff is supportive of the landscaping plan for
the site.
The signage proposed,four (4)foot by eight (8)foot and a maximum of twelve
(12)feet in height is consistent with signage allowable in industrial zones.Staff
is supportive of the placement of the proposed signage in the front landscaped
area along the western property line.
The applicant is also proposing a six (6)foot wooden fence along the east and
west property lines with a six (6)foot black chain link fence along the road right-
of-way.The proposed fencing is consistent with fencing allowed per the zoning
ordinance for industrial zones.
Staff is supportive of the requested Subdivision Site Plan Review.The proposed
development is a multiple building site plan review,a technical review,in which
the applicant has met most of the requirements of the Ordinance.The applicant
is however,requesting a deferral of the hard-surface parking and driveway lanes
until Phase II develops.The applicant has indicated the paving will be disturbed
when Phase II is developed and is requesting to be allowed to install all paving at
one time.Staff feels this is a reasonable request.The applicant has indicated
Phase II will be in the near future therefore;the paving will not be deferred for an
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 3 Cont FILE NO S-1364
indefinite period of time.Staff feels a two (2)year deferral,or until such a time
that Phase II develops,is a reasonable amount of time for the paving of the drive
lanes and parking areas.
The applicant is continuing to work with County Planning to resolve the County
comments in Section E of this report.The applicant has satisfied the City'
requirements and should be allowed to proceed with the Public Hearing of his
request.Staff feels this is an acceptable request but Staff recommends the
applicant not be allowed zoning clearance to begin construction until he has
secured an approval letter from County Planning.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan review subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of this
report.The applicant will not be given zoning clearance to begin construction
until the applicant has secured all necessary approvals from County Planning.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral of the hard surface parking area for
two (2)years or until such time as Phase II develops,whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant
was continuing to work with the County Staff to resolve the issues indicated in
paragraph E of the above Staff Report.Staff stated to their knowledge there were no
other outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.Staff stated the
proposed development complied with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance for a multiple building site plan review.Staff presented a recommendation of
approval of the request for Lawson Road Mini-storage Site Plan Review subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff stated the applicant was requesting a deferral of the hard surface parking area for
two years or until Phase II developed.Staff stated they also recommended approval of
the request for a deferral of the hard surface parking area for two (2)years or until such
time as Phase II develops,whichever occurs first.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-7325
NAME:Lot 1 Section "A"Wildwood Subdivision Short-form POD
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and South Katillus Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Charlotte Murphy McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
16719 Cantrell Road 319 President Clinton Avenue,Suite 202
Little Rock,AR 72227 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:0.42 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residences
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:Office —General and Professional
VARIANCEShNAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAURE VEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone this 0.42-acre site to POD to allow the site to
redevelop as a general and/or professional office use.The site contains a vacant
single-family residence,which the applicant proposes to convert to a general or
professional office.The applicant will remove one of the existing driveways,the
drive nearest the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road and
maintain the other existing drive nearer the south property line.All fencing on the
site is to remain and a six (6)foot wooden fence will be added to the south
property line adjacent to the single-family zoned property,
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.4 Cont.FILE NO '-7325
The applicant proposes to placement of five (5)parking spaces in the rear of the
structure with the existing metal storage building to remain.
The applicant is requesting a reduced design standard as related to the Highway
10 Overlay District with regard to landscaping.This request is consistent with the
Overlay requirements for a lot of this size.
The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm
Monday through Saturday.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant single-family structure located on the southeast corner
of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road.There is an existing storage building
located in the rear of the structure near the east property line.The site is
accessed from South Katillus Road.
Other uses in the area include,two previously approved POD's one containing a
law office and the second containing a beauty shop/tanning salon.There is a
single-family residence with a horse riding stable and barns located to the south
of the site.This site was recently reviewed and approved by the Commission as
a 60 lot plat for patio home construction.
