pc_04 19 2001subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 19,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the March 8,2001 meeting.
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III.Members Present:
Rohn MuseBillRector
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Fred Allen,Jr.
Pam Adcock
Obray Nunnley
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Craig Berry
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 19,2001
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Green —Short-Form PCD (Z-3875-A)
B.Maris —Short-Form PD-R (Z-2941-A)
C.Kanis Road Master Street Plan Amendment —Bowman Road
to Chenal Parkway
D.Kanis Road Master Street Plan Amendment —Stewart Road
to Burlingame Road
II .PRELMINARY PLATS:
1.Northwest Territory Subdivision —Revised Preliminary
Plat (S-200-J)
2.Heatherbrae Subdivision (Phase 3)—Preliminary Plat
(S-717-H)
3.Chenal Valley Subdivision (Blocks 83-117)
Preliminary Plat (S-867-III)
4.Chevaux Court —Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1074-I)
5.Valley Falls Estates —Revised Preliminary Plat
(S-1280-A)
6.Rocky —Replat (S-1308)
III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS:
7.Arkansas Hospice —Long-Form POD (Z-4175-G)
8.Cook Restoration —Revised PD-C (Z-5959-A)
9.Stagecoach Village —Long-Form PRD (Z-6178-E)
10.Miller —Short-Form PD-0 (Z-6997)
11.Smith —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6998)
Agenda,Page Two
IV.SITE PLAN REVIEWS:
12.Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Revised SubdivisionSitePlanReview(S-1096-D)
V.OTHER MATTERS:
13.Jewel and Moser Addition —Short-Form PD-0 (Z-6220)
Revocation
14.Biggs —Short-Form PD-C (Z-6386-A)—Time Extension
1
4
H
10
CO
U
N
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
4'
+
CX
Y
&
II
I
a
p
C
EE
Rl
vg
Yc
g
PR
I
D
E
VA
I
L
E
Y
MA
HA
M
MA
R
K
M
I
cl
1-
6
3
CI
CI
T
Y
LN
l
l
T
S
KA
N
I
S
1-
6
3
0
KA
H
I
S
I
2T
H
I
2T
H
12
CX
Y
4
8
7
14
IC w
C
Z
DA
M
CI
Z
O„
I-
30
C
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
QQ
Qe
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
LA
W
S
O
N
1-
4
4
0
-4
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
L/
I
HS
I
N
G
11
ZE
U
B
E
R
DA
M
D
5
c'
DO
D
D
65
T
H
J~
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
c
VA
L
L
E
Y
Ã
M
IT
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
65
16
7
MK
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
9
Q
BA
S
E
L
NE
I
B
LC
CI
CI
DI
X
O
N
HA
R
P
E
R
MA
B
VA
CU
T
O
F
F
OT
I
E
R
IC
CR
E
E
K
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
z
SL
I
N
K
E
R
WE
S
T
K
VI
N
S
O
N
C
CO
5t
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
EY
E
R
SP
C
S
.
o
C
OF
F
IC
W
CU
T
O
F
F
A
CU
T
O
F
F
QQ
I
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
AS
H
E
R
PR
A
T
T
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
&
Ap
r
i
l
19
,
20
0
1
April 19,2v
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
NAME:Green —Short-Form PCD
LOCATION:12825 Interstate 30
DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR:
Alvin Green Donald W.Brooks
9910 Chicot Road 20820 Arch StreetLittleRock,AR 72209 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:3.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3/R-2 ALLOWED USES:Commercial
PROPOSED USE:Boat sales and display;
C-3 permitted uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None recpxested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 12825 I-30
from C-3/R-2 to PCD in order to allow boat sales anddisplayasapermitteduse,which the property'currentzoningdoesnotallow.The boat sales and display businessiscurrentlybeingoperatedatthissite,within a portionoftheexistingcommercialbuilding.The applicant hasalsorecentlyconstructeda40footby70footbuilding(for boat storage)at the east end of the existingbuilding.A gravel area for the display of boats has been
shown on the proposed site plan.There is currently achurchwhichoccupiesthewestone-half of the existingbuilding.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing commercial building andasphaltparkingbetweenthebuildingandI-30.There is asecondbuilding(east end of the existing building)whichhasrecentlybeenconstructed.
April 19,2 c
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
There is a mixture of commercial uses along I-30 to theeastandwestandacrossI-30 to the north.There is acreekwithinthesouthernportionoftheproperty,with the
Optimist Club Park (race track)and a truck service
business further south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Alexander Road and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
All properties are located in floodway.City does not
allow any structures in floodway.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
APSL:No Comment.
2GUCLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:No objection.A water main extension installed at
the expense of the developer will be required to provide water
service to this property.
Fire Department:No Comment.
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:
This request is located in the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Commercial and
Industrial.The applicant has applied for a Planned
2
April 19,2c J.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
Commercial Development for a boat sales dealership.The
property is currently zoned C-3 General Commercial.A land
use plan amendment is not required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan
contains the economic development goal of providing a mixed
commercial/residential environment that will promote the
safety,attractiveness,and value of the area while
creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that
encourages investment and diversity of employment
opportunities.
The Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan also
states the recommendation of concentrating "...development
efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study
area..."This property is located on the northern boundary
of the study area.
Landsca e Issues:
The proposed parking area encroaches into the 30 foot wide
street buffer required when abutting an expressway unless
located within a "mature area"designation.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW:
Alvin Green and Bill Wiedower were present,representing
the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PCD.
Staff noted that this property is in the floodway,and that
no new structures could be constructed in the floodway.
This issue was briefly discussed.Staff suggested that the
application be deferred until the floodway issue could be
resolved.The applicant noted that a deferral would be
requested.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
application to the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
As noted in the Public Works Comments (paragraph D)and intheSubdivisionCommitteeComments(paragraph G),the
property at 12825 I-30 is located in the floodway and the
3
April 19,2c i
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
City does not allow any new construction in the floodway.Staff and the Subdivision Committee feel that thisapplicationshouldbedeferredtoallowtheapplicant timetoresolvethefloodwayissue.
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on October 11,2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the
December 7,2000 agenda.The applicant notes that anengineeringfirmhasbeenhiredtodoapreliminarystudytodetermineifanyimprovementsmadedownstreamhavealteredthefloodway.If not,the applicant will thendetermineifhewantstheengineeringfirmtoperform thenecessaryworktoobtainarevisionofthefloodmaps.Staff supports the deferral as requested.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred to the
December 7,2000 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 26,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronOctober11,2000 requesting that this application bedeferredtotheDecember7,2000 agenda.Staff supported thedeferralrequest.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
December 7,2000 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a letter to staff on November 16,2000
requesting that this application be deferred to the January 25,2000 meeting.The applicant has retained an engineering firm todetermineifrecentimprovementsdownstreamhavealteredthe
floodway,which might warrant changes to the FEMA flood maps.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 7,2000)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronNovember16,2000 requesting that this application bedeferredtotheJanuary25,2001 agenda.Staff supported the
4
April 19,2I.
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
deferral request.
The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for
inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
January 25,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 25,2001)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant's engineering
firm had done an analysis of the floodway issues involving this
property,and that Public Works needed additional
information/calculations.Staff noted that the Public Works
Department requested that this application be deferred to the
April 19,2001 agenda to allow time for additional floodway
analysis.Staff also noted that the applicant agreed to thedeferral.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 19,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Public Works received from the applicant the required analytical
proof that the new structure,built in the floodway,does not
adversely impact flood levels.The new building is in "the
shadow,"hydraulically speaking,of older buildings on the site.
Because of this fortunate situation,any potential construction,
such as dredging to restore any lost carrying capacity,does not
come into play and is not required.
Public Works does,however,require that the applicant provide
an affidavit that the owner will not ever claim any flood
damages on the new structure or its contents.The affidavit
must be in legal form and be attached to the deed on file at the
county courthouse.It shall transfer with the deed.Thestructure's bottom floor is more than 2 feet below the
regulatory Base Flood Elevation.Flood insurance premiums will
not be required for the structure.
Public Works supports PCD application subject to the above
conditions.
5
April 19,2 ~1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
The property at 12825 I-30 contains an existing commercial
building and asphalt parking area within the C-3 zoned portionoftheproperty.There is currently a church located within the
west portion of the building and a boat sales business in the
east portion of the building.The applicant is requesting that
the property be rezoned to PCD to allow boat sales and display
as a permitted use.The applicant recently constructed a 2,800
square foot storage building at the east end of the existing
commercial building to serve the boat sales business.There is
a fenced area within the east one-half of the property which is
used for the display of boats.
Given the property's location along I-30,with C-4 zoned
property to the east,I-2 zoned property to the west and a
racetruck on the R-2 zoned property to the south,staff has no
problem with the sale and display of boats on this property.
With resolution of the floodway issue,staff feels that the
recently constructed building and the proposed boat
sales/display business should have no adverse impact on the
general area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PCD rezoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the Public Works conditions as noted in the"Staff Update".
2.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraph E.of
this report.
3.Staff recommends boat sales/display and C-3 permitted uses as
a use mix for the property.
4.The area devoted to the display of boats will be limited to
the existing fenced area as shown on the proposed site plan.5.Any dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides with an
eight (8)foot tall opaque fence or wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
6
April 19,2 i'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3875-A
Staff noted the following additional condition of approval,to
be added to the "Staff Recommendation"on page 6 of this report:
6.All required building permits and inspections
for the new building must be obtained within 30 daysofthepassageofthePCDordinancebytheCity
Board of Directors.
Public Works added the following comment:
"Public Works must delete the second paragraph of
the "Staff Update"found on page 5 of the Item A
write-up.The paragraph concerns a condition of
approval for the PCD application,which is the
courthouse filing of an affidavit removing the new
storage building from the National Flood Insurance
Program.To be in compliance with our Flood Loss
Prevention Ordinance,and the rules of our
participation in the NFIP,we must offer the
applicant the option of remaining in the program.
The option we are offering is to floodproof the new
building.In the event the applicant refuses to
floodproof per regulations,we will file official
forms to FEMA which remove the structure from the
program.The structure's bottom floor is 2 feet
below base flood elevation,which requires
floodproofing to an elevation 3 feet above the
floor.
Compliance with floodproofing requirements will be
determined by future design review and construction
inspection.
The "Staff Recommendation"on the part of Public
Works continues to be approval of the PCD rezoning,
but subject to new conditions noted above."
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
7
April 19,2v01
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
NAME:Maris —Short-Form PD-R
LOCATION:6315/6317 Kavanaugh Blvd.
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Eugene Lee Maris,Jr.Williams and Dean Architects
53 River Estates Cove 18 Corporate Hill Dr.Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72205
AREA:approx.0.24 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-4 ALLOWED USES:Two-Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Multi-Family (4 units)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property at 6315/6317
Kavanaugh Blvd.from R-4 to PD-R to allow for theconstructionofasecondduplexstructureonthe property.
The proposed duplex structure will be located within the
southern one-half of the property,with six (6)new paved
parking spaces to serve the four (4)residential units.A
driveway at the northeast corner of the property is
proposed for access.
The second duplex structure is proposed to be two (2)stories in height and include approximately 1,800 squarefeet(900 square feet per unit).The proposed structurewillbeframeconstructionwithanexteriorsimilarto theexistingduplexstructure.
The applicant notes that there will be no signage on the
property.There will also be no dumpster on the property,as the development will utilize city garbage collection.
April 19,~~81
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a one-story frame duplex structure located withinthenorthernportionoftheproperty.There is a duplex onthepropertyimmediatelyeast,with single-familyresidencesfurthereast.There are also single-familyresidencestothenorthacrossKavanaughBlvd.,and to thesouth.There is a small commercial building and a churchtothenorthwest.A small multifamily development islocatedimmediatelywestofthisproperty,with singlefamilyresidencesfurtherwestacrossMcKinleyStreet.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
As of this writing,staff has received several phone calls
from persons requesting information on this application,but no noted opposition.The Heights,Normandy-Shannon and
South Normandy Neighborhood Associations were notified ofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Kavanaugh Blvd.is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a collector street.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve apartments.
Entergy:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding the size and
location of the water meter(s).
2
April 19,c d1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is on bus route 51 and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the West Little Rock PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Multi-family for this
property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential Development for a new duplex.The property is
currently zoned R-4 Two Family.A Land Use Plan amendmentisnotrequired.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
This property is located in an area that is not covered by
a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:
The land use buffer along the eastern perimeter is required
to be 9 feet in width.The Landscape Ordinance requires a
minimum width of 9 feet.The proposed landscape buffer
width is only 3 feet.
The street buffer minimum width required is 9 feet.The
Landscape Ordinance also requires 9 feet.The proposed
street landscape buffer width is only 6 feet.
A water source within 75 feet of landscaped areas will be
required.
The proposed structure encroaches 3 feet 9 inches into the
minimum 9-foot wide land use buffer required along the
southern perimeter.
A 6-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is
required along the southern and eastern perimeters.
3
Aprx.l 19,2~31
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(FEBRUARY 15,2001)
Lee Maris was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the proposed PD-R.
Mr.Maris noted that there would be no signage on the
property and that the units would utilize city garbage
collection (no dumpster).
The Public Works issues were discussed.Commissioner Berry
asked if the street improvements were necessary.Public
Works representatives noted that an in-lieu contribution
would be acceptable.This issue was discussed.
The landscaping requirements were also discussed.It was
noted that the site plan would be revised to provide the
required street buffer and south land use buffer.Mr.
Maris noted that it would be difficult to meet the required
nine (9)foot land use buffer along the east property line.
He stated that he would obtain a letter from the property
owners to the east,agreeing to the three (3)foot eastern
buffer as proposed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-R to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
February 21,2001.The revised plan addresses all but one
(1)of the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The required street buffer and south land use
buffer have been shown on the revised plan.The revised
plan also shows the required right-of-way dedication and
street improvements.Therefore,Public Works has no
outstanding issues with this plan.
The revised site plan shows a total of six (6)parking
spaces to serve the development.The ordinance would
typically require a minimum of six (6)spaces to serve a
four (4)unit apartment development.Staff supports the
parking plan as proposed.
To staff's knowledge,the only outstanding issue relates to
the land use/landscape buffer along the east property line.
4
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum landscape buffer
width of 9 feet.The Zoning Ordinance also requires a
9 foot wide land use buffer.The proposed buffer width is
3 feet.The applicant is requesting the reduced buffer
width based on the fact that a driveway is needed to serve
the rear parking area and the location of the existing
building dictates the drive placement.
