Z-5617-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 3, 2009
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5617
NAME: Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long -form PCD Time Extension
LOCATION: Located South of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway and West of the
existing Kroger Shopping Center
DEVELOPER:
Whisenhunt Investment
35 Windsor Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultant, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 30.8 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
ALLOWED USES
PROPOSED ZONING
PROPOSED USE
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
PCD
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
C-2 — 85% Commercial Uses, 0-2 — 15% Office Uses
PCD — Two -Year Time Extension
C-2 - 85% Commercial Uses, 0-2 — 15% Office Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,558 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 27, 2006,
approved a rezoning of this site from various zoning classifications to PCD (Planned
Commercial Development) to provide a conceptual plan and establish uses for the
property. The approval was to secure the PCD zoning and as the final plan for the site
was secured, a revision to the approved PCD would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Directors for compliance with the following established
criteria:
September 3, 2009
ci mnnii¢inni
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO. Z-56
BASIC DEVELOPMENT COMPOSITION -
The 30.8 acre site shall be developed as follows:
1. Eighty five �85) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for
commercial purposes as set forth in the ordinance.
2. Fifteen (15) percent of the building area of the site shall be developed for office
purposes as set forth in the ordinance.
3. The maximum building square footage shall be tied to the proposed usage mix of
the final development plan.
4. The maximum density for commercial uses shall be limited to twelve thousand
(12,000) square feet per acre.
5. Based upon this maximum density the maximum commercial area shall be three
hundred and fourteen thousand five hundred (314,500) square feet of which the
maximum area for restaurant use shall be limited to sixty five thousand (65,000)
square feet.
6. The minimum office area shall be fifteen (15) percent of the development which
at the time of the ordinance is estimated to be fifty five thousand (55,000) square
feet.
LIMITATION ON TYPES OF USES
1. Commercial development uses shall be limited to those identified under the C-2
Commercial classification as amended on the date that of final plan approval with
accessory and conditional uses for this classification also available.
2. Office development uses shall be limited to those identified under the 0-2 Office
Classification as amended on the date of final plan approval with accessory and
conditional uses for this classification also available.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings or may
include multiple buildings on a single site.
4. Buildings use on the property may be used for single or mixed purposes as
otherwise subject to the limitations set forth in the ordinance.
BASIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
1. The layout of proposed building and site improvements shall be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission and the City of Little Rock Board of
Directors as an amendment to this PCD application.
0
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont,
FILE NO.: Z -56._1.7-A
2. Proposed building designs shall be subject to approval by the Subdivision
Committee and the Department of Planning and Development.
3. The maximum building height allowed shall be Forty-five (45) feet for commercial
buildings.
4. Fifty (50) feet for office buildings.
5. All site lighting shall be low level directed away from adjacent property and
shielded downward and onto the site.
6. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets screened with
masonry enclosures and gated with screened gate panels.
7. Use of any outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public provided the operation of any such speaker and
system does not emit sound plainly audible from adjoining properties or boundary
streets.
8. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
9. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS - PRIOR TO ANY FINAL PLAN APPROVAL
1. The developer shall provide the City with an updated traffic study which shall be
based upon the traffic study dated April 4, 2006 along with the addendum dated
May 24, 2006 collectively the original traffic study prepared by Peters Associates
Engineers Inc. so long as the traffic study fairly and accurately represents the
traffic condition in the area of the development for which final plan approval is
sought.
2. If there have been any modifications of the City Master Street Plan these
amendments shall be deemed a part of the ordinance and the developer shall
comply with all of the applicable standards that are part of the Master Street Plan
in effect on the date that final plan approval is requested.
3. if it is determined from the updated traffic study required that projected levels of
service at any intersections adjacent to the proposed development will likely fall
below acceptable levels of service as that term is defined by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers at the time of the application for final plan approval
then as a condition of such approval the developer shall agree to make such
additional boundary street improvements as the City deems to be necessary to
mitigate the impact of this development on that area.
3
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
4. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public Works
and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street improvements that
will be required.
5. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific utility
improvements that will be required understanding that the cost of relocation of
any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the time of such
relocation.
6. Right of way dedications and easements to the City for required street drainage
and utility improvements will be provided by the developer.
7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance the City shall only require
improvements to infrastructure that are required by the impact of this
development on the surrounding properties and roadways at the time of
development that it has legal or constitutional authority to impose.