There is a PCD,Texaco Quick Stop Station to the northwest and a mixture of
single-family homes both stick built and manufactured homes located to the
northeast of the site along North Katillus Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident.All property owners located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
located within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and the Johnson
Ranch Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.The right-of-way widths as shown on the plan meet Master Street Plan
requirements.However,a 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road.
2.Remove all existing improvements located within the right-of-way including
concrete slab and fencing.
3.Close the northern most driveway.Locate new driveway to parking area,as
far as practicable,from the intersection of Cantrell Road.
2
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7325
4.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan (South
Katillus Road).Construct one-half street improvements to the street
including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if
service is required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
CentralArkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s)are required.The Little Rock Fire Department
needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public fire
hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will
be installed at the Developer's expense.
~Fire De artmenh Approved as suhmiited.
~Count Piannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property.The applicant has applied for
a Planned Office Development for general and professional office uses.The
request is consistent with the POD part of Transition.
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:A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required
along the southern perimeter of the site.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 4 Cont FILE NO.'-7325
It is recommended that trees be planted every twenty (20)feet within the
landscape buffer along Cantrell Road.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick an McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application.Staff presented a brief overview of the proposed
development to the Committee members.Staff stated the proposed site plan did
not include any parking and questioned if the applicant would consider adding
parking to the rear of the structure.Staff stated there were also concerns with
the applicant requesting the entire listing of 0-3 uses.Staff stated the applicant
should reconsider the selected uses to only include those uses,which were not
parking intensive.Mr.McGetrick stated his client envisioned the site developing
as a general and/or professional office type uses.
Staff stated the driveway nearest the intersection of South Katillus Road and
Cantrell Road should be removed to eliminate potential safety concerns.Staff
stated when the applicant was reviewing the placement of a rear parking area to
consider moving the second existing driveway to the south,nearer the property
line,to allow for the parking design to pull into the rear of the structure.Staff
stated this would eliminate headlights shining into the adjoining single-family
properties to the south.Staff stated the Commission reviewed a plat for a few
months back and it appeared the applicant of that site was working toward final
platting the single-family properties to the south.
Staff requested the applicant indicate the days and hours of operation on the site
plan and questioned if a dumpster would be utilized.The applicant stated there
would not be an on-site dumpster.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed site would
require relief from the Highway 10 Overlay District due to the small size of the
site.Staff stated it was recommended a tree be planted every twenty (20)feet
within the landscape buffer along Cantrell Road.Staff stated along the southern
perimeter a six (6)foot wooden fence would be required to screen the adjoining
single-family zoned properties.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the indicated right-of-way
met with Master Street Plan requirement but a twenty (20)foot radial dedication
would be required at the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road.
Staff stated the proposed development would possible meet the hardship clause
of the ordinance and an in-lieu contribution was possible as an alternative to
street construction.Staff also stated it would be necessary to remove any
fencing or parking located within the right-of-way.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.4 Cont FILE NO '-7325
After the discussion with no further items 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 at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated five
(5)parking spaces in the rear of the structure,one of which is utilizing the
existing covered parking pad on the site.The proposed parking is more than
sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking requirements per the zoning
ordinance (3 spaces typically required).
The applicant has also indicated the removal of the northern driveway,as
requested by Staff,on the revised site plan.The parking will be accessed via the
southern driveway and the spaces pull directly into the site.The property to the
east is zoned non-residentially thus minimizing the negative impacts of
headlights shining into homes.The parking spaces are also located away from
the single-family zoned property to the south also lessening any potential
negative impacts.Staff is supportive of the parking arrangement as proposed.
The applicant has indicated there will be a single ground mounted sign,which will
comply with signage allowable in office zones (64-square feet in area and a
maximum of six (6)feet in height).The applicant has indicated the proposed
signage will be located in the landscaped area of the front yard.Staff is
supportive of the signage as proposed.