Given the fact that the Landscape Ordinance requires the
buffer,the City Beautiful Commission will need to approve
the variance.The applicant has noted that he is workingtoobtainlettersfromthetwo(2)abutting property ownerstotheeast,approving of the 3 foot buffer width.Staff
supports the site plan contingent upon the City Beautiful
Commission approving the landscape buffer variance.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the PD-R rezoning.The proposed
second duplex structure should have no adverse impact on
the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-R rezoning subject tothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent residential property.3.The proposed 3-foot wide landscape buffer along theeastpropertylinemustbeapprovedbytheCityBeautifulCommission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 8,2001)
Lee Maris was present,representing the application.There were
several persons present in opposition to the proposed PD-R.
Chairman Rector began the public hearing by addressing the
notification issue.Staff noted that the applicant mailed acertifiedlettertopropertyownerswithin200feetmorethan
15 days prior to the meeting,but the letter did not contain the
public hearing date and time.Staff further noted that when
5
April 19,c d1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
Mr.Maris notified staff of the error,staff instructed Mr.
Maris to mail new certified notices with all of the required
information.The second notice was mailed March 2,2001.
Commission Lowry asked Mr.Maris if he would consider deferring
the application so that the required notices could be mailed in
a timely manner.Mr.Maris noted that he would accept a
deferral.This issue was discussed.
Chairman Rector asked the neighbors present if a deferral would
be acceptable.The neighbors indicated a desire to hear the
item at this meeting.
Kathleen Oleson,of The League of Women Voters of Pulaski
County,addressed the Commission regarding the notification
issue.She noted that the League felt that correct notice
procedures should be followed.
Commissioner Adcock asked Ms.Oleson about this particular
notice issue.Ms.Oleson stated that she was acceptable to this
specific notice waiver,but did not want bylaw waivers for
notification to become commonplace.
There was a motion to waive the bylaws and accept the
notification as done by Mr.Maris.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,1 nay and 2 absent.
Staff described the proposed PD-R rezoning with a recommendation
of approval as noted in paragraph I.of the agenda report.
Mr.Maris addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He noted that the proposed duplex would be
constructed in a tasteful manner and would be compatible with
the existing structures in the area.
Suzanne Peyton addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposed rezoning.She submitted photos of the property to the
Commission.She noted three reasons for opposition as follows:
1.Property values would decrease.
2.The two-story building would present a privacy concern.3.The additional dwelling units would provide a concern for
safety in the area.She noted that there were several
small children in the area.
6
April 19,i 31
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
Virginia Tustison also addressed the Commission in opposition.
She noted concerns with decreases in property values,increase
in property density,landscape ordinance requirements,building
height and size,traffic,noise and parking.
Lance Pelton also addressed the Commission in opposition.He
noted a concern with traffic.
Todd Rutherford also addressed the Commission in opposition.He
stated concerns with parking and traffic.He also noted concern
with building height.He stated that he would like to be
notified of other meetings.
Chairman Rector asked about notification for the City Beautiful
Commission.Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that
notices were required for City Beautiful Commission issues.
Inez Cook and Janice Botner addressed the Commission and noted
agreement with the others who spoke in opposition.
Charles Phillips also addressed the Commission and spoke in
opposition to the proposed PD-R.
The Commission discussed the photos of the area as submitted by
Ms.Peyton.
Commissioner Berry asked about the traffic impact that this
development would have.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,
stated that this development would not cause a significant
increase in traffic.
Commissioner Rahman asked about building height.Staff noted
that a maximum building height of 35 feet was allowed in R-4
zoning.
Commissioner Faust asked how long this property had been
multifamily on the Land Use Plan.Brian Minyard noted that the
property had been multifamily since at least August,1987.
Commissioner Faust commented about renters.Mr.Pelton noted
that he rented property in the area for several years,prior to
the purchase of his house.
Commissioner Earnest made comments about the property values in
the area.He stated that he didn'feel that the proposed PD-R
7
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
would have an adverse impact on property values.Mr.Maris
noted that the project would be a quality development.He noted
that all of the parking,except one (1)space,would be behind
the existing duplex structure.
Commissioner Muse asked about driveway width.Mr.Turner noted
that the width was approximately 22 feet.The driveway width
and east landscape area was discussed.
Mr.Rutherford made additional comments pertaining to the
proposed development.
The Commission discussed deferring the application to allow time
for Mr.Maris to meet with the concerned neighbors and discuss
the project.Mr.Maris noted no objection to a deferral.
A motion was made to defer the application to the April 19,2001
agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,1 nay and
2 absent.Staff suggested that the applicant re-notify the
property owners within 200 feet of the property of the
April 19,2001 public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Lee Maris was present,representing the application.There were
several persons present in opposition.Staff briefly described
the proposed project with a recommendation of approval.Staff
noted that the applicant renotified the property owners within
200 feet of the site.
Lee Maris addressed the Commission.He explained the proposed
project.He noted that he had met with some of the concerned
parties over the phone,but did not have a neighborhood meeting.
Ty Copple expressed concern with the project.He stated that
the integrity of the area should be protected.
Lance Pelton addressed the Commission in opposition to the
proposed development.
Virginia Tustison also spoke in opposition to the project.She
noted that Mr.Maris did not meet with the neighborhood.She
made comments regarding rental property in the area.She
presented a petition of opposition to the Commission.
8
April 19,~D1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2941-A
Joe Briscoe also addressed the Commission in opposition.He
stated that the project would be a detriment to the area.
Commissioner Adcock asked about the waiver of landscaping along
the east property line.Mr.Maris stated that there was not
enough area to provide the 9-foot landscape strip and the
driveway.He noted that he would look at reducing the width of
the drive.
Commissioner Adcock asked about the exterior of the new
building.Mr.Maris explained that it would look like the
existing house on the property.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr.Maris if the new building would
be a mirror image of the existing building.He commented that
the neighborhood would want the new building to fit with the
neighborhood.Mr.Maris noted that the new structure would be
frame construction,painted like the existing house and would
blend in with the existing neighborhood.
There was a general discussion regarding the neighborhood
concerns.
Commissioner Nunnley discussed deferring the application.
Mr.Maris stated that he would agree to an additional deferral.
The deferral issue was briefly discussed.
Commissioner Faust commented that Mr.Maris should have met with
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Rahman noted that he would be opposed to a
deferral.
Commissioner Nunnley supported a deferral.
There was a motion to defer the application.The motion failed
by a vote of 2 ayes,6 nays and 3 absent.
There was a second motion to approve the application as
submitted.The second motion also failed by a vote of 0 ayes,
7 nays,3 absent and 1 abstention (Nunnley).The application
was denied.
9
April 19,2001
ITEM NO.:C
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Master Street Plan Revision on Kanis Road —Bowman Road to
Chenal Parkway
SOURCE:Developers and Public Works Staff
In the winter of 2001,the City Manager and local development community met to discuss
the Kanis Road development corridor between Chenal and Bowman Road.Developers
noted that expected development activity levels were not taking place.The discussion
centered on the difficulty of constructing required street improvements as the principal
reason hindering development.The currently required street improvement is a minor arterial
complicated by some areas of grade change and horizontal re-alignment.
The discussion concluded that a phased street improvement needs to take place,using a
reduced street standard for half-street construction but still requiring the 90-foot right-of-
way of minor arterials.Such a plan would be Phase 1 construction.Phase 2 construction
would be the typical minor arterial standard (4 lanes with a median).Funding for Phase 2
would be at City's cost in the future.The timing of Phase 2 is uncertain,but would depend
upon traffic counts,available financing,and other pressures.
The segment of Kanis Road in question is a 2.5-mile segment between Bowman Road and
Chenal Parkway to the west.The proposed standard (Phase I)for the segment is a 36-foot
collector.(It should be noted that for the segment,the nature of the Phase 1 standard
generally precludes phasing into a divided 4-lane parkway,which is the type of minor
arterial currently planned there.)
On February 15,2001,the Public Works Department held a public meeting.All adjacent
property owners were notified of proposed Kanis Road changes.Public Works staff were
present to describe and discuss the changes and to answer questions.A list of attendees is
attached.
1
Findin s of Public Meetin:
Concerning the proposed amendment,attendees did not reach any consensus over the
proposal for a 36-foot collector.However,there was perceptibly more favorable support
than opposition.Developers who supported the proposal found it to be reasonable,citing the
burden of the current plan.They made claims the current plan actually devalued their
fronting property.The devaluation was due to the cost of complex street improvements and
the 45-foot half-street right-of-way sacrifice.
Supporting developers also complained the current standard forces them to bear more than
their fair share of street improvements.They believe an arterial street serves through-traffic
and relief traffic associated with west Little Rock's growth,and includes lane costs for
which they do not feel responsible.In their view,continuing the current standard will stifle
corridor redevelopment or will force them to seek re-zoning to more intense land uses.
Some residents expressed concerns about encouraging speeding and unsafe passing on a
partially improved Kanis Road.Because they felt half-street improvements of the minor
arterial variety would be worse than the collector variety with respect to this concern,they
supported the proposal.They also believe the proposal will have a better appearance during
the period of piecemeal construction.
Those opposed to the proposal cite the current arterial standards'reater traffic-carrying
capacity for the long term.One individual asserted his belief that,once the collector is
completed,the City would quickly have to improve Kanis Road to arterial standards because
Phase 1 would attract by-pass and relief traffic from Chenal Parkway.This scenario would
mean constant construction activity for several years in an area that already suffers from
traffic congestion.The opponents argued that it would be unfair to other developers in the
west Little Rock area to reduce the standard and cost for a select group on Kanis Road
between Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway.
There was discussion on whether or not the proposed collector should be curbed and pipe-
drained.No consensus was reached.It was noted,however,that future widening would
result in the demolition of curbs and some storm pipes under the proposal.
Findin s of Traffic Studies:
Traffic studies fall into two main categories —existing traffic counts and future projections.
For this plan amendment proposal,discussion will consider the two study categories in light
of the known variation in traffic counts along the 2.5-mile segment.The variation is an
escalating count from west (Chenal Parkway)to east (Bowman Road).
Existin traffic counts for the segment of Kanis Road in question are as follows,given as
average daily traffic,2-way (ADT).These figures are the result of traffic counts conducted
by Public Works February 20 to 26,2001,and are listed by sites arrayed from west to east.
One exception is the Kirby Road site,which is dated 1997.
2
@Baker Elementary School 3,526 ADT
@Kirby Road 3,100 ADT
@Gamble Road 5,336 ADT
@Point West Drive 8,742 ADT
The precise location for all site counts is just east of the listed intersecting road.
It is estimated that the Kirby Road site,if adjusted for 4 years of traffic growth,would
presently show a count of 4,000 to 4,500 vehicles per day average.
Pro'ected future counts by two consultants were reviewed extensively and projected
independently by a consultant in November 1998.Three "opinions"now exist and depend
upon assumptions and methods,often competing,of modeling driver choice,trip generation
(a function of development intensity),and street capacity.Divergence of opinion is large.
Peters &Assoc.~Metro lao The Mehlbor er Firm
@Baker Elementary 11,000 4,600 22,460
@Kirby Road 28,000 7,200 22,460 +
@Point West Drive 40,000+14,000 Above arterial threshold
of 28,000
For reference to street capacity,the rated service volume in Ordinance No.18055 for
collectors is 5,000 ADT and minor arterials is 18,000 ADT.However,Public Works
experience is that collecto's can sustain 8,000 to 10,000 ADT at an acceptable level of
service for the user with proper turning lanes.Similarly,minor arterials can sustain 28,000
to 32,000 ADT.
Plannin and Develo ment Comments:
In the Ellis Mountain District,along Kanis Road from Bowman to Gamble Road Office and
Commercial uses are recommended.The property is currently zoned for either commercial or
office use.This section of Kanis Road is proposed to have normal to intense land use
development pattern for a minor arterial.The portion of Kanis Road from Gamble Road to
Pride Valley Road is proposed to have a use pattern with a reduced density than the normal
arterial in Little Rock.An effort to modify the Master Street Plan in this section,which
encourages a reduced pattern of land development along the road,is positive.However,at
Cooper Orbit Road the Plan and current zoning pattern allows for commercial development and
appropriate road designs should be required.
3
Public Work Recommendations:
Public Works recommends approval of the proposed Master Street Plan amendment for the
Kanis Road segment between Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway.
Specifically,Public Works recommends a 36-foot collector street built to match existing
grade and alignment,except where Public Works deems necessary grade and alignment
changes for safety.Public Works also recommends the 90-foot right-of-way standard
needed for future widening.
Street configuration is recommended to be two 1S-foot lanes,changing to three 11-foot
lanes including a left-turn lane at intersections.Public Works also needs to reserve the right
to require right-turn lanes and associated striping up to 250-feet in length for new
development.
Subdivision Committee Comments:Februa 15 2001
Committee members inquired of Public Works staffers about the type of streets being
proposed in the MSP amendment.They requested that maps of future Land Use Plans and a
discussion of traffic studies be included in the amendment write-up.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission.
Plannin Commission Action:March S 2001
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested that MSP Kanis Road proposal
be deferred to the April 19,2001,meeting.Extra time was needed for Public Works staffers
to present the proposal to the Pulaski County Planning Board meeting of March 29,2001,
and to perform additional traffic counts.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the consent
Agenda for deferral to the April 19,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
Pulaski Coun Plannin 3oard Action:March 29 2001
Public Works and Planning Staff presented the item to the County Planning Board.After
discussion,the Pulaski County Planning Board voted unanimously to support the
amendment to the Master Street Plan.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION A ril 19 2001
ITEM NO.:C
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,described the proposed changes to the Master
Street Plan (MSP)regarding Kanis Road,between Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway.
He noted that Public Works supported the phased development.He explained the
reasoning is that developers bear a disproportionate share of street cost,compared to
traffic generated,when building arterial streets.He went on to explain that piecemeal
construction would not work.The first phase would therefore require developer
construction to reduced standards,which includes a 36-foot wide road with 18-foot lanes
and 11-foot lanes at intersections.It was also noted that the concept of classifying Kanis
Road as a minor arterial would not be changed.The entire right-of-way for minor arterial
standards would still be required.With this proposal,the City could preserve its intended
land use intensity.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that Kanis Road needed to be of greater capacity than a
residential collector.She questioned how the City would finance the development of
Kanis Road to the minor arterial standards.Ms.Faust also questioned the benefit of
downgrading the MSP at this time,considering all of the past work that has gone into it.