SIGNAGE GUIDELINES
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in
height or 100 square feet in area as measured on one side.
2. Monument signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings
and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission
and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD
application
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
GRADING AND EXCAVATION GUIDELINES
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will be
done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work traffic disruption right
of way damage and related hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of
development.
M
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time
extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. Per Section
36-454(e) the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the
ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development
plan. Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the
Planning Commission which may grant one (1) extension of not more than two
years. Time extensions shall be applied for by formal written request not less
than ninety days prior to the first expiration date. Failure of the applicant to file a
timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the
ordinance.
The applicant has indicated they have been actively working on creating a final
development plan for this approval and installing the infrastructure identified in
the adopted ordinance. The developers have indicated the final plan approval
cannot be achieved within the three year as required by the minimum ordinance
standards. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year
time extension of the previously approved Planned Zoning Development.
According to the developer the roundabout has gone through several design
modifications and while these were being prepared the contractors for the street
construction moved off site to do other work. The modifications are completed
and between weather and getting the contractors remobilized the work has
recently started again. Drainage adjustments have been completed to allow for
the modification and the dirt contractor has started with the grade changes as
well. As soon as the work is completed curb and gutter will be installed along
with the paving. These subcontractors are waiting to perform. The developers
anticipate completing the road work north, east and west of the roundbbout by
the end of March. The remainder of the work south of Chenal Parkway should
be completed by the end of April provided Entergy relocates their poles in a
timely manner. (That work has not been completed.) Landscaping is
progressing and will be completed shortly after these dates.
The improvements plans to Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road were reviewed by
staff and the plans have been revised based on staff's comments. The
developers are in the process of obtaining right of way from an adjacent owner in
order to build the Kanis Road improvements. There are some utility adjustments
required for the work and the developers are proceeding with completing the
adjustments. As soon as the utilities have been adjusted contracts will be let -to
build the improvements.
5
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
M NO.: B {Cont) FILE NO.: Z -5517-A
The City has issued the developers a Notice of Violation for failure to complete
the street construction in a timely manner based on schedule dates submitted by
the applicant. The City has also issued a demand letter stating the City will file a
mandatory injunction to complete the road in a timely manner. A response is
requested by the close of business March 11, 2009. If the response is not
acceptable, the City will file a lawsuit in Circuit Court.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A portion of the site contains the former golf driving range with the remainder of
the site vacant. The site has received dirt from the approved developments
along Kirk Road. There is vacant C-3 zoned property located to the north of the
site abutting the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. Across Chenal
Parkway is vacant C-3 zoned property and a convenience store. Kirk Road
adjacent to this site has not been constructed. East of the site is the Kroger
Shopping Center which has a number of out parcels currently vacant. The
Commission recently approved a site plan review to allow for the construction of
a new Kroger Store adjacent to the existing store. There are single-family homes
located to the northwest and west of the site along Kanis Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association, the Coalition
of West Little Rock Neighborhoods, all owners of property located within 200 feet
of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the
proposed development were notified of the public hearing.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has concerns with the granting of a two (2) year time extension and feels a
one-year time extension is more appropriate. After the one-year extension, the
City and the applicant can review the progresses made on the required
improvements to ' determine if additional time for the submission of the final
development plan should be granted.
Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension for the proposed
development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and
conditions.
Cej
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on March 14, 2009, a deferral of
the item to the April 30, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the
of the item as presented by staff. The
2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
The item was deferred from the March 19, 2009, public hearing at the applicant's
request. There has been no change to the application or the request since the previous
staff write-up. Staff continues to recommend approval of a one-year time extension
in -lieu of the applicant's request for a two-year time extension for submission of a final
development plan for the approved PCD zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 30, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated April 24, 2009,
requesting a deferral of the item to the .tune 11, 2009, public hearing. Staff stated the
applicant had indicated additional time was needed for on-going negotiations to acquire
the necessary right of way for Kirk Road widening. Staff stated the acquisition of the
right of way directly affected the developer's ability to update the work schedule for the
Kirk Road improvements. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral as recommended by staff.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up.
Staff continues to recommend approval of a one (1) year time extension for the
approved PCD.
7
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval of a one-year time extension.
Commissioner Laha stated due to previous engagements with the owners
representative, Mr. Hathaway, he would have to recuse from the discussion of the item.