The applicant has indicated all existing fencing will remain on the site and the
applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wooden fence will be added to the
south property line.The addition of this fencing will screen the adjacent single-
family zoned property to the south.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to
8:00 pm Monday through Saturday.The proposed hours of operation are
consistent with days and hours of operation of neighboring businesses and Staff
is supportive of the requested operational hours.
The applicant has requested an in-lieu contribution for street construction of
South Katillus Road.The applicant has indicated the dedication of the required
right-of-way on the proposed site plan but has indicated the cost of street
construction far exceeds the cost of rehabbing the structure for an office user.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street
construction of South Katillus Road.
Staff is supportive of the request to rezone the site from R-2,Single-family to
POD to allow the site to develop as an office use.The applicant has proposed
5
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7325
general and/or professional office users,which typically generate lower volumes
of traffic.The site is shown as Transitional on the Future Land Use Plan,which
allows for office uses if developed through a planned development.This request
is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan in that it has been filed as a planned
development.The proposed signage,parking and landscaped areas are
consistent with ordinance requirements and the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District requirements.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request.Staff recommends approval of the
request to rezone the site to Planned Office Development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning to a Planned Office
Development to allow professional and/or general office uses to locate on the site
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for
street construction to South Katillus Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning to a Planned Office Development
to allow professional and/or general office uses to locate on the site subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff stated they also recommended approval of the request to allow an in-lieu
contribution for street construction of South Katillus Road as requested by the applicant.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7326
NAME:Lieblong Short-form PD-0
LOCATION;12900 Crystal Valley Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Daniel Lieblong Troy Laha
12900 Crystal Valley Road 6602 Baseline Road Suite E
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:1.57 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
PROPOSED USE:Dentist Office
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R-2,Single-family to PD-0 to
allow the construction of a new one-story building (3680 square feet),with a full
basement,to house a dental office for one (1)dentist.The applicant has
indicated 18 parking spaces to be located adjacent to Crystal Valley Road.The
applicant has also indicated a drive to extend to the rear of the structure and
space for parking of two (2)vehicles.The applicant has indicated the doctor and
a staff person will utilize the two (2)rear spaces.
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont FILE NO '-7326
The applicant proposes the placement of a single four (4)foot high by six (6)foot
wide lighted sign located near the southern driveway in the landscaped area.
The applicant has indicated there will not be a dumpster located on the site.The
applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 9:00 pm
Monday through Saturday.The applicant has also indicated any site lighting will
be low level and directional,aimed away from residentially zoned properties.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with a scattering of trees.The site is a steep site,
sloping from the northeast to the southwest.There are new single-family homes
located to the north of the site and a single-family subdivision located to the west
of the site.Street improvements have been made to Crystal Valley Road
adjacent to the single-family subdivision,on the west side of Crystal Valley Road,
complete with sidewalk but no street improvements have been made adjacent to
the subject site.
Other uses in the area include a used car dealership,a church,an auto repair
center and new construction of a car dealership all located on Stagecoach Road
near the intersection of Crystal Valley Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the
site,who could be identified and Southwest United for Progress were notified of
the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Crystal Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan,
Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot
sidewalk with the planned development.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance,
4.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
the start of work.
5.Grading permits will be required for this development.
6.The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property.
2
December 19,z002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7326
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water Due to the nature of the processes used in this facility
(dental office),installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer assembly installed prior to the first outlet will be required on the
domestic water service.Contact Carrol Keatts,Central Arkansas Water'
Cross Connection Program Administrator at 992-2431 for additional details.
~Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
CountOCPlannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development for a dentist office consistent with
Suburban Office.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Otter Creek /Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Office and Commercial Development goal supports limiting office developments
to the "heart"of the study area located on Stagecoach Road between Baseline
and Otter Creek Roads.
~Landsca e:The proposed land use buffer along a portion of the northern
perimeter drops below the nine (9)foot minimum allowed at any given point.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the
northern,southern and eastern perimeter of the site.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO '-7326
Curb and gutter,or another approved border,will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Mr.Troy Laha,Laha Engineers,was present representing the applicant.Staff
presented an overview of the proposed development indicating the property was
shown on the Future Land Use Plan for a suburban office type use.Staff stated
there were additional items which would need to be shown on the proposed site
plan.Staff requested the applicant indicate the days and hours of operation,any
proposed signage,the number of doctors and the number of employees and any
proposed dumpster location.