Mr.Turner stated that Vision Little Rock is currently discussing financing mechanisms
for infrastructure.He noted that impact fees might be one solution.He explained that
impact fees are not contingent upon the classification of the road being developed,only
upon what is being done to the road.
Mr.Dickson Flake,of Barnes,Quinn,Flake &Anderson,introduced himself as the
representative of several property owners on Kanis Road and stated that his firm and the
property owners were in favor of the proposal.He believes it would take too many years
for Vision Little Rock to find appropriate financing.
Mr.Ralph Bozeman,property owner on Kanis Road,stated his belief that the property
owners on Kanis Road were being asked to pay for an east-west corridor that would
support all of the development west of the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal.He
stated his opinion that this is an unfair burden on the area property owners and that he
supports the proposal.
Mr.Russ McDonough,of Winrock,stated his belief that the proposed changes would
allow Kanis Road to develop into a quiet,office-use corridor that would help relieve
traffic from Chenal Parkway.He also stated that the current zoning does not match the
MSP requirements and that the current standards are preventing development of the area.
He saluted Public Works for devising an equitable compromise that is a larger and safer
road for the present and does not prevent building a 5-lane arterial in the future.
Mr.Ramsey Ball,property owner on Kanis Road,asked the Planning Commission to
approve the proposaI and send it to the Board of Directors.
Ms.Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters,asked the Commission not to approve
the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION A ri119 2001
ITEM NO.:C
Mr.David Jones,real estate developer,stated his opinion that the minor arterial standard
of 5 lanes needs to be built now on Kanis Road.He believes it is the only fair and
reasonable position that can be taken,in light of traffic needs and ordinary real estate
risk-taking.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated his objection to calling
the proposal a change to a "collector."He called the word "collector"a misnomer and
noted that "phased construction"is the proper term.He stated that Kanis Road would
have to be an arterial at some point.He agreed that residential and office property owners
should not be made to build an arterial but that the classification should not be changed.
Mr.Turner agreed with Mr.Lawson and stated that the proposal would not downgrade
Kanis Road to a collector,but would put an asterisk on the MSP to note that the first
phase would be a 36-foot wide road.
Mr.Jones stated the precedence that would be set would not be in the best interest of the
City.
Commissioner Faust agreed that the MSP classification should not be changed for Kanis
Road and that the minor arterial right-of-way dedication should be required.She stated
concerns regarding the length of time before a minor arterial would have to be built and
how to finance the construction.
Chairman Downing stated his concern that this item was too important an issue to put to a
vote with only 6 members present.He asked for a motion to defer this item to next
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr.Lawson suggested an informal meeting or public hearing to discuss long term plans
for Kanis Road.
Motion to defer to May 17 public hearing was passed.
April 19,2001
ITEM NO.:D
NAME:Master Street Plan Amendment
LOCATION:Master Street Plan Revision on Kanis Road —Stewart Road to
Burlingame Road
SOURCE:Developers and Public Works Staff
In the winter of 2001,a developer met with the Public Works staff to request their support
for a variance of boundary street improvements along a segment of Kanis Road for a
residential development.Kanis Road is in the extraterritorial area called Fletcher Hollow.
The current Master Street Plan (MSP)requires a minor arterial standard at this location.The
developer noted that the required street standard would be overly burdensome to the
residential development and would force the subdividing of lots into 5-acre tracts.Such
subdivision is exempt from boundary street regulations and similar residential developments
along this segment have already opted for this exemption.
The meeting concluded with the developer and the Public Works Director agreeing to a
reduced street standard for half-street construction but still requiring the 90-foot right-of-
way of minor arterials.The segment affected was for 0.8 miles of frontage within Fletcher
Hollow.This reduced design standard was approved by the Planning Commission on
January 25,2001 and the Board of Directors on February 20,2001.
Subsequently,Public Works staff considered it advisable to amend the MSP for a distance
beyond the frontage in question.The proposed amendment pertains to a 3.9-mile segment of
Kanis Road from Stewart Road west to Burlingame Road.The reduced street standard that
Public Works proposes is a phased street wherein the developer builds half of a 22-foot rural
2-lane road with 4-foot gravel shoulders and improved side ditch.The 90-foot right-of-way
now required would still apply under the proposal.Phase 2 construction would be the
typical minor arterial standard (4 lanes with median).Funding for Phase 2 would be at the
public's cost,The timing of Phase 2 is uncertain,but would depend upon traffic counts that
are not expected to put pressure on the street for 15 to 25 years and available funds.
Public Works believes this change is justified for three reasons:
(1)The ciurent standard is prohibitively burdensome on residential development
affordability,
(2)There is a strong public desire to preserve the attractive,natural tree canopy,
1
(3)Traffic counts are low and expected to continue to be so.
On February 15,2001,the Public Works Department held a public meeting.All adjacent
property owners were notified of proposed Kanis Road changes.Public Works staff were
present to describe and discuss the changes and to answer questions.A list of attendees is
attached.
Findin s of Public Meetin:
Concerning this segment,attendees were largely in favor of the change to a 2-lane with
shoulders.Traffic counts are relatively low (1960 to 2545 vehicles per day)and the tree
canopy is important to area residents.A majority of attendees expressed a desire to preserve
the tree canopy rather than have a 5-lane arterial constructed.However,there were some
concerns over the likelihood of inducing higher speeds on the road caused by the addition of
shoulders.
Findin s of Traffic Studies:
Existing traffic counts for the segment of Kanis Road in question are as follows,given as
average daily traffic,2-way (ADT).These figures are the results of traffic counts conducted
by Public Works February 20 to 26,2001.
@Burlingame Road 1960 ADT
(located just east of intersection)
@ Stewart Road 2545 ADT
(located just west of intersection)
Projected future traffic counts for the near term (5 years)are expected to rise at a 5%to
10%annual rate,due to adjacent residential land use actively developing.This rate will put
future counts at about 2500 to 4000 ADT from the west end (Burlingame)to the east end
(Stewart)of the segment.These figures include a gradual rise in through-traffic.
Long term projections involve many assumptions and support a minor arterial street 15 to 25
years from now.Rated street capacity for an arterial is 18000 ADT,but can be tolerated at
levels upwards of 28000 ADT.
Plannin and Develo ment Comments:
The Land Use Plan in the Burlingame District proposes Single Family Use along Kanis Road
from just west of Stewart Road to the Planning Jurisdiction (east of Burlingame Road).While
this road will serve through trips,adjacent development should not be intense.A road design
2
that reflects a reduced intensity of development along the road would re-enforce the City's Land
Use Plan for the area.
Public Work Recommendations:
The Department of Public Works recommends approval of the proposed Master Street Plan
amendment for the Kanis Road segment between Stewart Road and Burlingame Road.
Specifically,Public Works recommends a 22-foot rural 2-lane road with 4-foot gravel
shoulders and improved side ditches.Right-of-way is to be 90 feet.Pavement structure and
drainage design is to be the same as the collector street standard,but sidewalks are not
required.Public Works will reserve the right to require left and right turn lanes as locations
of entrances into new development.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission.
Subdivision Committee Comments:Februa 15 2001
Committee members inquired of Public Works staffers about the type of streets being
proposed in the MSP amendment.They requested that maps of future Land Use Plans and a
discussion of traffic studies be included in the amendment write-up.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission.
Plannin Commission Action:March S 2001
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested that MSP Kanis Road proposal
be deferred to the April 19,2001 agenda.Extra time was needed for Public Works staffers
to present the proposal to the Pulaski County Planning Board meeting of March 29,2001,
and to perform additional traffic counts.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission,for inclusion within the consent
Agenda for deferral to the April 19,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays,and 2 absent.
Pulaski Coun Plannin Board Action:March 29 2001
Public Works and Planning Staff presented the item to the County Planning Board.After
discussion,the Pulaski County Planning Board voted unanimously to support the
amendment to the Master Street Plan.
3
/
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION A ril19 2001
ITEM NO.:D
Commissioner Adcock made the motion to defer this item until May 17.Motion passed
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 nayes,5 absent.
April 19,2~Jl
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-200-J
NAME:Northwest Territory Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Chenal Parkway,north of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Eugene Pfeifer,III White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 99 24 Rahling Circle
No.Little Rock,AR 72115 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:87 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:13 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:MF-18/0-2/0-3/C-2/C-3/PCD
PLANNING DISTRICT:20
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested
BACKGROUND:
On October 30,1997 the Planning Commission approved the
preliminary plat for Northwest Territory Subdivision.The
property owner received plat approval for this subdivision
several years earlier,but let the preliminary plat expire.
Since that time,revised preliminary plats have been approved
which further subdivided Lot 9 (9 and 9A)and Lot 4 (4A-C).Asofthisdate,Lots 1,2,4A,4B,4C and 9A have been final
platted.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
preliminary plat by removing the collector street as shown
on the approved plat between Lots 4C and 5.The street was
originally placed on the plat to serve a future single
April 19,2~91
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-200-J
family residential subdivision to the north.The applicantnotesthatwhenthissinglefamilyareadevelops,it will
be accessed directly from Cantrell Road to the east.
Removal of the collector street is the only proposed changetothepreviouslyapprovedpreliminaryplat.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a mini-warehouse development on Lots 1-2,a
multifamily development on Lot 4A and a convenience store
on Lot 9A.The remainder of the subdivision is undeveloped
and wooded.A future Easter Seals residential project is
planned for Lots 4B-C.
The property to the north is wooded and undeveloped,with
Highway 10 bordering the plat to the south and Highway 300tothewest.There is a church located at the northeast
corner of Highways 10 and 300 and an APSL sub-station totheeastalongthenorthsideofHighway10.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Duquesne Place and Aberdeen Court Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comments.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:There will be limits to floor elevations allowed in
this area.The limits will be determined by the uses and
the required fire flows.Water main extensions may be
required.An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
this area in addition to the normal charges.The hilltop
adjacent to this plat that is designated as "future
2
April 19,2 ~'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-200-J
residential R-2"cannot be served because developer chosetoinstallamainthatisinadequatetosupplythe
elevations in.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the revised preliminary plat.
Access to the single-family property to the north wasbrieflydiscussed.Mr.Daters noted that it was the
property owner's intent to have access to this future
single family area from the east,directly from Cantrell
Road.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,noted supportforremovingthecollectorstreetfromthepreliminaryplat.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the revised preliminary plat to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.,the only proposed change to the
previously approved preliminary plat is the removal of the
future collector street between Lots 4C and 5.This street
was originally placed on the plat to provide access to afuturesinglefamilyresidentialsubdivisiononabutting
property to the north.The property owner has since
3
April 19,c,31
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-200-J
decided to access the future residential subdivision
directly from Cantrell Road to the east.
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues
associated with the revised preliminary plat.Public Works
has noted support for removal of the street as previously
shown between Lots 4C and 5.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat
subject to compliance with the requirements as noted in
paragraph E of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
4
April 19,~01
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-717-H
NAME:Heatherbrae Subdivision (Phase 3)—Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:North end of Glenn Valley Drive,north of
Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Woodhaven Development Co.Civil Design,Inc.
8721 Warden Road 15104 Cantrell Road
Sherwood,AR 72120 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:6.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:22
FT.NEW STREET:approximately 815 linear feet
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:1
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
A variance to allow Lots 5-14A with a reduced rear yard setback.
BACKGROUND:
On September 30,1999 the Planning Commission approved the
Heatherbrae Subdivision (Phase 3)—Preliminary Plat.The
approval included subdivision of 6.55 acres into 21 single-
family residential lots and one (1)tract for stormwaterdetention.The approved plat also included a variance which
allowed 15-foot platted rear building lines for the lots alongthewesternperimeterofthesubdivision.The preliminary plathassinceexpired.
April 19,i.Vl
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to reinstate the previously approvedHeatherbraeSubdivision(Phase 3)—Preliminary Plat withessentiallythesamedesignasbefore.The proposalincludessubdivisionof6.55 acres into 22 single-familyresidentiallots,with approximately 815 linear feet of newinternalstreets.The applicant notes that one of the lots
(Lot 14A)may have to be used for stormwater detention.
The proposed plat includes a 20-foot drainage right-of-waydedicationalongthewestboundaryoftheplat.Because ofthearealosttothisdrainagearea,the applicant is
proposing a 15-foot platted rear building line along the
west property line for Lots 5 thru 14A.The applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the reduced rear buildingsetback.
Please see the attached preliminary plat sketch for the
proposed lot and street designs.All of the proposed lotswillbefinalplattedatthesametime.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently undeveloped and wooded.Existing
phases of the Heatherbrae residential subdivision arelocatedtothesoutheast.Additional residential zoned
property is located to the south and west.There is OS
zoned floodway located immediately north of this property,with commercial and office uses further north alongCantrellRoad,which include a landscaping and plant
nursery business.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Secluded Hills and Westchester/Heatherbrae NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received one (1)phone call from a
person requesting information on this application.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Same Comments as reviousl submitted on S-717-G as
follows:
1.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
2
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
5.Easements for proposed storm drainage are required.
Proposed drainage facilities must be submitted to Public
Works for approval.
6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsarerequiredbySection31-403 of theLittleRockCode.All requests should be forwarded to
Traffic Engineering.
7.Existing topographic information at maximum five foot
contour interval base flood elevation is required.
Revised minimum flood elevations on Lots 14,15,16,and17.
8.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)is
required.
9.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186(b)is required.
10.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-
283 is required.11.Provide 20-foot vehicular access easements to drainage
ditches.
12.East and west drainage ditch shall be sized to handle
100-year storm.Ditch to be fenced and benched.Submit
design for approval.13.All storm drainage shall be extended to rear buildinglines.
14.Glenn Valley shall have adequate transition from curb to
tangent portion.
15.Down stream property must be prepared to receive flows
from channel prior to constructing channels.
16.Conditional letter of map amendment must be approved
prior to street construction.
17.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of workisrequired.
18.Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work is required.
19.Revise street names —call David Hathcock for approval.
New Comments:1.Channel detention storage may be impractical and not
approved by Public Works if concrete basins are expected
to fill with sediment.Lot 14A will be reserved for
3
April 19,~V1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
possible detention basin,which must function and
discharge properly during the 25-year storm.2.Lot 14 has a minimum floor elevation 1-foot lower than
adjacent lot 14A.Provide explanation.3.Civil Engineering will issue Floodplain Development
Permits on a case-by-case basis with each building
permit,which may be higher than platted elevations.
Some platted elevations are only 2.5 feet above adjacent
stream bottom.
4.Erosion control (bank stabilization)will be required onfilldeposits.