The Chair called the applicant to the podium stating the Commission's practice was to
allow a deferral of an item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He
stated with the two Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there
were currently eight Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for
an item to pass it would take six affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option
this would allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to
discuss and vote on the item.
Mr. Hathaway stated his clients would like to defer the item. He stated there were a
number of key pieces that needed to fall into place for the Commission and citizens to
see progress on the Kirk Road construction. He stated the additional time would allow
these key pieces to be secured. He stated the work on Kirk Road was going to continue
regardless of the Commission hearing the request at this public hearing or in six weeks.
He requested a deferral of the item to the July 23, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous
Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the
previously approved PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 23, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner
Laha once again stated he would be recusing from the discussion. The Chair called the
applicant to the podium stating the Commission's practice was to allow a deferral of an
item when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present. He stated with the two
Commissioners absent and the recusal of Commissioner Laha there were currently
eight (8) Commissioners present to vote on the item. The Chair stated for an item to
pass it would take six (6) affirmative votes. He stated with the deferral option this would
E:3
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
allow the applicant an opportunity to have more Commissioners present to discuss and
vote on the item.
The applicant opted for the deferral. The Commission stated the item would be heard at
the September 3, 2009, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusal
(Commissioner Troy Laha).
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with a written update since the previous
Commission meeting. Staff continues to recommend a one-year time extension for the
previously approved PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
Mr. Jim Hathaway was present representing the owner. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the three related items (Shackleford Farms
30.8 Acres Long -form PCD Time Extension Z -5617-A, located South of Kanis Road and
Chenal Parkway and West of the existing Kroger Shopping Center Shackleford Farms
Long -form POD Time Extension Z -4807-F, located North of Wellington Hills Road and
West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD Time
Extension, located South of Wellington Hills Road and East of Kirk Road Z -4807-G) with
a recommendation of approval of a one year time extension.
Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He provided the
Commission with a copy of the street improvement plans and provided the Commission
with a status report for the construction of the streets in the area. He stated since the
June 9th meeting the right of way was in place, the utilities had been moved and paving
was near completion along the northern portion of the roadway. He stated the
improvements were indicated in three phases. He stated the first phase street
improvements were to be completed by November 1St. He stated this included all
paving from Chenal Parkway to the church property. He stated improvements to
Wellington Hills Road were complete. He stated the second phase of improvements
were located south of Chenal Parkway on Kirk Road. He stated these improvements
were to be completed with the Kroger development. He stated one-half of the street
was currently under construction and the west one-half would begin soon. He stated
utilities had to be relocated before construction could take place on the west one-half.
He stated the final phase was the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. He
stated the improvements to Kirk Road had to be complete prior to beginning the final
�7
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:
FILE NO.: Z -5617-A
phase improvements. He stated for a short period of time vehicles would be detoured
off the parkway and onto Kirk Road to allow the intersection to be lowered.
Mr. Lance Hines addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
developers had drug their feet on completing the roads creating an undue hardship on
the residents of the Villages of Wellington. He stated the streets were to be complete
prior to Fellowship opening to limit the traffic on the residential streets in the area. He
questioned why the streets were not open. He stated the paving had been completed
on the north portion for more than a week and the developers were not opening the
streets. He stated opening the street to the north would relieve pressure on the Villages
of Wellington neighborhood.
There was a general discussion of the Commission and Mr. Hathaway concerning time
frames and completion dates. Mr. Hathaway started the improvements to Kirk Road
would be complete by November 1St and all three phases would be complete by the one
year expiration date.
The Commission discussed an option of allowing a one year deferral with an automatic
additional year deferral if the developer met the obligation of completing the street by
the one year expiration date. The Commission questioned staff as to the thoughts on
allowing the one year automatic renewal. Staff stated they felt the final development
plan for the projects should be submitted within the year to ensure zoning for the site in
the future. The Commission questioned staff as to their reasoning for this request.
Staff stated with the submission of the final development plan the zonings would be
enacted.
A motion was made to grant a one year time extension and a conditional additional one
year time extension beyond June 27, 2010 if all improvements for Phase I were in place
by November 1St and Phases I I and I I I were completed by June 21, 2010.
Commissioner Adcock questioned if acts of God were being considered. Commissioner
Rector stated the approval did not allow for acts of God. It was a get the improvements
done by this date regardless.
The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes 1 recusal and 1 absent.
10