There was a general discussion concerning the parking lot placement.The
Committee noted with the proximity to residential housing,the parking placement
in the rear or to the side of the structure would be a better alternative from a
design standpoint.Staff stated the building should also have a residential
character as well.Mr.Laha stated he would explore the alternative of moving
the parking area.He stated with the topography of the site the parking in the
front of the structure would be the most feasible and would not be as unsightly
from the road as one might think.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed right-of-way
dedication would be 45-feet from the centerline of Crystal Valley Road per the
Master Street Plan requirement.Staff stated all driveways were to be concrete
aprons per City Ordinance.Staff stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
would apply to the site therefore,the applicant would be required to provide on-
site detention.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated some of the areas
proposed as land use buffers dropped below the minimum nine (9)feet required
per the Zoning Ordinance.Staff stated screening would be required along the
eastern,northern and southern boundaries of the site.Staff also stated curb and
gutter,or another approved border,would be required to protect the landscaped
areas from vehicular traffic.Staff stated the applicant would be required an
irrigation system to water landscaped areas as well.
Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water stating the applicant should
contact the water department for additional information.There were no further
issues for discussion.The Committee,then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO '-7326
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated a nine
(9)foot wide landscape buffer along the northern property line as required per
the zoning ordinance.
The applicant has also indicated street improvements would be made to Crystal
Valley Road per the Master Street Plan requirement.The revised site plan
indicates the required dedication of right-of-way and the planned five (5)foot
sidewalk.The applicant has also indicated on-site detention as per the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 9:00
pm Monday through Saturday.The proposed hours are consistent with a dentist
office use.
The applicant has indicated fencing along the north and east property lines.The
fencing is proposed as a six (6)foot wooden fence with the face side directed
outward.The applicant has also indicated a nine (9)foot wide landscape buffer
along the northern perimeter of the site and landscaping along the street right-of-
way.The applicant proposes to retain some existing trees on the site per the
recommendation of the City Beautiful Commission.
The applicant proposes the placement of eighteen (18)parking spaces on the
site along with two additional spaces near the rear of the structure.The typical
minimum parking requirement for a dentist office with one doctor would be six (6)
spaces (one space per doctor).The proposed parking is more than sufficient to
meet the typical minimum parking requirement.
The applicant proposes the placement of one development sign to be located
near the driveway in the front landscaped area.The proposed signage is
consistent with signage allowed in office zones or four (4)foot in height and six
(6)feet in width or twenty-four (24)square feet in area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development.The applicant has revised the
site plan to lessen any negative impact on the single-family to the west and to the
north of the site.The single-story office building,which will appear residential in
character,should blend with the neighborhood.The applicant has indicated site
lighting will be directional,aimed away from residentially zoned properties.
The request is consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan,Suburban Office.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request.
5
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO'-7326
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request to Planned
Development —Office to allow the construction of a dentist office on the site
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Dr.Lieblong and Troy Laha were present representing the application.There were
objectors registered to speak on the issue.Staff questioned if the objectors were still
present.The Chairman indicated only one,Ms.Janet Berry of Southwest United for
Progress.Ms.Berry stated she had indicated on the card she did not wish to address
the Commission concerning the issue.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed development.Staff
stated they had received a letter stating opposition to the proposed development and
referenced the Bill of Assurance.Staff stated the Commission did not normally
undertake Bill of Assurance issues.Staff stated they recommended approval of the
request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion concerning the application.A motion was made to
approve the development as proposed.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes
and 5 absent.