With Buildin Permit:
5.A revised Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.
29-286 (e)will be required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A water main extension is required.An acreage
charge of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal fees
in this area.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
4
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Bill Dean was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the preliminary plat,noting that Lot 4
needed a minimum 60 foot chord distance at the building
line to meet the ordinance required lot width standards andallofthepropertylinesneededdimensions.In response
to a question from staff,Mr.Dean noted that all of thelotswillbefinalplattedatthesametime.
The Committee asked who would maintain the stormwater
detention areas within this subdivision.Bob Turner,
Director of Public Works,noted that the maintenance would
be the responsibility of the property owner's association.
Mr.Dean explained the drainage issues associated with the
proposed plat.The drainage issues were briefly discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing
to staff on April 4,2001.All of the additional notes as
required by staff have been shown on the revised plat.The
revised plat also shows the revised minimum floor
elevations as required by Public Works.
The proposed single-family residential plat conforms to all
ordinance standards with respect to lot design,except the
proposed rear building setback line for Lots 5-14A.The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the reduced
rear yard setback for these lots.The ordinance requires a
25-foot rear yard setback for single-family lots.The
applicant is proposing a 15-foot rear yard setback for
these lots,as a 20-foot drainage easement will be provided
along the west boundary of this property which reduces the
depth of these lots.Staff supports the variance as
requested.
The applicant has also submitted additional drainage
information (cross-sections and calculations)to Public
5
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
Works.The applicant notes that all of the drainage
requirements as set forth by Public Works will be complied
with.
The applicant has noted that Lot 14A may have to be set
aside for stormwater detention,rather than used as a
single-family lot.If this area is used for stormwater
detention,the ownership,purpose and maintenance must be
provided for by the property owner's association in the
subdivision's Bill of Assurance.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the preliminary plat.This proposed
phase of the Heatherbrae Subdivision should have no adverse
impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject
to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow
reduced rear yard setback for Lots 5-14A.
3.The ownership,purpose and maintenance of any drainage or
stormwater detention easements must be provided for by
the property owner's association and explained in the
subdivision's Bill of Assurance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Bill Dean was present,representing the application.Staff
briefly described the proposed preliminary plat with a
recommendation of approval subject to the conditions as noted in
paragraph I.of this report.There were three (3)persons
present with concerns.
The applicant,Bill Dean,deferred discussion to the concerned
parties.
Gregg Curtis asked about drainage in the area.He stated that
since the Heatherbrae Subdivision was developed,there has been
an increased drainage problem.
6
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,addressed the drainage
issues.He noted that the development would increase the
drainage flows in the area,but explained that the flows would
be contained within the 100 year floodway.
Commissioner Rahman discussed the drainage issue.Mr.Turner
noted that this development would have to comply with the City'
stormwater detention ordinance.
Commissioner Adcock asked who Mr.Curtis would call if there is
increased water run-off onto his property.Mr.Turner noted
that the property owner would call Public Works and explained.
Commissioner Rahman explained the drainage situation in this
area.Mr.Curtis made additional comments regarding the creek
and floodway area.
Jim Nettles addressed the Commission and noted that he
represented adjacent property owners to the west.He noted that
he supported the Heatherbrae Subdivision development,but
objected to the adjacent property owners to the west being
required to dedicate a drainage easement.He noted that a
drainage easement should be entirely on the Heatherbrae
property.
Leah Clark stated that she was a property owner in Heatherbrae-
Phase II.She stated that she was unsure about the procedure
and status of this property.She noted that she was concerned
with the proposed development and the removal of the trees
behind her house.
Bill Dean,project engineer,addressed the Commission in support
of the project.He noted that the Heatherbrae (Phase 3)
property is downstream from Mr.Curtis'roperty and would have
no effect on his property.Mr.Dean noted that the drainage
improvement district for this area would work out the acquiring
of the drainage easement on the adjacent property.He noted
that the plat needed to be approved for this to take place
(negotiation for the easement by the drainage improvement
district).
Commissioner Adcock asked why the applicant was requesting a
variance for a reduced rear yard setback.Mr.Dean explained
that the variance was requested because of the drainage easement
which will be provided along the west property line of this
7
April 19,c.J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-717-H
subdivision.Mr.Dean further discussed the drainage area and
landscape buffers that would be required.
There was a motion to approve the preliminary plat as
recommended by staff.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays and 4 absent.
8
April 19,2 S1
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
NAME:Chenal Valley Subdivision (Blocks 83-117)—Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Along the west side of Chenal Parkway north of Chenal
Club Circle,and at the north end of and west of Gordon Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates
¹7 Chenal Club Circle 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:365 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:688
FT.NEW STREET:24,850 linear feet
ZONING:R-2/MF-6/C-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:12
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow an alternate pedestrian circulation system.2.A variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length standards for
Commentry Place.
3.A variance to allow lots that exceed the maximum lot width-to-
depth-ratio.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 365 acres into 688
single family residential lots,with approximately 24,850linearfeetofnewstreets.The property is located alongthewestsideofChenalParkwayandnorthandwestof
Gordon Road,surrounding the Chenal golf course.As part
April 19,2 Jl
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
of the plat,the developer proposes to extend Chenal ValleyDrivetothewestandextendaroundtheperimeterofthesubdivisionandeventuallyloopbacktoChenalParkway.
The overall plat is made up of eight (8)small gatedcommunities.
The applicant is proposing rear access to a number of thelotswithinthesubdivision.The applicant is also
proposing an alternate pedestrian circulation system inlieuofsidewalksforthesubdivision.A variance for thealternatepedestriansystemhasbeenrequested.The
proposed rear access drives and pedestrian path are shown
on the attached plat sketch.The applicant has noted thattherewillbeafive(5)foot sidewalk along one side and a
paved bike path along.both sides of Chenal Valley Drive.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow thefollowinglotsthatexceedthemaximumlotwidth-to-depthratio:
Lots 21-22,39-40 and 42,Block 96
Lot 50,Block 99
The final variance requested by the applicant is for the
maximum cul-de-sac length of Commentary Place.The
proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 2,400 feet in length.
The ordinance allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 750feet.
Please see the attached preliminary plat sketch for the
proposed lot and street designs.The subdivision will be
developed in the following phases:
I —Blocks 92-95II—Blocks 99-104III—Blocks 89-91
IV —Blocks 96-97
V —Block 98
VI —Blocks 112-117
VII —Blocks 83-84
VIII —Blocks 85-88
IX —Blocks 105-111
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded,with varying degrees ofslope.A portion of the proposed subdivision (along Chenal
Parkway)is zoned MF-6 and C-2,with the remainder being
zoned R-2.There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property north,
south and west of the proposed subdivision,with the Chenalgolfcoursewithintheinterioroftheproposedsingle
family lots.There are areas of multifamily zoning to the
2
April 19,2 v1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
northeast and southeast as noted on the attached area
zoning map.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
surrounding property owners.There was no established
neighborhood association to notify.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Submit streetlight plans to Traffic Engineering prior to
construction,including junction boxes and conduits at
intersection of Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal Parkway.2.With development intensity now apparent,Chenal Valley
Drive will require traffic circles (roundabouts)at
Germay Blvd.,Corlay Blvd.,and the Wildwood collector.3.Denny Road will require right turn lanes and left turn
lanes at the Gordon Road and Wildwood collector
intersections.
4.Minimum radius on Chenal Valley Drive will be 275 feet
unless super-elevation is used.5.Show the unnamed MSP collector located at the northwest
corner of the plat.Add design for turnout.The exact
location of this unnamed collector must be approved by
Public Works.
6.The City of Little Rock will not be responsible for any
private lot drainage problems that may occur and will
not maintain street or drainage facilities in private
subdivisions.
7.Street names are not approved.See David Hathcock for
approval.
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
9.Show easements for proposed storm drainage,including
channels and pipes outside the Chenal Valley Drive
right-of-way as previously required in street plans
submitted.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
3
April 19,2 ~'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Water main extensions are required.Acreage charges
apply.Service will be from two (2)different pressure
systems.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat,
noting several items needing to be shown on the plat
drawing.Staff noted that the MF-6 and C-2 zoned property
along Chenal Parkway needed to be down-zoned to R-2.
The proposed alternate pedestrian circulation system was
briefly discussed.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,
noted that this proposal was a good idea.Tim Daters noted
that there would be a sidewalk and bike lanes along Chenal
Valley Drive.
Mr.Turner noted that traffic circles were needed along
Chenal Valley Drive,as noted in comment N2,within
paragraph D.of this report.He noted that these traffic
circles were needed to help keep speeds down along this
street.Other Public Works issues were briefly discussed.It was noted that a variance from the maximum cul-de-sac
length standards had been requested for Commentry Place.
4
April 19,2 v'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
H .ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat sketch
to staff on April 4,2001.The revised plat addresses the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plat shows the pedestrian circulation system
more clearly.
As noted earlier,the applicant is requesting a variance to
allow an alternate pedestrian circulation system in-lieu of
sidewalks.The proposed system of paths will tie the
individual gated subdivisions to each other,the
sidewalk/bike paths along Chenal Valley Drive and to the
golf cart path throughout the golf course.Public Works
has noted approval of this variance,as this type of
alternate pedestrian circulation system has been approvedforandworkedwellinothersubdivisionsinthisgeneral
area.
The applicant is proposing rear access drives to a number
of the lots within this plat.Where these rear drives are
proposed,the applicant has shown "no access"easements
along the front of the lots as requested by staff.
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the
maximum lot width-to-depth ratio for the six (6)lots as
noted in paragraph A.The ordinance requires that a lot be
no more than three (3)times as deep as the lot is wide.
Based on the configuration of the overall property near the
southeast corner of the plat,staff feels that the variance
request is reasonable.The lots in question are just a
small percentage over the maximum ratio allowed.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a cul-
de-sac street (Commentary Place)with a length in excess of
the maximum length allowed by ordinance.The proposed cul-
de-sac is approximately 2,400 linear feet in length.The
ordinance allows a maximum cul-de-sac length of 750 feet.
Public Works supports the variance as requested based on
the fact that the proposed cul-de-sac will serve only 21lots.
5
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
As noted in paragraph D.,Public Works is requiring trafficcirclesalongChenalValleyDrivewhichareintendedto
serve as traffic calming devices.The applicant has met
with Public Works and notes that approved traffic calming
devices will be constructed along Chenal Valley Drive as
required by Public Works,however these devices may be
something other than traffic circles.In any event,thesetrafficcalmingdevicesmustbeapprovedbyPublicWorks
prior to any construction.
As staff noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting,
portions of this property along Chenal Parkway are zoned
MF-6 and C-2.These areas need to be down-zoned to R-2.
The applicant has noted that a rezoning application will befiledfortheJune14,2001 Planning Commission agenda.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the preliminary plat,as the
applicant has done an adequate job in addressing the issues
as originally raised by staff.The proposed plat should
have no adverse impact on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject
to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends approval of the variance for increased
lot width-to-depth ratio for the lots as noted in
paragraph A.
3.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an
alternate pedestrian circulation system.
4.Staff also recommends approval of the variance from the
maximum cul-de-sac length standards for Commentry
Place.
5.The MF-6 and C-2 zoning along Chenal Parkway must be
rezoned to R-2 prior to any final platting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
6
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-IIII
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
7
April 19,2~v1
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-1074-I
NAME:Chevaux Court —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:South side of Cantrell Road,approximately 800 feeteastofChenonceauBlvd.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Eugene Pfeifer,III White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 99 24 Rahling Circle
No.Little Rock,AR 72115 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:104
FT.NEW STREET:4,350 linear feet
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
4.A variance to allow reduced front platted building lines for
Lots 33-50.
BACKGROUND:
On September 19,1995 the Planning Commission approved the
Chevaux Court —Preliminary Plat.The approved plat included
104 single family residential lots with approximately 4,350linearfeetofnewstreets.The interior lots (Blocks 2 and 3)
were approved with rear access and 20 foot platted front
building lines.The remainder of the lots (Block 1)were
approved for individual direct street access and 25 foot frontplattedbuildinglines.
April 19,2 s1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1074-I
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
Chevaux Court —Preliminary Plat by providing a rear access
drive to Lots 33-50,Block 1.The applicant notes that
there is market demand for rear service drives with rear
loading garages,rather than the individual lot front
access drives.
Based on the fact that rear access is proposed,the
applicant is proposing 20-foot platted front building linesfortheselots.The minimum front yard setback requirementis25feet.The applicant has requested a variance to
allow the 20-foot platted building lines.As notedearlier,20-foot platted front building lines and rear
access were approved for the interior lots (Blocks 2 and
3).
The rear access drive and 20 foot platted front buildinglinesforLots33-50,Block 1 are the only proposed changestotheoriginalpreliminaryplat.Please see the attachedplatsketchfortheproposedchanges.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A number of single-family residences have been constructed
within this subdivision,with several homes currently under
construction.There are single-family residences located
south of this subdivision,with The Ranch development
across Cantrell Road to the north.There is C-3 and 0-2
zoned property to the west along Chenonceau Blvd.Johnson
Ranch Road is located along the property's east boundary.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Johnson Ranch,Bayonne Place and
Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.Correct the Phase and Lot Count notations.
2
April 19,2 a1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1074-I
5.Furnish a description or legal dimensioning of the new
access easement servicing lots 33 to 50.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
Water:An acreage charge of $300/acre applies in addition to
the normal connection charge for this area.A water main
extension will be required to serve Phase 4.Current lot
layout appears to require relocation of an existing main at
the developer's expense.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the proposed revised preliminaryplat.Staff noted that a "no access"easement needed to
the shown along the front of Lots 33-50,Block 1,based on
the rear access as proposed.Staff also noted that the
front platted building lines as proposed needed to be shown
on the plat.
3
April 19,~a1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1074-I
There was a brief discussion pertaining to the rear access
concept for single family lots.After the discussion,the
Committee forwarded the revised preliminary plat to thefullCommissionforfinalaction.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing
to staff on April 4,2001.The revised drawing addresses
the issues as raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee
meeting.The revised plat shows the "no access"easement
along the front of Lots 33-50,Block 1 and the front
platted building lines as requested.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow 20-foot platted front building lines for
Lots 33-50,Block 1.The ordinance typically requires a
minimum 25-foot front setback for single family lots.
Based on the fact that rear access is proposed to theselots,staff feels that the 20-foot platted front building
lines are reasonable.This concept has been successfully
used for the interior lots within this subdivision and
other subdivisions.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the revised preliminary plat.The revised plat should
have no adverse effect on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.
2.Staff supports the variance to allow 20-foot platted
front building lines for Lots 33-50,Block 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
4
April 19,i ..J"1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1074-I
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effe'ct was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
5
April 19,2~v'1
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1280-A
NAME:Valley Falls Estates —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:South end of South Katillius Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Valley Falls Estates,LLC White-Daters and Associates
404 E.Kiehl 24 Rahling Circle
Sherwood,AR 72020 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:120 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:94
FT.NEW STREET:8,500 linear feet
ZONING:R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow double-frontage lots (Lots 21-23 and 27).2.A variance to allow reduced rear yard setbacks (Lots 25-26).
BACKGROUND:
On May 11,2000,the Planning Commission approved the ValleyFallsEstates—Preliminary Plat.The approved plat included 86largersinglefamilyresidentiallotswithapproximately8,500linearfeetofnewstreets.The lots were proposed to be finalplattedinphases.On June 20,2000,the Board of Directors
passed Ordinance 18,299,which granted a five (5)year deferralforthestreetimprovementsfortheunnamedarterialstreet
along the subdivision's east boundary.
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1280-A
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved
preliminary plat,adding a total of 8 lots within the
southeastern portion of the subdivision.The previously
approved plat showed ten (10)large lots within phases 7
and 8.The applicant proposes to revise these two phases,for a net increase of eight (8)lots.With the revision of
phases 7 and 8,the applicant is requesting two (2)variances.The first is a variance to allow Lots 21-23 and
27 to be double-frontage lots.These lots have street
frontage on two (2)streets.
The second variance is requested to allow a reduced rear
yard setback for Lots 25 and 26.A 15-foot rear yard
setback is proposed for these two lots due to the excess
slope in this area.The applicant notes that the homes to
be constructed on these lots need to be pushed back as far
as possible on the lots.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Street improvements are currently under construction within
Phase I of this subdivision.Model homes are also under
construction on Lots 1 and 77.The remainder of the
subdivision is undeveloped and wooded,with varying degreesofslope.The general area is made up of single family
residences on large lots.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Johnson Ranch and Bayonne Place
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Same Comments as reviousl submitted on S-1280 as follows:
1.Unnamed arterial is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 35
feet from centerline is required.Location needs to
match Master Street Plan.Construct one-half street
improvements or request deferral.
2.Provide design of South Katillius conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
2
April 19,2~v1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1280-A
improvements to this street including 5-foot sidewalk
with planned development.3.Lots shall not have access to minor arterial per
Ordinance 15,594,show no access easement on the plat.4.All private streets shall conform to Public Street
Standards and be submitted for Design approval.5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
9.Define drainage easements and show preliminary drainage
design on plat.
10.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required with a building permit.11.Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.12.Access easements serving tracts shall be minor
residential standards with cul-de-sacs or "T"turnaround
with 24 feet pavements in 45 feet right-of-way.13.Name all streets,contact David Hathcock.
14.Street "B"and "C"do not meet minor residential
standards.
New Comments:1.Show easement for proposed storm drainage at Lot 53,
upstream of flared end section.
2.Clarify eastern boundary street location (Lucky Lane)and
any changes to MSP this area affecting street
classification,connectivity,and water main route
selection.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
AEKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment.
3
April 19,2~i1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1280-A
Water:Current maximum service elevation at this location is
approximately elevation 490.Service (and fire protection)
for proposed lots 27-31 and 36A-36F will require site
Grading to lower the ground elevation or additional water
line improvements,interior and/or exterior to the
development.Hydraulic analysis will be required for
approval of water plans.Acreage fees of $300 per acre
will apply in addition to normal.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :See attached Pulaski County memorandum
dated March 19,2001.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Tim Daters was present,representing the application.
Staff briefly described the revised preliminary plat.
Staff noted that the average slope needed to be shown on
the plat for Lots 25-31 and that a rear access easement
needed to be shown for Lots 24-26.Staff also noted that a
maximum service elevation note needed to be shown on the
plat as requested by waterworks.
The Public Works issues were briefly discussed.Staff made
Mr.Daters aware of the comments made by Pulaski County
Planning (memorandum dated 3/19/01).
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action.
4
April 19,2~v1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1280-A
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonApril4,2001.The revised plat addresses the
issues as raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee
meeting.The revised plat notes the average slope for Lots27-31 and shows a rear access easement for Lots 24-26.The
waterworks note concerning maximum service elevation has
also been added.
Staff required that the average slope be shown for Lots 27-
31 based on the fact that the applicant is proposinghillsidestandardsfortheselots.According to ordinance,lots that have an average slope in excess of 18 percent may
have a platted front building line of 15 feet.Lots 27-31
qualify for the hillside standards based on the average
slope being in excess of 18 percent and the lots having an
area greater than 10,000 square feet.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow Lots 21-23 and 27 with double street
frontage.The ordinance typically prohibits double-
frontage lots.However,the ordinance allows double-
frontage lots to be used to help facilitate residential
development in hillside areas,which is the case here.Staff supports the variance as requested.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a
reduced rear yard setback for Lots 25-26.The applicant is
proposing a 15-foot rear yard setback for these two lots.
The ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25feetforresidentiallots.The applicant is requesting a
reduced rear yard setback for these lots due to the
existing topography (extreme slope).The applicant wishes
to have the homes constructed on the lots as far back as
possible.The proposed 15 foot rear yard would align with
the front platted building lines for Lots 27-31.Staff
also feels that this variance is reasonable given the
hillside situation.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with the revised preliminary plat.The revised plat should
have no adverse impact on the general area.The lots shown
in Phases 7 and 8 far exceed the minimum ordinance
standards for lot width and area.
5
April 19,2 a1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1280-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat
subject to the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.
2.Staff supports the variances for double frontage lots
and reduced rear yard setbacks as noted in paragraph H.
of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
T]e
Q QllIl
PUBLIC WORKS 501 W.MARKHAM 951 ADDRESSING PROGRAM
PLANNING EI DEVELOPMENT 501-340-8270
LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72201
COUNT PULASKI
501-340-8260
MEMORANDUM
CITIES
TO:Monte Moore,Director of Subdivision
Planning,City of Little Rock
CAMMACK VILLAGE
JACKSONVILLE FROM:Jim Narey,Planning Administrator,
LITTLE ROCK
Pulaski County
RE:Valley Falls Estates
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
DATE:3/19/2001
WRIGHTSVILLE
The following are comments made by Pulaski County Staff regarding the
Valley Falls Subdivision that is located off of South Katillius Road:
UNINCORPORATED ~Project engineers should furnish road designs and cross-sections
to Pulaski County so maximum grades on all streets can be
BIM SOUARE MILES
determined.
~Show drainage calculations.
~Show acreage of each lot.
~Identify all corners as to size and type.
~Identify a minimum of two land ties.
M LITARV
~Legal description contained several errors.(legal did not close
properly)County Surveyor contacted project engineering firm and
corrections are being made to the legal.
~The portion of South Katillius Road that shows "to be closed by
CAMP ROBINSON Court Order"can be closed only by Pulaski County Judge.
Pg.2,3/19/01
~Show verification that City of Little Rock will maintain detention
ponds.
~Lots 14 and 15 have a detention pond located on a portion of their
lots,is there an easement for this?
~Cul-de-sac lengths are over the County's maximum length of 900
feet.Must have a turn-around for cul-de-sacs longer than 900
feet.
~Lot 24 shows a pipe stem access.The County does not
recommend this type of lot design because of issues regarding
emergency vehicle access and 911 addressing.How will the lot be
addressed since it fronts two streets?
~Please include a space on plat for the signature of Pulaski County
Planning Board Chairman.
cc:F.G."Buddy"Villines,Pulaski County Judge
Sherman Smith,P.E./R.L.S.,Director of Public Works,Pulaski
County
Cy Carney,City Manager,City of Little Rock
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,City of Little Rock
RKCK:-4/I"-'-~
NAR 9 1 PIlII1,.~,I
Pd
April 19,2~v1
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:S-1308
NAME:Rocky —Replat
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Baseline Road and Chicot Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Yelenich Family Revocable Living Trust Laha Engineers,Inc.
5706 Partridge Lane P.O.Box 190251
No.Little Rock,AR 72118 Little Rock,AR 72219
AREA:approximately 3.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3
FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow reduced rear platted building lines
(Lots 1 and 2).
2.A waiver of right-of-way dedication for Baseline and Chicot
Roads.
3.A waiver of street improvements for Baseline and Chicot Roads.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to replat the two (2)existing lotsatthesoutheast corner of Baseline and Chicot Roads into
three (3)lots.The applicant proposes to construct an
auto parts store on the newly created lot (Lot 1).Lot 2
as shown on the proposed replat contains a service station,
which will be removed in the future with development of a
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
new convenience store.The south and east lot lines ofthisexistinglotareproposedtobeslightlyadjusted,
with Lot 2 being enlarged.Lot 3 contains an existing
commercial building,formerly a Fred's Store.
The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced rearplattedbuildingsetbacksforLots1and2.A 5-foot rearplattedbuildinglineisproposedforeachoftheselots.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of additional required
right-of-way dedication for Baseline and Chicot Roads.The
applicant is also requesting a waiver of additional street
improvements for Baseline and Chicot Roads.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a vacant commercial building (old Fred's Store)on
Lot 3 of the proposed replat,with a service station on Lot2.The area proposed for Lot 1 is asphalt parking area for
the existing commercial building.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the east and to
the north across Baseline Road.There is a church across
Chicot Road to the west.There is an Entergy sub-station
immediately south of this site,with commercial usesfurthersouth.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Chicot,Cloverdale,West Baseline and
SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.South edge of property is in floodplain.
2.Baseline and Chicot Roads are classified as principal
arterials on the Master Street Plan.A dedication of
right-of-way to 45 feet from centerlines is required.3.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area,per Sec.
8-283 will be required.
4.A development permit for Flood Hazard,per Sec.8-283
will be required.
5.Provide design of streets conforming to Master Street
Plan.Construct right turn lane from Chicot Road onto
Baseline Road.
6.Driveway locations shall conform to Ordinance 18,031.
2
April 19,2 ~'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal fees in this area.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is located on bus routes 17 and 17A,
but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Rocky Yelenich and Troy Laha were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed replat
and noted several items which needed to be shown on the
replat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were discussed at length,
primarily right-of-way dedication.Cross-access and
parking easements were briefly discussed.Mr.Yelenich
noted that the existing drive near the east property line
of Lot 1 would be closed,with shared access from Baseline
Road between Lots 1 and 2.
Staff noted that based on the C-3 zoning of the property,
the front platted building lines could be reduced to 25feet.The front building lines were originally platted at
3
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
40 feet.Staff noted that the reduction of the front
building lines was based on the required right-of-way being
dedicated.This issue was discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the replat to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised replat drawing to staff
on April 4,2001.The revised replat addresses some of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
Street centerlines,descriptions of monuments and the
required legal description have been noted.
The applicant has also submitted a parking plan for Lot 3.
The plan shows that there will be 90 parking spaces
remaining on Lot 3 to serve the existing commercial
building.The ordinance requires a minimum of 64 spaces
for the existing building.Therefore,the creation of Lot
1 does not encroach into the required parking for the
existing commercial building.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting
waivers of the Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication
and street improvements to Baseline and Chicot Roads.The
required right-of-way for both streets is 45 feet from
existing street centerlines.This would mean an additional
five (5)feet of dedication along Baseline Road and an
extra width varying from five (5)feet to ten (10)feet
along the Chicot Road frontage.The revised replat
submitted shows an additional five (5)feet of dedication
along a portion of Baseline Road,which would bring the
overall right-of-way on this street to 40 feet from
centerline.The applicant is also requesting a waiver of
street improvements to these streets,which would include
construction of a right turn lane from Chicot Road onto
Baseline Road.Public Works recommends denial of the
waivers as requested.
As noted in paragraph G.,the C-3 zoning of the property
allows a 25 foot front platted building line.The front
platted building lines on this property were platted at 40
feet years ago.The revised replat submitted shows 25 foot
platted building lines for the proposed lots,but the 25
foot measurement was made from the existing front property
4
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
lines.Staff feels that if the original 40 foot front
platted building lines are reduced to 25 feet,the 25 foot
measurement should be taken from the required Master Street
Plan right-of-way line.
Also,the applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard
setback line for Lots 1 and 2.The required rear yard
setback in C-3 zoning is 25 feet.The applicant is
requesting a five (5)foot rear yard setback for these twolots.Staff will only support the rear yard setback
variance if the required Master Street Plan right-of-way is
dedicated.Without the required right-of-way dedication,staff feels that there is no hardship nor justification for
the setback variance.
Although staff has no objection to the concept of a replat
to create Lot 1 and adjust the south and east propertylinesforLot2,staff cannot fully support the replat
until the outstanding issues mentioned in this paragraph
are resolved.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends that the front 25 foot platted building
line be measured from the required Master Street Plan
right-of-way line.
3.Staff recommends denial of the rear yard setback varianceiftherequiredright-of-way is not dedicated.
4.Staff recommends denial of the waivers of right-of-way
dedication and street improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Rocky Yelenich and Troy Laha were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the replat and noted that
the Commission needed to address a bylaw waiver for the
notification before hearing the item.There were no objectors
present.
5
April 19,~a'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Rocky Yelenich explained that he did not obtain an abstract list
of adjacent property owners,but researched the county records
and created his own property owner list.He stated that he
hand-delivered a notice to each of these owners and obtained
their signatures.The Commission reviewed the notice and
signatures as presented by Mr.Yelenich.
Commissioner Adcock noted that the neighborhood associations in
the area knew about the proposed development and supported the
development.
Commissioner Faust noted that two (2)neighborhood associations
submitted letters supporting the plat.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he was concerned with setting
precedence in waiving the bylaws.
Mr.Yelenich noted that the developers of Lot 1 were ready to
proceed with development of this lot.
Staff expressed concern that an abstract list was not used to
notify adjacent property owners.There was a general discussion
of a possible bylaw waiver and the required notice procedure.
There was a motion to defer the application to the May 3,2001
Planning Commission agenda.The motion was discussed.The
Commission noted that the applicant needed to obtain an abstractlistandverifythathenotifiedalloftherequiredadjacent
property owners.If any of the property owners were not
notified,the Commission instructed the applicant to do so as
soon as possible.The staff was to review the abstract list
and parties given notice and report to the Commission on
May 3,2001.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and
4 absent.