6
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-7327
NAME:Shear Magic Short-form PCD
LOCATION:1911 West 2"'treet
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Carolyn J.Miller Ollen Dee Wilson
8201 Cantrell Road,Suite 225 P.O.Box 604
Little Rock,AR 72227 North Little Rock,AR 72115
AREA:0.13Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family District
ALLOWED USES:Residential (Existing Duplex)
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mixture of Commercial (Beauty Shop)and Residential Uses
VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the site to Planned Commercial Development
(PCD)to convert an existing duplex to a mix of commercial and residential uses,
The applicant proposes one unit be used as a residence and the second unit
would be used Tuesday through Saturday as a one chair,single operator,beauty
salon (approximately 900 square feet).The applicant proposes the days of
operation to be Tuesday through Saturday from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.
The applicant proposes the placement of two (2)parking spaces on the site
located in the rear of the structure adjacent to the alley.The applicant is not
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 6 Cont FILE NO '-7327
proposing any signage as a part of the development except signage on the
building facade indicating the entrance on the unit,which will house the beauty
salon.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is an existing duplex with parking being utilized in the rear yard of the
structure.There are both non-residential and residential uses located in the area
with a multi-tenant multi-family structure located to the west of the site,a
converted single-family structure to a multiple tenant structure located to the
north of the site,a boarded and abandoned single-family structure located to the
east of the site and a photography studio located south of the site.Gary Huston
Electric is located to the south and east of the site with his lot and fencing
extending to West 2"Street and commercial vehicles are being parked in this
area.There are sin~le-family homes located in the area;west of Summit Street
and north of West 2"Street.
The streets in the area (Battery Street and West 2"'treet)are narrow
unimproved roadways with Battery Street being no wider than an alley at the rear
of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300
feet of the site,who could be identified and the Capitol View/Stifft Station
Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1,With parking lot construction,improve Battery and West 2"'treets per
Master Street Plan.Improvements may qualify for a contribution in-lieu of
construction under the hardship clause of the ordinance.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO '-7327
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
CentralArkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s)are required.Due to the nature of the processes
used in this facility (beauty shop),installation of an approved backflow
preventer assembly will be required on the domestic water service.Contact
Carrol Keatts,Central Arkansas Water's Cross Connection Program
Administrator at 992-2431 for additional details.
~Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
~Count Ptannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is on Bus Routes ¹1 and ¹8 and 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 Office for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a beauty shop and a
residence in an existing structure.
This application is an existing structure and does not change the footprint.It also
is a Planned Zoning District in which the use applied for is permitted in Office.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan,which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment.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 Capital View /Stifft Station Neighborhood Action Plan.
The Community Preservation goal listed an objective of preserving the housing
stock in the neighborhood that is supported by an action statement calling for the
no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use.
~randsca e:No comment.
G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Ms.Carolyn Miller was present representing the application.Staff gave an
overview of the proposed development indicating parking was a concern of Staff.
Staff questioned if the proposed development would utilize city garbage
collection or if the site would contain a dumpster.The applicant indicated there
would not be a dumpster located on the site.Staff stated the site was a small
site and the desire of Staff was to maintain the residential integrity of the site.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO '-7327
Staff suggested the applicant consider paving a two car parking pad in the rear of
the structure and utilizing street parking on West 2'treet for the additional
spaces necessary to meet the typical minimum parking requirement under the
ordinance.
Staff stated the site was bordered by non-residential uses to the south and a
multi-family use to the west.Staff stated the streets in the area were minimal at
best.Staff stated near the rear of the structure Battery Street narrowed to near
the width of an alley.Staff stated the improvements would possibly qualify for an
in-lieu contribution rather than the full one-half street improvements.
Comments from Central Arkansas Water were noted and Staff suggested the
applicant contact this agency for additional information.There being no further
issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
I L ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to Staff addressing the issues raised
by the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated two (2)parking
spaces to be located in the rear of the structure accessed from Battery Street,
The applicant is proposing a 20-foot by 20-foot concrete parking pad located in
the rear of the structure.The proposed parking will back into Battery Street.