6
April 19,2 v1
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
NAME:Arkansas Hospice —Long-Form POD —Re-Establishment
and Revisions
LOCATION:North end of Dover Drive,north of West 36 Street
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Arkansas Hospice Witsell Evans Rasco
2200 Fort Roots Dr.901 West 3'treet
N.Little Rock,AR 72114-1709 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:9.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1
FT.NEW STREET:Approximately 110 linear feet (cul-de-sac)
ZONING:POD ALLOWED USES:Arkansas Hospice Facility
PROPOSED USE:Arkansas Hospice Facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested
BACKGROUND:
On August 1,1995,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.16,939 rezoning this property from MF-18 to POD for developmentoftheHospiceHomeCare(Arkansas Hospice)facilities.The
multiple building site plan included the following:
~office building
~two (2)inpatient care facility buildings
~chapel building
~childcare building
~medical equipment building
~grounds maintenance building
~future additional inpatient care facility building site
~122 parking spaces
April 19,2i ~1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
To date,no development has taken place on the site and the
previously approved POD has officially expired.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to re-establish the POD zoning of
the 9.7-acre tract for Arkansas Hospice with a site
development plan which is slightly different from the
previously approved plan.As with the previously approved
POD,Arkansas Hospice wishes to develop the property to
accommodate residential inpatient care for the terminallyill.The development is proposed in two (2)phases asfollows:
Phase I —Bldg.A —Arkansas Hospice Offices
21,406 square feet
Bldg.B —Inpatient Care Facility—
24,385 square feet (20 beds)
Parking and Drives
Phase II —Bldg.C —Inpatient Care Facility—
21,000 square feet (20 beds)
Bldg.D —Chapel —4,000 square feet
Bldg.E —Maintenance Building—
4,000 square feet
The applicant proposes to construct a cul-de-sac at the endofDoverDrive,with right-of-way dedicated to the City.
An interior loop driveway will be constructed to serve the
development.A gate providing after hours security will bebuiltattheentrancetothefacility.The applicant notesthattheentrygateswillbelocatedoutsidetheright-of-
way.
The applicant proposes to construct a system of internal
pedestrian pathways within the site.The applicant notes
that the paths will be paved with a pervious material such
as fibar mulch,which is ADA approved.
The proposed site plan shows two (2)main areas of parking.
One area located near the northeast corner of the property
which contains 74 parking spaces to serve the inpatient
care facilities.Another area of parking near the
southwest corner of the property contains 49 spaces and
will serve the administrative offices.There are 10
additional spaces shown beside the maintenance building,for a total of 133 parking spaces.
The applicant notes that the design of all structures,
including the office building and the inpatient facilities
will be residential in character.Buildings will be
oriented with the topography to minimize impact to the site
2
April 19,2 s1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
and preserve as much natural vegetation as possible.Thestructureswillhavematerialscompatiblewiththenatural
environment of the site utilizing native stone and stucco.
The maximum building height will be 30 feet (to top ofridge).A sample building elevation is attached for
Planning Commission review.
The applicant notes that the hours of operation for theofficebuildingwillbe8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday-
Friday.The inpatient care facilities will operate 24
hours a day,seven (7)days per week.
The applicant notes that the majority of the site signagewillbelow-scale and used to direct pedestrians and
passenger cars to the various buildings.There is an
entrance sign proposed which will incorporate native stone
and possibly a water fountain.The entrance sign will have10-inch high letters with the organization's name and
possibly a potential donor's name.
The applicant notes that strict measures will be designed
by the project engineer and implemented by the projectcontractorwhichwillprovideerosionandsiltcontrol
during construction,so as to maintain the integrity of the
lake immediately east of the site.The following is an
excerpt from the applicant's cover letter:
"It is our intent to preserve as much of the
existing topography and vegetation as possible,to buffer development from surrounding
properties and to create a campus with dignity,
beauty,and simplicity befitting the mission of
Arkansas Hospice."
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded.There is a churchtothesouthalongthewestsideofDoverDriveandsingle-
family residences along the east side of this street.
There is undeveloped MF-12 zoned property to the north,
with the Good Shepherd nursing home facility further north
along Aldersgate Road.There is a lake and the Kensington
Place Neighborhood immediately east of the site.The Our
Way,Inc.independent living facilities are located to the
west.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)phone calls
from persons recpxesting information on this application.
3
April 19,2 v1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
The John Barrow,Kensington Place and Seven District ¹147
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Public Works recommends internal walks.
2.Detention Ordinance applies.Scheme shown may be wrong
hydrologically.3.Turn-around required.Dedicate right-of-way for cul-de-
sac.Clarify intent of gate within ROW.
4.Grading Permit will include tree preservation
requirements.Review conformance to natural contours.
With Buildin Permit:
5.Provide existing topographical information at maximum 5-
foot contour interval and 100-year base flood elevation.
6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186 (e),will be required.
7.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)6 (d),will be
required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing 8"sewer main on site.Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility for details.Capacity Contribution
Analysis Required for this project.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Utility easements are requested along
the interior ring road,with the developer to install conduit
to each building.Contact Southwestern Bell for details.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.An acreage
charge of $150/acre applies in this area,in addition to
normal charges.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
4
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this
property.The applicant has applied for a revision of an
existing Planned Office District.The applicant wishes to
build a hospice care facility.A land use plan amendmentisnotrequired.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The plan contains the
Business and Commercial goal of enhancing "...the climate
directed towards encouraging new business and commercial
establishments to locate in the neighborhood."
Landsca e Issues:
The site plan submitted meets the zoning buffer and
landscape ordinance requirements when averaged out.
However,a portion of the northern land use buffer drops 26
feet below the full width requirement without transfers of
41 feet and three small portions along the eastern and
western perimeters drop 14 feet to 18 feet below the full
requirement without transfers of 38 feet.
A total of 70%of the land use buffers must remain
undisturbed.
Because of the variations in grade it will be necessary to
provide a plan showing proposed grade changes and how they
will be incorporated into the overall site.
Since this site is tree covered,the City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible.
Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6-inch
caliper or larger.
5
April 19,2~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
A six-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden good
neighbor fence or dense evergreen plantings,is required
along the northern,eastern and western site perimeters.
Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given
where existing natural dense vegetation is able to satisfythisyear-round requirement.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be
required.
Prior to receiving a building permit,the landscape plan
will be required to have the seal of a registered landscapearchitect.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
David Sargent was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the POD request.Staff noted that
some additional project information was needed (hours of
operation,building heights,signage details,dumpster
locations).David Sargent noted that the additional
information would be provided as requested.
Mr.Sargent noted that Arkansas Hospice representatives
would have meetings with the Kensington Place Neighborhood.
He stated that a possible extension of the walking path
(along the east property line)onto the Kensington Place
Property Owners Association's property and a possible dock
on the lake would be discussed.
The Public Works requirements were discussed.Mr.Sargent
noted that internal walks would be provided and that the
detention ordinance would be complied with.Mr.Sargent
noted that it was the developer's desire to preserve as
many of the existing trees as possible and work with the
topography.
The landscape requirements were also briefly discussed.It
was noted that the proposed site plan conformed to the
zoning buffer and landscape ordinance requirements.It was
noted that curbing or wheel stops would be needed to
protect landscaped areas.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the POD to
the full Commission for resolution.
6
April 19,2 J'1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 4,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.Public
Works has reviewed the revised site plan and notes no
outstanding issues.The applicant notes that the Public
Works and landscape requirements will be complied with.
As noted in paragraph A.,there are a total of 133 parking
spaces shown on the proposed site plan.The ordinance
would typically require a minimum of 91 spaces to serve the
proposed use.Staff supports the parking plan as proposed.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing a
monument-type ground-mounted sign at the entrance to the
property.Staff suggests that the sign conform to the
standards for office zoned property (maximum height —6feet,maximum area —64 square feet).
Staff feels that the applicant has done a good job in
addressing the issues associated with this development.
Based on the fact that the applicant is proposing to
preserve much of the existing vegetation on the site and
work with the existing topography,staff feels that the
proposed development will be a good addition to the general
area and have a minimal impact on surrounding property.
Based on the fact that the site plan is tailored for the
Arkansas Hospice use and the inpatient care buildings are
being specially designed for this use,staff will recommend
that the POD be approved for the Arkansas Hospice use
(inpatient care for the terminally ill)only.If Arkansas
Hospice vacates the site,another organization which
provides inpatient care for the terminally ill can take
over the site.Otherwise,a different use will need to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City
Board of Directors.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the POD be re-established and
Ordinance No.16,939 be amended to accept Arkansas
7
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4175-G
Hospice's new development plan with the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.The on-site signage must conform to the ordinance
standards for office zoned property.3.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent residential property.4.The dumpster areas must be screened on three (3)sides
with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.5.Staff recommends that the POD be for inpatient care for
the terminally ill only,as noted in paragraph H.of this
report.
6.Erosion and silt control measures must be taken during
construction to maintain the water quality of the lake on
the adjacent property to the east.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
8
April 19,2 d1
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
NAME:Cook Restoration —Revised PD-C
LOCATION:3204 Old Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Skip Cook Terry Burrus
3204 Old Shackleford Road 1202 Main Street
Little Rock,AR 72221 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:1.30 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-C ALLOWED USES:Office-Warehouse and C-3
permitted uses
PROPOSED USE:Office-Warehouse and C-3
permitted uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Old Shackleford Road for
five (5)years.
BACKGROUND:
On May 2,1995,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
16,879 and 16,880.Ordinance No.16,879 rezoned this propertytoPD-C for an office-warehouse,with C-3 permitted uses asalternateusesforthesite.Ordinance No.16,880 granted adeferralofstreetimprovementstoOldShacklefordforfive (5)years or until other construction along Old Shackleford Road.
The latter Ordinance expired last year.
The approved site plan for this property included a paved and
landscaped parking area.To date,the parking area has not been
paved or landscaped.A permanent Certificate of Occupancy wasalsoneverissuedforthewarehousebuilding.
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The current property owner,Skip Cook,recently purchased
the property not knowing of the deficiencies that exist,
nor of the expired deferral of street improvements.
Therefore,Mr.Cook requests an additional five (5)yeardeferralforthestreetimprovementstoOldShackleford
Road and two (2)year deferral to pave the parking area.It has been noted that any required landscape upgrades will
be made.No other changes are proposed to the existingsiteplan.
Cook Restoration Systems is the business that currently
occupies the property.This business is a full servicerestorationcontractor,specializing in insurance related
repair and general remodeling,both residential and
commercial.The facilities at this location include office
and warehouse use.The existing hours of operation are8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,Monday-Friday.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are two (2)existing buildings on the site,a 1,727
square foot office and a 2,400 square foot warehouse
structure.There is a gravel parking area along thebuildings'outh side.
There are commercial uses across Old Shackleford Road to
the east and southeast,with undeveloped property to the
north (Summit Mall PCD)and west (R-2).There are several
single Family residences and an auto repair business to the
south,between this property and West 36 Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Staff has received no comment from the neighborhood as ofthiswriting.The Kensington Place,John Barrow and
Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Old Shackleford Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
2
April 19,2 V1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Close one driveway.
6.Pave parking lot and show parking layout.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Notify utility if any groundwork will be
done.Contact Southwestern Bell for details.
Water:Contact the Water Works if larger and/or additional
meter(s)are required.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this
property.The applicant has applied for a revision of an
existing Planned Development —Commercial district.The
applicant wishes to file for an extension of the 5-year
deferral of half street improvements and a parking
improvement deferral.A land use plan amendment is not
required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Pecan Lake,Westwood,Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Action
3
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
Plan within the Stagecoach-Dodd section of the plan.The
Stagecoach-Dodd section of the plan has the objective of
maintaining adequate separation between residential and
non-residential uses.The Stagecoach-Dodd section of the
plan also contains an action statement of "encouraging the
development of non-residential uses west of Shackleford
Road and north of David 0 Dodd Road."
Landsca e Issues:
A total of 18 shrubs 18"in height at planting are required
south of the vehicular use area.
A small amount of landscaping between the public parking
area and building is required.
It will be necessary to protect landscaped areas from
vehicular traffic with a landscape border.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Skip Cook and Terry Burrus were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the revised PD-C,
noting several items which needed to be shown on the site
plan.Staff also stated that a separate plan needed to be
submitted showing the future asphalt parking details.
The deferral of street improvements to Old Shackleford Road
was discussed.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,
indicated support of the deferral.The deferral of paving
required for the parking area was also discussed.Staff
suggested paving the east (front)portion of the parking
area,where subject to passenger vehicle parking and
leaving the rear portion of the parking area gravel for
truck parking.Staff suggested a paving deferral for the
rear parking area only.Mr.Cook stated that he would take
these suggestions under consideration.
The landscape requirements were briefly discussed.It was
noted that an upgrade in landscaping would be required.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised
PD-C to the full Commission for resolution.
4
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 4,2001.The revised site plan addresses the issues
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The
dumpster area with screening,existing building heights,
ground-mounted sign and areas for landscaping upgrades have
been shown on the revised site plan.
The applicant notes that the ground-mounted sign will have
a maximum height of six (6)feet and a maximum area of 64
square feet.This conforms to the ordinance requirements
for office signage.Staff has no problem with the sign
proposed.
The revised plan shows the areas of landscaping upgrades as
required in paragraph F.of this report.A total of 18
shrubs will be planted along the south property line,with
an area of building landscaping also provided.
The revised site plan also shows that ten (10)vehicles can
park within the existing gravel parking area.A minimum of
ten (10)spaces would typically be required by ordinance to
serve an office-warehouse development of this size.
In addition to be revised site plan,the applicant has
submitted a future paving plan for the parking area.As
noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a two
(2)year deferral for the parking lot paving.The
applicant notes that when the parking area is paved,the
northernmost drive from Old Shackleford Road will be
removed as requested by Public Works.The future asphalt
parking plan shows a total of ten (10)parking spaces,an
area for truck maneuvering and landscaping areas.Staff
supports the two (2)year deferral for paving the parking
area and the future parking plan as proposed.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting an
additional five (5)year deferral for the required street
improvements to Old Shackleford Road.Public Works
supports the deferral of street improvements for five (5)
years or until adjacent development,whichever occursfirst.The revised site plan notes that the additional
five (5)feet of right-of-way will be dedicated as
required.
5
April 19,2~31
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
As noted in the background paragraph,a permanentCertificateofOccupancywasneverissuedforthe warehouse
building.The Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.)was not
issued at the time the warehouse building was completed
because the pavement of the parking area and installationoflandscapingwasnotdone.For some unknown reason the
Building Codes staff never followed up on the C.O.
Recently,the Zoning Enforcement staff flagged the property
and issued a notice to comply with the previously approvedsiteplanorapplyforaxevision,as the applicant has
done.
The applicant has noted that he has met with the Building
Codes staff and is working to resolve the C.O.issue.If
the Planning Commission approves the Revised PD-C with the
deferral of parking lot paving,staff feels that it would
be reasonable to issue a C.O.after a building inspectionismadeandapproved,the additional right-of-way is
dedicated,the dumpster area is screened and the upgrade in
landscaping is completed.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the Revised PD-C.Given the historyofthisproperty,staff feels that the applicant's Revised
PD-C plan is reasonable and should have no adverse impact
on the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Revised PD-C subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent residential property.3.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)side with
an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.
4.The ground-mounted sign must conform to the ordinance
office standards as noted in paragraph H.of this report.5.The PD-C is approved for Cook Restoration Systems and C-3
permitted uses (as previously approved).6.Staff supports a two (2)year deferral for paving the
parking area and removing the northernmost drive.
6
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5959-A
7.Staff recommends approval of the deferral of street
improvements to Old Shackleford Road for five (5)years
or until adjacent development,whichever occurs first.8.Staff recommends that a Certificate of Occupancy be
issued for the property based on the conditions as noted
in paragraph H.of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronApril12,2001 requesting that this item be deferred
to the May 31,2001 agenda,due to the fact that an abstractlistwasnotobtainedintimetocompletetherequired
notifications.Staff supported the deferral request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 31,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
7
April 19,2 01
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-6178-E
NAME:Stagecoach Village —Long-Form PRD
LOCATION:West side of Stagecoach Road,approximately 1,400 feet
south of Baseline Road (immediately west of 9222 Stagecoach Road).
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Finley and Company Hurricane Valley,Inc.
9222 Stagecoach Road 1501 Prickett RoadLittleRock,AR 72209 Bryant,AR 72022
AREA:14.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:90
FT.NEW STREET:2,154 linear feet
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Single Family Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested
BACKGROUND:
This 14.14.acre property was once part of the Staley Golf
Driving Range PCD.That PCD was recently revoked and this
property reverted to R-2 Single Family as previously existed.
The property immediately east of this site (between this
property and Stagecoach Road)was recently approved as a four
(4)lot preliminary plat,for mixed office/commercial
developments.One of the lots was rezoned to POD and another
was recently rezoned to PCD.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 14.14 acre propertywestof9222StagecoachRoadfromR-2 to PRD to allow a
gated patio home (attached single family residential)
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-E
development.As a component of the PRD proposal,theapplicanthassubmittedapreliminaryplatforthe
development.
The applicant proposes a total 90 patio homes,with commonareasandaclubhouse(1,600 square feet)which will servethedevelopment.The patio homes will be attached single
family residences.A total of 19 of the proposed buildingswillcontaintwo(2)units each,with 13 four-unit
buildings.The units will range in size from 1,352 squarefeetto1,430 square feet.
Access to the project will be by way of a gated entrance
from the end of Stagecoach Village Drive.The interiorstreetswithinthisdevelopmentwillbeprivateand
maintained by the property owners association.An access
easement will be provided from the end of StagecoachVillageDrivetotherecentlyapprovedcondominium
development which will be on the abutting property to thenorth.The interior streets will also serve as access
easements,with additional access easements running betweentheindividuallotsatthedrivelocations.
The proposed development will take place in two (2)phasesasnotedontheattachedsiteplanandplat.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 14.14 acre property is undeveloped and grass-covered,
as it was once a golf driving range.Lots 1-4,StagecoachVillageSubdivisionarelocatedimmediatelyeast,withthree(3)single family residences across Stagecoach Roadfurthereastandachurchtothesoutheast.There aresinglefamilyresidencestothewestandnorthwest.There
was a condominium development recently approved for the
property immediately to the north.There are single familyresidencesandachurchfurthernorthalongBaselineRoad.
There is undeveloped R-2 and MF-12 zoned property to the
south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received two (2)phone calls
from persons requesting information on this application.
The Otter Creek,Crystal Valley and SWLR UP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the public hearing.
2
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-E
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.The MSP requires 50-foot easements and 26-foot streets
with a walk when servicing more that 35 lots.30-footstreetmustbe31feetor36feetwithasidewalk.
Internal street to Ripley property must also be 31 feet
or 36 feet with walk.
2.The City of Little Rock will not be responsible for
positive lot drainage.We suggest grading plan to include
finished floor elevations and interior drainage
easements.
3.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
4.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction;site grading and drainage plan will need to
be submitted and approved.There have been drainage
complaints east of subdivision.5.Stormwater analysis is not approved with the plat.6.Request franchise for improvements (call box,etc.)
located in the right-of-way.
With Buildin Permit:
7.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)6 (d),will be
required.
8.Prepare a letter for streetlights as required by Sec.31-403.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A water main extension and private fire hydrants will
be required.Easements will be needed for water mains.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.The
gate opening should be at least 15 feet wide.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
3
April 19,~01
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-E
Count Plannin:No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this
property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential District for a patio home development.The
property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family.A land use
plan amendment is not required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
residential development goal contains an action statement
that encourages development of owner occupied residential
properties.Two action statements effect the design of new
residential developments.The first is to ensure the
construction of sidewalks by "...not granting variances for
sidewalk requirements or construction."The second
requires "...the installation of street lights in all future
developments as streets are built.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Bud Finley,Olan Asbury,Charles Best and Randy Ripley were
present,representing the application.Staff briefly
described the proposed PRD and noted that additional items
needed to be shown on the site plan and preliminary plat
sketches.In response to a question from staff,Mr.Asbury
noted that the development would utilize City garbage
collection.Staff noted that any improvement in the right-
of-way (sign,call box,planter)would require a franchise.
4
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6178-E
The Public Works requirements were discussed.The designofthestreetswithinthisdevelopmentwasdiscussedat
length.The applicants noted that they would meet with
Public Works regarding the internal street design issue.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PRD to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and preliminary
plat to staff on April 4,2001.The revised site plan and
plat address the issues as raised by staff and the
Subdivision Committee.The revised plan notes the maximum
building height (32 feet),sign details and phase line.
The revised plat drawing also provides the additional
notations as required.
The proposed site plan shows a sign,planter and call box
in the median of the cul-de-sac at the end of Stagecoach
Village Dr.The sign will be of monument-type,with a
height of four (4)feet and a sign area of approximately 15
square feet.These proposed improvements in the right-of-
way will require that the applicant obtain a franchise
permit from the Public Works Department.
Public Works has reviewed the revised site plan and
preliminary plat and notes that there are no issues left to
be resolved.Public Works supports the proposed
development.As noted in the Public Works requirements
(paragraph D.),site grading and drainage plans (stormwater
analysis)will need to be submitted and approved prior to
any construction.
As noted in paragraph A.,the project is proposed as a
gated single family development.The plan does show a 31
foot access easement from the end of Stagecoach Village
Drive to the recently approved PRD (condominium
development)to the north.Based on the development being
gated with private streets,the applicant must provide for
the maintenance of the streets,access drives,drainage
areas and common areas within the Bill of Assurance for the
subdivision.
5
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6178-E
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues associated with the PRD.Staff feels that the patio
home (owner-occupied)development will be a quality
addition to the general area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent residential property.3.The proposed ground-mounted development sign will be
monument-type with a maximum height of four (4)feet and
a maximum sign area of 15 square feet.
4.The applicant must obtain a franchise for the
improvements (sign,planter,call box)in the right-of-
way.
5.The applicant must provide for the maintenance of the
internal streets,access drives,drainage areas and
common areas within the Bill of Assurance for the
subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
April 19,2~J1
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-6997
NAME:Miller —Short-Form PD-0
LOCATION:15105 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Enoch Miller None
14116 Taylor Loop Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.61 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Cosmetology School/Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested
BACKGROUND:
The property at 15105 Cantrell Road is zoned R-2,but recently
had a nonconforming status based on the fact that an animalclinicwasonceontheproperty.The existing building on the
property once housed Bailey's Vet Clinic.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-2 to
PD-0 in order to utilize the existing building as a
cosmetology school.The applicant proposes
general/professional office use as alternate/future use of
the property,should the cosmetology school ever vacate the
building.The applicant notes that the cosmetology school
will have a maximum of 15 students,with operating hours of8:30 a.m.—3:00 p.m.,Tuesday-Saturday.
As part of the development plan,the applicant proposes a
small area of paved parking on the east side of the
building.The parking area consists of 13 spaces.Access
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6997
to the property will be gained by utilizing an existingdrivefromCantrellRoad.This drive is also used toaccessthepropertyimmediatelyeast(pet grooming and
boarding business)and south (single family residence)ofthisdevelopment.The applicant notes that this drive willalsobepaved.
The applicant also notes that there will be a ground-
mounted sign along the west side of the existing driveway.
The sign will be monument-type,with a height of six feet
and area of 32 square feet.
The applicant will make interior building renovations to
accommodate the proposed cosmetology school use.Therewillbenoexteriorchangestotheexistingbuilding.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property at 15105 Cantrell Road contains a one-storybrickstructure(3,000 square feet)which has been used as
an animal clinic and a residence in the past.The propertyisaccessedbywayofashareddrivefromCantrellRoad.
There is a pet grooming/boarding business on the property
immediately east of this site.There are single-familyresidencestothesouthandwest.There are office uses
and zoning to the north across Cantrell Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a property owner expressing concern with this
proposal.The Secluded Hills and Westchester/Heatherbrae
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D .ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to
55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
2
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FIIE NO.:Z-6997
6.Show parking for customers and employees.7.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
8.Show easement for shared driveway.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to
serve property.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact the Water Works if a larger or additional
meter is needed.An acreage charge of $300 per acre
applies in addition to normal fees if a larger or
additional meter is required.Installation of an RPZ
backflow preventer may be required.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus
route and has no effect,on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the River Mountain PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this
property.The property is currently zoned R-2 Single
Family.The applicant has applied for a Planned Office
District to establish a cosmetology school.The propertyiscurrentlyzonedR-2 Single Family and is located in the
State Highway 10 Design Overlay District.A land use plan
amendment is not required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The action
statements relevant to this application are preservation of
3
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6997
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District as well as
strengthening and enforcing ordinances for preservation oftreesandhills.
Landsca e Issues:
The plan submitted does not allow for the Highway 10
Overlay District required 40 foot wide landscape buffer
along Cantrell Road nor the 25 foot width requirement in
hardship cases.Additionally,it does not allow for the25-foot average width required along the southern
perimeter.The Landscape Ordinance requires minimum widthsof9feetalongCantrellRoadand6.7 feet along the
southern site perimeters.
A 6-foot high opaque screen is required along the southern
and western perimeters of the site.Credit towardfulfillingthisrequirementcanbegivenforexisting
vegetation that is able to provide the year-round screening
necessary.
A total of 8%of the on-site vehicular use area must be
landscaped with interior islands of at least 150 squarefeetinareaandofnolessthan7'c feet in width.
A small amount of building landscaping between the public
parking areas and building is required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Enoch Miller was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PD-0 and noted that
the applicant needed to revise the site plan to provide
more sensitivity to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
standards.Staff also noted that some additional
information was needed (signage details,hours of
operation,etc.).
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.Mr.
Miller noted that he would provide the required sidewalks
and right-of-way dedication.
There was a general discussion about redesigning the
proposed parking area to provide additional landscape and
buffer areas.Mr.Miller noted that he was open to
suggestions and would meet with staff to redesign the
4
April 19,i.J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6997
parking area.The landscaping requirements were also
discussed at this time.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-0 to
the full Commission for resolution.
H .ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 2,2001.The revised plan addresses all of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
The revised plan shows the additional right-of-way
dedication and sidewalk as required by Public Works.
The property at 15105 Cantrell Road lies within the Highway
10 Design Overlay District.The ordinance states that
property (due to size constraints)which cannot be
developed adhereing to all of the DOD standards,be
reviewed through the PZD process.Thus is the case with
this site.The 0.61-acre site is not large enough to
provide the 40-foot front landscape buffer as called for.
The existing building is only 15 feet from the front
property line.
Therefore,the applicant is providing a 25-foot front
landscape buffer as allowed in hardship cases.Aside from
the front building setback and front landscape buffer area,
the proposed site plan conforms to all other requirements
of the Highway 10 DOD.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing a
monument-style sign along the west side of the access
drive.The sign as proposed conforms to the Highway 10
Standards (maximum height of 6 feet and maximum area of 72
square feet allowed).
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is proposing a
new asphalt parking area for 13 vehicles.The ordinance
would typically require a minimum of 10 parking spaces for
a trade school of this size.If the building is ever
converted to general/professional office use the typical
minimum requirement for parking would be seven (7)spaces.
Staff supports the parking plan as proposed.
The revised site plan also notes that there is an existing
six foot wood screening fence along the west property line
5
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6997
and proposes landscape screening along the south propertyline.The revised plan also shows the interior and
building landscaping as required.
Staff feels that the applicant has done an above average
job in addressing the site design issues associated with
this property,given the fact that the property is very
small in size and located within the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District.Staff also feels that the proposed use
of the property (cosmetology school with
general/professional office as an alternate use)will
provide a good transitional use between Cantrell Road and
the single-family residences to the south.The proposed
PD-0 zoning should have no adverse impact on the general
area.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PD-0 zoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.Any site lighting must be low-level,directed to the
parking area and not reflected onto adjacent parcels.3.The proposed ground-mounted sign must conform to the
Highway 10 DOD standards (monument-type with a maximum
height of 6 feet and a maximum area of 72 square feet).
4.Proposed uses for the PD-0 include cosmetology school and
general/professional office use.
5.Areas set aside on the proposed site plan for landscaping
must be landscaped in accordance with the Highway 10 DOD
and City Landscape Ordinances.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
April 19,z~J1
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-6998
NAME:Smith —Short-Form PD-C
LOCATION:West side of Shackleford Road,approximately 500 feet
north of Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Todd Smith Blaylock,Threet,Phillips
c/o JOCON,Inc.and Associates
20 Tanglewood 1601 Market Street
No.Iittle Rock,AR 72115 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:3.383 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE:Office with Showroom and
Warehouse
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Deferral of street improvements to Shackleford Road
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the 3.383 acre property onthewestsideofShacklefordRoad,approximately 500 feet
north of Stagecoach Road from R-2 to PD-C.The applicant
proposes to construct a 13,750 square foot (maximum height
20 feet)building to be used as an office with showroom
and warehouse space.The applicant notes that 900 squarefeetofthebuildingwillbeusedasofficespace,480
square feet as showroom area and 12,370 square feet as
warehouse space.