Staff is supportive of allowing this since Battery Street in this area has relatively
few automobiles and the multi-family across the street is also backing into the
street.
The proposed parking is not sufficient to meet the minimum parking requirement
for a beauty shop and a duplex but staff is supportive of the reduced number of
parking spaces.The unit will remain residential on one side and the second will
only have minor modifications to allow the beauty shop to operate.Staff feels
that at some point in the future,should the applicant desire to return the second
unit to residential,too much paving would lessen the desirability of the structure
and give the feel of a non-residential use.Staff feels with a single-chair beauty
shop the clients will be limited to one entering and one leaving thus the times
when two (2)customers are present will be relatively short.Staff feels that
parking on West 2"Street should be allowed since the street is not a through
street and the structure under consideration is currently the last occupied
structure with a 2"Street relationship.
The applicant proposes the days of operation to be Tuesday through Saturday
from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.The applicant anticipates most evening the hours will
be limited to 6:00 pm but would like the flexibility that should a client have an
emergency she would be able to assist them with their needs.Staff is supportive
of the proposed hours of operation.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.6 Cont.FILE NO Z-7327
Staff feels the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.The proposed development is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan in that a beauty shop is an allowable use,as a Conditional
Use,in office zoning.The uses adjacent to the site to the south are somewhat
more intense than the proposed use;a liquor store,an electrical company and a
photography studio.Across Battery Street to the west is an eight (8)unit multi-
family complex and the residential structure to the north across West 2"Street
appears to be a multi-family unit as well.An office use is located across West
2"'treettothenorthwestofthesite,a law office,in a converted residential
structure.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Commercial Development
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for
street improvements to Battery Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff stated they had received one letter in support of the proposed
development from the Capitol View Stilft Station Neighborhood Association.
Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request
to rezone the site to PCD subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the request to allow an in-lieu
contribution for street improvements to Battery Street.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-7328
NAME:EmbraSuen,LLC Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:On the northwest corner of Woodlawn Street and North Taylor Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
EmbraSuen,LLC Dixion Surveying
5410 Stonewall Road 306 North Springfield
Little Rock,AR 72207 Plummerville,AR 72127
AREA:0.38 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
VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to replat four lots (Lots 11,12,13 8 14)into two (2)lots
(Lots 11R &11RR)Block 20,Lincoln Park Subdivision.The proposed Lot 11R
contains an existing single-family structure and would become 120-feet by
90-feet and will remain facing east towards Taylor Street.The proposed Lot
11RR would be 50-foot by 120-foot and would face Woodlawn.The proposed
replat would result in a 7.1 foot rear yard setback from the west property line for
the existing residence on proposed Lot 11R.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 7 Cont FILE NO '-7328
The applicant proposes to leave the existing structure (including existing ingress)
in tact on proposed Lot 11R.The applicant is proposing to remove the structure
on proposed Lot 11RR and construct a 1615 square foot two-story,frame
residence with a west side yard setback of 9.2 feet and an east side yard setback
of 8.8 feet.The proposed driveway for the property will be from the south,off
Woodlawn.
The applicant is proposing a wooden fence to separate the two properties along
the common property line of Lots 11R and 11RR.The fence is proposed at four
(4)feet within the building setback and six (6)feet along the remainder of the
property line.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two single-family structures,one a guesthouse and the other
occupied as single-family.There is a drainage ditch located along the west
property line with the secondary house located adjacent to the property line and
a one and one-half (1.5)foot setback rear yard setback.The guesthouse
structure is a wooden structure in good repair.The second structure,the primary
structure is a brick and frame house located on the corner of these streets facing
Taylor Street.The structure has a double car carport with the loading from
Taylor Street.
Woodlawn has been constructed with curb and gutter in place and no sidewalks.
Taylor is a narrow roadway with ditch swales for drainage.The road surface is
chip seal and no sidewalks are in place.
There is a church immediately east of the site across Taylor and a duplex
immediately south of the site across Woodlawn.The remainder of the area is
primarily single-family with a scattering of duplex units.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the
site,who could be identified and the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood
Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Public Works:No comment.
2
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.7 Cont FILE NO Z-7328
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,to
serve 604 North Taylor Street.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional details.
ENTERGY:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Southwestern Bell has buried cable in the north right-of-way
of Woodlawn.Locate all utilities before excavating.Contact South Western
Bell Telephone Company at 373-5112 for additional details.
CentralArkansas Water Lot 11RR must take water service off the existing
water main in Woodlawn Street.Contact Central Arkansas Water at
992-2438 for additional details.
~stre De artment:Approved as submitted.
~donut Piannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹8 and is near Routes ¹1 and ¹12 but 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 Residential Development for single family uses.The
request is consistent with the I and Use of Single Family.
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 Hillcrest are encourages the use of
Planned Unit Developments to address issues such as area/site ratio,density,
height regulations,and set backs in order to preserve the unique character of the
Hillcrest neighborhood.
~bandana e:No comment.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 7 Cont.FILE NO Z-7328
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002)
Ms.Julie Embra was present representing the application.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating additional information was
needed on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the applicant should indicate on
the site plan any existing fencing which was to remain along with the type
material and height.Staff also stated their recommendation was to leave the
structure at the 25-foot building line and sacrifice the tree since 15-feet would not
allow for sufficient automobile parking in the driveway.Staff also suggested the
applicant consider the placement of a double driveway since Woodlawn did not
allow for street parking.
Staff noted the comment from Little Rock Wastewater.Staff indicated the
applicant should contact wastewater to try and resolve this issue.Staff stated in
most situations wastewater would not allow the crossing of private property with
a service line to serve another residence.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted revised plans to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated a
two (2)car drive on Lot 11RR as requested by Staff.The applicant has also
indicted a 24-foot building line for Lot 11RR which is somewhat consistent with
the current required building line.Staff is supportive of the requested building
line since most of the structures along Woodlawn are nearer the street and with
the 24-foot building line there is sufficient room for parking in the proposed
driveway.
The applicant proposes to replat the four (4)lots into two (2)lots.The proposed
Lot 11R contains an existing single-family structure and the dimension would
become 120-foot by 90-foot.The lot will maintain access from Taylor Street.
The proposed Lot 11RR would be 50-foot by 120-foot and access will be from
Woodlawn.The proposed lot sizes are consistent with minimum required square
footages of R-3 zoned properties (5000 square feet minimum).
The proposed replat would result in a 7.1 foot rear yard setback from the west
property line of the existing residence on proposed Lot 11R.Rear yard setbacks
are a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance thus would not require a variance to
the Subdivision Ordinance.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.'-7328
The applicant proposes to leave the existing structure (including existing ingress)
in tact on proposed Lot 11R.The applicant is proposing to remove the structure
on proposed Lot 11RR and construct a 1615 square foot two-story,frame
residence with a west side yard setback of 9.2 feet and an east side yard setback
of 8.8 feet.Proposed ingress to the property will be from the south,off
Woodlawn,via a two car driveway.
The applicant is proposing a wooden fence to separate the two properties along
the common property line of Lots 11R and 11RR.The fence is proposed at four
(4)feet within the building setback and six (6)feet along the remainder of the
property line.
To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request for rezoning or the request to replat the lots into two individual
lots,each to contain a single-family structure.The area is predominately single-
family on smaller lots and the applicant is proposing a plan consistent with the
development pattern of the area.Staff feels the proposed development should
have minimal,if any,adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed planned development as filed
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of
this report.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat of the property.The applicant
will be required to submit a final plat prior to obtaining a building permit for the
structure located on Lot 11RR.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed planned
development as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed replat of the
property.Staff stated the applicant would be required to submit a final plat prior to
obtaining a building permit for the structure located on Lot 11RR.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
December 19,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6232-E
NAME:The Villages at Rahling Road (Lot 10B)Revised PCD
LOCATION:Rahling Circle
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates
¹7 Chenal Circle ¹24 Rahling 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
VARIANCESiWAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5,1997,the Board of Directors adopted 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 four small buildings
on the properties immediately west of the site.