The proposed business will involve the rental of party and
convention equipment (tables,chairs,table linens,tents,etc.).A portion of the warehouse will be used for the
storage,cleaning and repair of this equipment and the
laundering of the table linens.The proposed hours of
April 19,2 1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6998
operation will be from 7:30 a.m.—6:00 p.m.,Monday-
Saturday.The applicant notes that there may be instances
which require later return of equipment.
The proposed building will be located near the center oftheproperty,approximately 60 feet back from the front
property line.A small area of parking is proposed betweenthebuildingandthefrontpropertyline,with a singleaccessdrivefromShacklefordRoad.Please see theattachedsiteplanfortheproposedbuilding,parking,landscaping and location of other proposed improvements totheproperty.
As part of the PD-C request,the applicant is requesting adeferralofstreetimprovementstoShacklefordRoadforfive(5)years.Public Works has indicated support of thedeferralrequest.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded.There is a fence
company to the south at the southwest corner of Shackleford
and Stagecoach Roads.There is undeveloped R-2 zoned
property to the north and west,with undeveloped C-1 zoned
property to the west across Shackleford Road to the east.There is a new office-warehouse building across Shackleford
Road to the southeast.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call
from a person requesting information on this project.TheStagecoach-Dodd,Pecan Lake and SWLR UP NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Shackleford 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 streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Either Construct one-half street
improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks
with planned development or apply for hardship for 15%of
development cost.3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
2
April 19,2 '1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6998
5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
With Buildin Permit:
6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186 (e),will be required.
7.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)6 (d),will be
required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:A development fee based on the size of the connectionappliesinadditiontonormalchangesforconnectionstothisproperty.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact
Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated busrouteandhasnoeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the 65 Street-West PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Service Trades Districtforthisproperty.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Development —Commercial district.The applicant wishes tobuildanofficewithshowroomandwarehousefora
party/convention supply rental business.The property iscurrentlyzonedR-2 Single Family.A land use plan
amendment is not required.
3
April 19,2 ~1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6998
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Pecan Lake,Westwood,Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Action
Plan within the Stagecoach-Dodd section of the plan.The
Stagecoach-Dodd section of the plan has the objective of
maintaining adequate separation between residential and
non-residential uses.The Stagecoach-Dodd section of the
plan also contains an action statement of "encouraging the
development of non-residential uses west of Shackleford
Road and north of David 0 Dodd Road."
Landsca e Issues:
Areas set aside for street and land use buffers meet with
ordinance requirements when averaged out with the transfers
allowed.However,the street buffer and the western land
use buffer both are 10 foot short of the full requirementof21feet.The southern buffer is 6 foot short of thefullrequirementof16feet.
A total of 8%of the vehicular use are must be landscaped
with interior islands of at least 150 square feet in area
and 7 4 feet in width.Areas used for loading and
unloading are excluded from the interior landscaping
requirement.
A 6-foot high opaque screen is required along the southern,
northern and western site perimeters which abut
residentially zoned properties.
Since this site is tree-covered,the City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape requirements can
be given when preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or larger.
A total of 70%of all required land use buffer area must
remain undisturbed.
Landscaped area must be irrigated.
Curb and gutter or another approved border is required toprotectlandscapedareasfromvehiculartraffic.
4
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6998
Prior to obtaining a building permit it will be necessary
to provide a landscape plan with the seal of a registered
landscape architect.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
Robert Jones was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed PD-C.Staff noted
that several additional notes needed to be shown on thesiteplan.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.
Mr.Jones noted that a 15 percent in-lieu contribution
would be made for the required improvements to Shackleford
Road or a deferral would be requested.
The landscape and buffer requirements were also discussed.
Mr.Jones noted that the site plan would be revised to
provide the required buffers.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PD-C to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on
April 4,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues as
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The revised
plan shows large areas of the site where existing trees
will be preserved.
The proposed site plan shows a total of 21 parking spaces.
The ordinance would typically require a minimum of 14
spaces based on the amount of office/showroom and warehouse
space.Staff supports the parking plan as proposed.
The site plan also shows a ground-mounted sign location.
This sign will not exceed the typical maximum sign
standards for office zoning (maximum height —6 feet,
maximum area —64 square feet).The applicant also notes
that there may be a wall-mounted sign on the front of the
building,not to exceed the typical ordinance allowance
(sign area not to exceed 10 percent of the building
facade).
5
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6998
The applicant notes that the City ordinance requirementsforlandscapingandbufferswillbecompliedwith.The
applicant proposes to utilize existing vegetation to
satisfy the screening requirements along the north,south
and west property lines.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting afive(5)year deferral of street improvements to
Shackleford Road.Public Works supports the deferral for
five (5)years or until adjacent development of the street
improvements,whichever occurs first.
Otherwise,there should be no outstanding issues associated
with this development proposal.Staff feels that the
proposed development will have no adverse impact on the
general area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the PD-C rezoning subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D,E and F of this report.
2.The proposed signage must conform to the City Ordinance
requirements for signage in office zones.3.The allowed use of the property will be office with
showroom and warehouse.
4.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides
with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.5.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent residential property.6.Staff supports the deferral of street improvements to
Shackleford Road for five (5)years or until adjacent
development,whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
April 19,2~J1
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:S-1096-D
NAME:Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Revised Subdivision Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:1012/1014 Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Central AR Land Development Co.Central Arkansas Engineering
1012 Autumn Road,Suite 1 1012 Autumn Road,Suite 2
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:2.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:General Office
PROPOSED USE:General Office
VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for a reduced rear yard building setback
BACKGROUND:
On May 11,2000,the Planning Commission approved the Autumn
Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.The subdivision included 6.43
acres and three (3)lots.On June 22,2000,the Planning
Commission approved a site plan for Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision.
Lot 2 contains an existing 5,590 square foot (one-story)office
building and 24 parking spaces.The multiple building site plan
approved for Lot 2 was to take place in the following phases:
Phase 1 —A 7,014 square foot (single-story)office
building and 58 parking spaces.
Phase II —A 15,000 square foot (two-story)office
building and 38 parking spaces.
To date,none of the Autumn Subdivision has been final platted.
The applicant notes that the various property owners are working
toward obtaining a final plat,but it is expected to take
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-D
several more months.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedsiteplanforLot2,Autumn Subdivision.The only proposed
change in the previously approved plan involves moving the
approved phase line.The owner of the east half of the
proposed Lot 2 is ready to construct the 7,014 square foot(one-story)office building as shown on the approved siteplan.Therefore,the owner proposes to move the phase linetoalignwiththecurrentownership(property)line.It istheowner's intent to purchase the remainder of Lot 2,final plat that lot within the next year,and continue with
Phase II of this development.
Based on the fact that the applicant proposes to move the
phase line to align with the current property line,a rear
yard setback variance is required.The minimum requiredrearyardsetbackin0-3 zoning is 15 feet.The rear yardsetbackforthenewbuildinginPhaseIwouldbe5feet.
The existing office building on the site maintains a rearsetbackof6.5 feet.
Based on the fact that the preliminary plat will expire on
May 11,2001 and the property transaction is expected totakeseveralmoremonths,the applicant is also requestingaone(1)year time extension for the previously approved
preliminary plat.This will allow the property owners timetoworkoutdetailsandfinalplattheproperty.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office building on the proposed Lot 2,
Autumn Subdivision.There is a mixture of office and
commercial uses to the north along Chenal Parkway and to
the east across Autumn Road.There is undeveloped property
immediately south of this site,with an office building and
two single family residences further south along the northsideofKanisRoad.There is a contractor's maintenance
yard to the west an office/mini-warehouse development tothenorthwest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Birchwood and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
2
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-D
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Same Comments as reviousl submitted on S-1096-C as
follows:
1.Autumn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Autumn Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
3,300.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
New Comment:1.Furnish sidewalk easement if right-of-way dedication is
insufficient to contain sidewalk.
With Buildin Permit:
2.Provide existing topographical information at maximum 5-
foot contour interval and 100-year base flood elevation.3.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186 (e),will be required.
4.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)&(d),will be
required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comment received.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Consider utility easement and conduit to
supply service to rear building.Contact Southwestern Bell
for details.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.Fire
protection may be limited due to existing 6"water line.
3
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-D
Hydraulic analysis will be performed as plans and
requirements are provided to Water Works.Acreage fees of
$150 per acre apply in addition to normal charges.Are
Phase 1 and Phase 2 all one parcel?
Fire Department:Private fire hydrant will be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is located near bus route ¹5,but has
no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 29,2001)
The applicant was out of town and therefore not present.
Staff explained the revised site plan to the Committee.
There was very little discussion of the item,as there were
no issues to be resolved.After the brief discussion,the
Committee forwarded the revised site plan to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revise
the previously approved site plan for Lot 2,Autumn
Subdivision by moving the phase line to align with the
current property line.This is to allow the new building
in Phase 1 to be constructed before the property
transaction for the west one-half of Lot 2 and final
platting of this lot.
In conjunction with the adjustment in the phase line,the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback for the new building.The rear yard setback
4
April 19,2 J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-D
for the new building in Phase I would be 5 feet.The
ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15 feet.Staff
supports the setback variance based on the fact that the
variance will go away when Lot 2 is final platted as shown
on the approved preliminary plat and the existing building
on this property maintains a setback of less than 15 feet(6.5 feet).
With the adjustment in the phase line,a total of 50
parking spaces will remain in Phase I.The ordinance
requires a minimum of 31 parking spaces to serve the
buildings within Phase I.Staff has no issues with the
proposed phase line adjustment.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
one (1)year time extension for the previously approved
Autumn Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.This will allow the
property owners additional needed time to resolve details
involving the property transaction and final platting.Staff supports the time extension as requested.
Based on the fact that it is the applicant's intent to
follow through with the final platting of the subdivision
and site plan for Lot 2 as previously approved by the
Planning Commission,staff supports the revision of the
phase line for the Lot 2 development.The revised site
plan should have no adverse impact on the surrounding
property.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan for
Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.
2.Staff supports the variance for reduced rear yard
setback for the new building in Phase I.3.Staff also recommends approval of a one (1)year time
extension for the Autumn Subdivision —PreliminaryPlat.
5
April 19,2 S1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1096-D
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on
April 19,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the
May 3,2001.With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent,the
Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral
request as made by the applicant (less than five working days
prior to the public hearing).Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 3,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
6
April 19,2~~'1
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6220
NAME:Jewel and Moser Addition —Short-Form PD-0 —Revocation
LOCATION:155 feet East of the SE corner of Cantrell Road and
Sam Peck Road
DEVELOPER:
Jewel,Moser,Fletcher and Holleman
111 Center Street
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-0 ALLOWED USES:Office
PROPOSED USE:Office
A.BACKGROUND:
On March 4,1997,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance
No.17,412 rezoning the proposed Lot 1,Jewel and Moser
Addition from 0-2 to PD-0 to allow an office development.
The approved PD-0 allowed a single office building and
parking areas,with a shared access drive from Cantrell
Road between this property and the property immediatelyeast.
To this date,the site is vacant and undeveloped.Somesitework(grading and filling)was previously done on a
portion of the site.
B.PROPOSAL:
The property owner,Jewel,Moser,Fletcher and Hollman,
submitted a letter to staff on March 9,2001,requestingthatthePD-0 be officially revoked and the property reverttoitsoriginal0-2 zoning.
April 19,~J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6220
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Pankey Community Improvement,Piedmont and Walton
Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Associations were notifiedofthepublichearing.Staff has received no comments from
the associations,as of this writing.
D .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the PD-0 be revoked;that Ordinance
No.17,412 be repealed and that the property be returned to
0-2 Office and Institutional District as previously
existed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
2
April 19,2~01
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-6386-A
NAME:Biggs —Short-Form PD-C —Time Extension
LOCATION:6000 Block of Fourche Dam Pike
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
C.Arthur and Caroline Biggs None
20 Longstreet Dr.
Little Rock,AR 72206
AREA:1.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:PD-C ALLOWED USES:Grocery Store/Restaurant
PROPOSED USE:Grocery Store/Restaurant
A.BACKGROUND:
On February 17,1998 the Board of Directors passed
Ordinance No.17,673 which rezoned the property from R-2 to
PD-C.The PD-C allowed a single commercial building and
parking area,with a single access point from Fourche DamPike.The building was approved to be used for a
restaurant and grocery sales,with hours of operation of10:00 a.m.—7:30 p.m.,Monday-Friday and 11:00 a.m.—3:00p.m.,Saturday.
According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-454(e),
"The applicant shall have three (3)years from
the date of passage of the ordinance approving
the preliminary approval to submit the final
development plan."
This includes submittal of the final plan for staff review
and approval.
April 19,c J1
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6386-A
"Requests for extensions of time shall be
submitted in writing to the Planning Commission
which may grant extensions of not more thanthree(3)years."
On February 9,2001,Caroline Biggs submitted a letter tostaffrequestingathree(3)year time extension for the
approved PD-C.Mrs.Biggs notes that health problems andotherunforeseenobstacleshavecausedadelayintheproject.As of this writing,no building permit has beenissuedfortheprojectandnositeworkhastakenplace.
B.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Hermitage Property Owners Association was notified oftherequestedtimeextension.As of this writing,staff
has received no comment from the neighborhood.
C .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the three (3)year time
extension as requested by the applicant.The applicant
will have until February 17,2004 to submit the final
development plans to staff for review and approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
2
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
L.
/
2
i
Mu
s
k
~
t
A&
~
A
A
-
~3
ME
M
B
E
R
I
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
0
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
v
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
iV
S
6
-
U
4
-
A
-
~A
A
-
ME
M
B
E
R
8
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
j
~~
g,
y
g
g
~
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
o
~
H
v
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
L
„;
v
A
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
o
A
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
~
~
v'
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
ee
~
v
'
O
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
JI
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
~
c
M
+
v
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
~
~
v'U
S
E
,
RO
H
N
nt
t
t
t
'
t
a
b
'
p
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
0
0
P
M
V
AY
E
NA
Y
E
~A
B
S
E
N
T
MS
A
B
S
T
A
I
N
'R
RE
C
U
S
E
April 19,2001
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
e
)
Chairman ecre ary