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-6232-E
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the PCD to allow the construction of a
3895 square foot office building with a 1242 square foot area for future expansion
on unrecorded Lot 10B.The applicant has indicated the site will be used as a
medical office type use (physical therapy).The applicant has indicated there will
be two (2)doctors utilizing the facility.The applicant proposes the placement of
17 parking spaces in the rear of the building to be accessed by a shared 30-foot
Public Access Easement located on the west property line between Lots 10A and
10B.The applicant 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 a 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.Similar sized office
building are located adjacent to the west of the proposed site.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 CONDITIONS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
ENTERGY:Approved as submitted.
2
December 19,zu02
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6232-E
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:Approved as submitted.
~Pire De artment:Approved as submitted.
~fount Piannin:No comment received.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied
for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~hendeca e:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff stated the revision to the PCD was a part of the overall
development plan for the Villages at Rahling Road.Staff stated when the initial
PCD was submitted the applicant indicated that as each lot developed the PCD
would be required to be revised.Staff stated the current proposal was for a
physical therapy office on an unrecorded lot in the subdivision,
Staff stated the proposed site plan should indicate the dimension of all building
setbacks from the property lines.Staff also stated the sign area was to be
denoted on the site plan.Staff stated since the development was a planned
development typical ordinance standards did not apply and there were no typical
requirements with regard to signage.Staff also stated any additional site lighting
must be low level and directional,directed away from residentially zoned
property.
3
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO '-6232-E
Landscaping comments were briefly discussed.Staff stated the proposed areas
set aside for landscaping appeared to meet the minimum requirements of the
ordinance.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
I L 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 17 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 revised site plan indicates a 7.5-
foot landscaping strip along the eastern perimeter adjacent to the parking lot.
The landscape islands have been increased to eight (8)feet as requested by
Staff.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a 3895 square foot office building
and is proposing at some point in the future a 1242 square foot expansion area.
The proposed expansion would not eliminate any of the proposed parking if
developed.
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 physical therapy office to be located on proposed Lot 10B.The area is
developing with non-residential neighborhood commercial and office type uses.
The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and
the Chenal Design criteria (not to exceed six (6)feet in height and 64 square feet
in area).The applicant has indicated Lot 10B will be final platted prior to
development.The hours of operation are proposed as 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.
To Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development.Staff recommends approval of the requested revision to
the planned development subject to the conditions previously noted in
paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
4
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO 8 Cont FILE NO.:Z-6232-E
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the PCD to allow Lot 10B
to develop with an office building subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the construction of an office use
on unrecorded Lot 10B subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
DATE 4k'.t~iso~
'..:..IIN.i......:.,;-'-''.,:.";":-"';.:,-:',g,;':.:,'.:-'':':..-":,".y..=@-,
ALLEN,FRED,JR.
FAUST,JUDITH
FLOYD,NORM
LANGLAIS,GARY
LOWRY,BOB
MEYER,JERRY
MUSE,ROHN
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.
RAHMAN,MI ZAN
RECTOR,BILL
STEBBINS,ROBERT
E&uc+~
ALLEN,FRED,JR.o e
v'AUST,JUDITH -l T-(,Do o K v'
FLOYD,NORM ~v e e v V v
LANGLAIS,GARY o v v'y Y
LOWRY,BOB e o e o v u.
MEYER,JERRY ~e v
v'USE,ROHN A 6-
NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.Q5 v''
RAHMAN,MI ZAN A.
RECTOR,BILL Qg .'50 e V v ™
STEBBINS,ROBERT '8 o o v u v
I
Meeting Adjourned i P.M.v AYE +NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN ~RECUSE
December 19,2002
December 19,2002
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned
at 6:40 p.m.
2L,Q
te
ai man cret