Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 05 2012sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 5, 2012 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present there being seven (7) members present. II. Members Present: Tom Brock J. T. Ferstl Rebecca Finney Keith Fountain Troy Laha Bill Rector Amy Pierce Members Absent: William Changose Janet Dillon Dan Harpool Obray Nunnley, Jr. City Attorney: Debra Weldon III. Approval of the Minutes of the November 17, 2011 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JANUARY 5, 2012 OLD BUSINESS : Item Number : File Number : Title : A. Z-8295-A Velvatex Beauty College Revised Short-form POD, located at 1520 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. B. Granite Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan for an area generally bounded by the Missouri Pacific railroad tracks on the North, 3M Cutoff Road on the East, Gilliam Park on the South and Interstates 30 and 530 on the West. NEW BUSINESS : I. PRELIMINARY PLAT : Item Number : File Number : Title : 1. S-57-TT Riverdale Addition Preliminary Plat of Tracts H-1, H-2 and H-3, located at 1100 Riverfront Drive. 2. S-57-UU Riverdale Addition Replat of Tract D-2A-R and Tract E-2- R2 and Right of Way Abandonment for Brookwood Drive, located on the east side of Riverfront Drive at Cedar Hill Road. II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS : Item Number : File Number : Title : 3. Z-5258-D Rock Creek Crossing Revised Short-form PCD, located at 12206 West Markham Street. 4. Z-5703-C Shackleford Commercial Revised Short-form POD, located at 10303 Colonel Glenn Road. Agenda, Page Two II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS : (CONTINUED) Item Number : File Number : Title : 5. Z-8531-A Dowler Properties, Inc Short-form PCD, located at 3618 Baseline Road. 6. Z-8728 Worsham Short-form PCD, located at 910 East 9 th Street. 7. Z-8729 McMath Short-form PD-R and Alley Abandonment, located at 822 Beechwood Street. 8. Z-8730 Stonebriar Imaging Short-form PCD, located at 3924 West Markham Street. III. OTHER ITEMS : Item Number : File Number : Title : 9. LA-0040 West Park Meadows Apartments Land Alteration Variance Request, located at 1701 West Park Drive. 10. Amendment to Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances to Change Terminology Regarding Mobile Home Park Subdivision. 11. Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to allow a variance to be issued by the Planning Commission for clearing and grading without imminent construction. 12. Z-4411-L Pleasant Ridge Towne Center Revised Long-form PCD, located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-8295-A NAME : Velvatex Beauty College Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION : Located at 1520 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive DEVELOPER : Velvatex College of Beauty Barbara Douglas 1520 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 SURVEYOR : Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA : 15,540 sq ft NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : PCD ALLOWED USES : Beauty College PROPOSED ZONING : Revised PCD PROPOSED USE : Allow signage without public street frontage VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. BACKGROUND : Ordinance No. 19,916 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 2008, rezoned this site from R-3, Single-family to PCD and established the Velvatex Beauty College Short-form PCD. The Velvatex Beauty College had been in existence at this site since 1924. The applicant proposed a small expansion to the existing structure along the rear façade. The new addition was 16-feet by 54-feet and would contain approximately 865 square feet. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The request is to allow the placement of a digital wall sign along the north façade of the building facing into the parking lot which is located without public street January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295-A 2 frontage. The case size is 2 feet 6.7 inches by 5 feet. There will also be a similar sign located along the south façade of the building which is located with public street frontage. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The site contains the Beauty College and associated parking. The addition has been completed. To the west of the site are residential units including duplex and single-family. South of the site is Arkansas Baptist College and to the east of the site are office, commercial and residential uses. Immediately north of the site is a house owned by the National Alumni Association associated with Arkansas Baptist College. Arkansas Baptist College has purchased a number of the lots in the area maintaining the homes as residential uses at this time. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Central High Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (October 27, 2011) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request was to amend the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to allow signage on the north façade which was located without public street frontage. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. E. ANALYSIS : There were no outstanding issues associated with the request in need of addressing raised at the October 27, 2011, Subdivision Committee. The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to allow the placement of a digital sign along the north façade of the building, which is located without public street frontage. The ordinance states all on premise wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage is the only means of identification for a tenant. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295-A 3 Staff is supportive of the request. Although the sign as proposed does not have public street frontage the sign will face into the parking lot and will be visible to motorists traveling south on Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The changeable copy will comply with the City’s sign ordinance with regard to movement. Staff does not feel the placement of this digital sign along the north façade of this existing beauty college will significantly impact the area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the placement of a digital sign along the north façade of this existing beauty college which is located without public street frontage. A permit must be obtained for the new sign. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (NOVEMBER 17, 2011) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to send the notices as required by the Planning Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the January 5, 2012 public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item on the consent agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE : The applicant has provided staff with proof of notification. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the placement of a digital sign along the north façade of this existing beauty college, which is located without public street frontage. A permit must be obtained for the new sign. Operations of the sign must comply with the City standards for electronic signs. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to allow the placement of a digital sign along the north façade of this existing beauty college. Staff stated the sign was located without public street frontage. Staff stated a permit was to January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295-A 4 be obtained for the new sign. Staff stated operations of the sign were to comply with the City standards for electronic signs. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: B Name: Granite Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the January 5, 2012 Agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (December 15, 2011) The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against and 3 absent, the consent agenda was approved. STAFF UPDATE : The Board of Directors, in Summer 2011, instructed the Department of Planning and Development to execute a Neighborhood Action Plan for the Granite Mountain area. This report is in fulfillment of that instruction. The neighborhood steering committee had already been working with an outside consultant, The Markham Group, on a previous issue and this plan follows that effort. Meetings were held in the neighborhood with representatives of the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Improvement Association, area stakeholders and The Markham Group. These meeting occurred during June and July of 2011. The Planning and Development Department worked with the Police Department and Public Works to gather information to present to the review committee. Planning Staff obtained background information such as Future Land Use Plan, Zoning Maps, Master Street Plan, population information, structure types of buildings, and crime statistics in the subject area and in the neighborhood association area only, and history of the area such as original dates of platting of subdivisions as well street conditions of area streets. Staff also researched the history of the Granite Mountain Subdivision through conversations with Shelly Ehenger of the Little Rock Housing Authority, the original platting entity of the subdivision. Staff also contacted the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for a windshield survey to see if the neighborhood might qualify as a National Register District. The Goals and Objectives are divided into six categories: Community image, Housing, Community Preservation, Infrastructure and Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation. An overview of those goals is on page 1 and the individual goals with the objectives and action statements immediately January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) 2 follow. The neighborhood steering committee wrote and edited the goals, objectives and action statements. The plan covers topics such as encouraging businesses and residents to work together for the betterment of the area, increase home ownership rates, improve existing housing conditions, improve roadway conditions, addition of CATA stops, walking trails and picnic areas, etc. In August and September, the plan draft was sent to the neighborhood association for adoption. The plan was adopted by the general members of the association. At this time, the steering committee of the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Improvement Association requests the city via the Little Rock Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to accept the action plan as a resolution and help the neighborhood work toward the goals presented in the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission on the process of the Neighborhood Action Plan. Stephany Fields, the current President of the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Improvement Association, spoke about and summarized the goals and objectives of the plan. As part of her presentation, those from the neighborhood stood to show support for the plan. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. RESOLUTION NO. ____________________ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT OF THE GRANITE MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN. WHEREAS, the area residents and the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Improvement Association formed a Steering Committee to develop a neighborhood Plan; and WHEREAS, the residents and other “stakeholders” in the area participated in public meetings to discuss and identify area concerns to include in the plan; and WHEREAS, after months of work by the Planning Committee, a set of goals and objectives were developed and presented to the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Improvement Association; and WHEREAS, this Plan (Goals and Objectives) provides a way for both neighborhood based groups and others working in and around the neighborhood to advance the desires and meet the needs of the residents; WHEREAS, comprehensive planning must include not only interests of the neighborhood immediately affected but the interests of the city as a whole; and WHEREAS, local government encourages and supports neighborhood-based coalitions that develop individual neighborhood organizations, articulate neighborhood views on community-wide issues, and facilitated the planning process; and WHEREAS, advocacy planning by neighborhoods is an acceptable and legitimate role for citizens and professional planners. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock does support the vision and goals as expressed in the Granite Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. ADOPTED: ____________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________ _____________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-57-TT NAME : Riverdale Addition Preliminary Plat of Tracts H-1, H-2 and H-3 and Right-of-Way Abandonment for Brookwood Drive LOCATION : Located at 1100 Riverfront Drive DEVELOPER : Alltel Communications, LLC 1 Allied Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER : Development Consultants, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA : 20.09 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 3 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT : 4 – Heights Hillcrest CENSUS TRACT : 15 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat containing 20.09 acres located in the Riverdale Addition. The majority of the property is not platted and has been shown as Tract H on prior surveys. There is also one platted parcel which is Tract H-3A. The proposal is to replat the unplatted tract and one platted parcel to create three new tracts. The purpose of the subdivision request is to allow for future development of parking facilities that will support the office campus properties located to the east. In conjunction with the preliminary plat request the applicant is requesting abandonment of the existing Brookwood Drive right of way, south of Cedar Hill Road. The applicant is also requesting to abandon two existing utility and drainage easements that are recorded within Tract H-3A. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-TT 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The site is located on the west side of Riverfront Drive in the Riverdale Addition. The site is a relatively flat grass covered field. Cedar Hill Road is located to the north and there is a railroad spur located along the western boundary. Further west is the Riverdale Shopping area including restaurant uses, automobile sales and general retail. East of the site is the Alltel/Verizon Office complex (currently being considered for a replat as a separate item on this agenda Item #2 File No. S-57-UU). Other uses in the area to the north include office buildings and a school. Northeast of the site are residential units both condominiums and detached single-family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS : PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS : 1. At the time of development, sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed along Riverfront Drive and Cedar Hill Road in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 2. Easements are required for all stormwater drainage areas. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : Easements are required along the common lot lines and along Riverfront Drive. Contact Entergy for additional information. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : The plans describe the abandonment of Brookwood Drive and the replat should be revised to show platted easements for the water mains within the existing right of way. If the water lines are to be abandoned as January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-TT 3 well please submit plans to Central Arkansas Water to request the abandonment. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required they will be installed at the developer’s expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of a Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Two entryways in and out of the subdivision are required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located on CATA Bus Route # 21 – The University Avenue route. Based on the location of driveways and parking areas, providing a bus inlet for a direct bus stop would be beneficial to the employees at this site. A bus shelter would provide a safer, more protective area for riders to catch the bus. CATA recommends providing such simple amenities to benefit employees and visitors to this area. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-TT 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : No comment. Landscape : No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the request included the abandonment of Brookwood Drive. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water. Mr. Brown stated he had a letter of approval from CAW and was working with them to clear up the confusion. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated at the time of development sidewalks were required to be installed along Riverfront Drive and Cedar Hill Road. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised drawing based on comments raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plat indicates at the time of development sidewalks will be installed along Riverfront Drive. The applicant has provided a letter of approval from CAW concerning the required right of way and easement abandonment for Brookwood Drive. The preliminary plat contains 20.09 acres and is proposed for the creation of three (3) lots. The majority of the property has not been platted but has been shown as Tract H on prior surveys. Within the plat area there is one platted parcel which is identified as Tract H-3A. The purpose of the subdivision request is to allow for future development of parking facilities that will support the office campus properties located to the east. In conjunction with the preliminary plat request the applicant is requesting abandonment of the existing Brookwood Drive right of way, south of Cedar Hill Road. The applicant is also requesting to abandon two existing utility and drainage easements that are recorded within Tract H-3A. The applicant has provided approval letters from the various utilities and public works concerning the proposed abandonment of the public right of way and the easements. All January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-TT 5 have concurred with the abandonment and none have requested the area be retained as a utility or drainage easement. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the creation of the three (3) lots as proposed will significantly impact the area. The property is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District which requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet. The lots as indicated contain more than adequate area to meet this minimum requirement of the zoning district. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the requested replat. Staff is also supportive of the requested right of way abandonment. Based on the current design of the proposed plat the right of way as previously platted is not required to serve the intended development of the three lots. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested right of way abandonment for Brookwood Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc. was present representing the request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested right of way abandonment for Brookwood Drive. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-57-UU NAME : Riverdale Addition Replat of Tract D-2A-R and Tract E-2-R2 LOCATION : Located on the east side of Riverfront Drive at Cedar Hill Road DEVELOPER : Alltel Communications, LLC 1 Allied Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER : Development Consultants, Inc. 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA : 24.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 2 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : O-2, Office and Institutional District & O-3, General Office District PLANNING DISTRICT : 4 – Heights Hillcrest CENSUS TRACT : 15 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : 1. A variance from Section 36-280(e)(1) to allow a reduced side yard setback. 2. A variance from Section 36-502 to allow the creation of lots with parking less than typically allowed per the zoning ordinance. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The applicant is requesting a replat of 24.69 acres of property on the Alltel/Verizon campus in the Riverdale Addition. The majority of the property has been previously platted as several tracts in the Riverdale Addition. The proposal is to recombine these tracts into two new tracts. The purpose of the replat is to create new lots/tracts so that the buildings are entirely within a lot of record and lot lines no longer run through the buildings. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-UU 2 The request includes a variance to allow a zero side yard setback between proposed Tracts E-2-R-2 and D-2A-R, adjacent to the area of the buildings connection via the canopy/covered walkways. There is also a variance to allow on-site parking less than that typically required. The lots will be served by a cross access agreement being completed. Should additional parking be required the owner will construct additional parking located to the west of the site, across Riverfront Drive. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The site is developed as an office campus with a number of buildings; some attached by covered walkways. The area contains a mixture of office, office/warehouse, commercial and residential uses. To the south are mini- storage units, office and office/warehouse uses and the Jr. Deputy Ball Field. West of the site, across Riverfront Drive is an open field zoned C-3, General Commercial District currently being used as soccer fields (also being considered on this agenda for a preliminary plat approval Item #1 File No. S-57-TT). North of the campus are condominium residential units and further north are detached single-family homes. Northwest of the site is an office building and further north is a school. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. 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. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. 10-foot sewer easement required for the existing sewer main located in Cedar Hill Road. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Entergy : Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-UU 3 AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : Central Arkansas Water retains all water line easements as shown on the replat. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The facilities on-site will be private. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located on CATA Bus Route # 21 – The University Avenue route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : No comment. Landscape : No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the plat was to create separate parcels for the existing buildings. Staff stated the request included variances to allow reduced building setbacks and parking less than typically allowed on the individual lots. Staff stated there would be a cross access agreement between the lots. Mr. Brown stated there would most likely not be a cross parking agreement. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-UU 4 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk damaged in the public right of way would require repair. Staff stated easements were required for all stormwater drainage areas. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk damaged in the public right of way will be repaired prior to occupancy. The site is the former Alltel Campus which was developed as a single ownership on multiple platted lots and viewed as a single zoning lot. The applicant is seeking the revision to the plat to allow for future sale of buildings contained on individual lots. The plat will allow the reconfiguration of two (2) previously platted lots to allow a reduced side yard building setback on Tracts D-2A-R and E-2-R2. The buildings are connected by a canopy which results in a side yard building setback of zero where the connection is made. With the future sale of buildings the site will longer be viewed as one (1) zoning lot. According to the applicant, cross access agreements will be implemented for the newly created lots. There will be cross access but there will most likely not be cross parking rights on all properties. There will be a deed restriction document that will describe the specific rights of cross access and parking. The document will be referenced on the plat. The lots are being created in such a manner that portions of the lots may not have parking on the lot itself to meet the typical parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has indicated should additional parking be required additional parking will be constructed to the west of the site. Staff is not concerned with the creation of the lots with parking which does not meet the typical minimum standard due to the applicant’s commitment to provide sufficient parking for these buildings by the construction of additional parking on vacant property located to the west across Riverfront Drive. Staff is supportive of the replat request. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. The request is to allow a lot line adjustment within the developed office campus. Staff does not feel the variance request to allow the zero setback in the area of the canopy connection will significantly impact the development or the area. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-UU 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a zero side yard building setback adjacent to the area of the buildings connected via the canopy. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow on site parking less than that typically required subject to a cross parking agreement being completed or additional parking being constructed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultant, Inc. was present representing the request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow a zero side yard building setback adjacent to the area of the buildings connected via the canopy. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of a variance to allow on site parking less than that typically required subject to additional parking being constructed should parking become an issue. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-5258-D NAME : Rock Creek Crossing Revised Short-form PCD LOCATION : Located at 12206 West Markham Street DEVELOPER : Rowan Development, LLC 15 Shackleford Drive, Suite H Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER : Crafton Tull Sparks 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 SURVEYOR : White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA : 2.96 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : PCD ALLOWED USES : Automobile Sales PROPOSED ZONING : Revised PCD PROPOSED USE : C-3, General Commercial District & O-2, Office and Institutional District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. BACKGROUND : In 1994, the City of Little Rock Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 16,762 which rezoned a portion of the property from C-2 to C-3. In January of 1993 a Short-form PD-C was approved for a one-story retail building containing approximately January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 2 7,553 square feet. The PCD approved tenant for the site is ABRA Auto Body and Glass Shop. Access to Lot 1 is from West Markham via a 25-foot drive through Lot 2. Ordinance No. 17,468 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 6, 1997, established THJR Addition Lot #2 Short-form PCD, creating a two lot plat and a rezoning to allow an automobile sales lot. Lot 2 has developed with a 13,200 square foot building with 209 parking spaces. The building consists of 9,000 square feet on the first floor for sales and service with an additional 3,600 square feet on the second floor for parts and general office. As a conditional of approval the applicant agreed to no outdoor paging, the hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, all vehicles were to be unloaded on site, the lighting was to be directional on 25-foot poles and no automobile body work was to be performed on Lot 2. Resolution No. 11,526 of the City of Little Rock Board of Directors dated June 3, 2003, authorized the purchase of a 1.74-acre tract of land from the City of Little Rock by the applicant. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 19,022 was adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on January 6, 2004, which allowed the rezoning of the 1.74-acres of property from OS, Open Space to PCD. The area was included in the previously approved PCD. The development was proposed as a two phase development. The first phase would consist of a 7,200 square foot service facility and approximately 80 parking spaces. The second phase was to be a parking expansion consisting of 85 spaces. The spaces would be used for inventory as well as parking for cars waiting to be serviced. The new building was not constructed on the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The proposed development is located at 12206 West Markham Street. The site encompasses 2.96 acres of land and is currently zoned PCD and utilized as an automotive dealership. The request is to revise the PCD to add restaurant, retail and business office uses as allowable uses. The existing building contains 9,773 square feet and houses the showroom and service area for the automobile dealership. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing space to be used as C-3, General Commercial District uses. The development will also consist of construction of a single story building located directly to the west of the existing structure that will house a 7,377 square foot building. This building is proposed with C-3, General Commercial zoning district uses as allowable uses. The applicant has indicated within the two buildings along West Markham Street a total of 8,000 square feet of restaurant space will be available. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 3 The development is proposed with the future construction of a 20,000 square foot two-story office building in the northeast corner of the property. The building will contain O-2, Office and Institutional District uses and the permitted ten percent accessory uses. A total of 164 parking spaces will serve the three buildings. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : Currently Ellis Infinity Automobile Dealership is located on one lot and an auto body repair shop is located on the adjacent lot. A single drive serves both lots extending from West Markham Street. The plat includes a cross access easement for the lots. The northern boundary of the site is the Rock Creek. Other uses in the area include shopping centers to the east and south. West of the site is Home Depot and Target, a convenience store and a tire shop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, the Gibraltar Heights/Pointe West/Timber Ridge Property Owners Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association 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. The driveway south of the proposed restaurant must be signed and striped as exit only due to the distance from the curb of Markham Street is less than 75 feet. The driveway north of the restaurant can be striped for 2-way traffic. 3. The angled parking on the west side of the proposed restaurant must be turned for the drives to be one-way south. 4. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. 5. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of structures in the floodplain should be elevated to at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation. The elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 6. Access easements should be provided to access the northwest lot. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 4 Entergy : There is a transmission line located along the west side of this property. Contact Entergy at 501-954-5151 for additional information. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The 50-foot wide right of way for the raw water line is owned by Central Arkansas Water (deed recorded Book 242, Page 404 on July 23, 1936 and transferred to Central Arkansas Water in Document 2001051904 recorded July 3, 2001) and an easement from Central Arkansas Water will be required in order to allow for access and paving of this exception. A 16-foot wide utility easement will be required (in line with the water line easement platted as part of Lot 1 THJR Addition) to accommodate the existing 12-inch water line (installed outside easement recorded Book 1415 Page 323, recorded November 15, 1976, and obtained in conjunction with Improvement District 325). Water service and fire protection to this tract will be provided through a separate connection off the 12-inch main, unless this area is platted as part of Lot 2, THJR Addition. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required they will be installed at the developer’s expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 5 Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located on CATA Bus Route # 5 – The West Markham route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from PCD to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow for the construction of three buildings on the site – a new restaurant/retail building a new office building and conversion of the existing dealership to retail uses. Master Street Plan : West Markham Street is a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on West Markham Street since it is a Minor Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan : There is a Class I, Bike Path, proposed along Rock Creek to the north of this site. A Bike Path is to be a paved path physically separate for the use of bicycles. Additional right-of-way or/and easement is recommended. Landscape : 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning ordinance requires an average seventeen-foot (17’) wide street buffer along West Markham Street, in front of the proposed restaurant. In no case can this amount be less than nine foot (9’) in width. 3. The zoning ordinance requires an average twenty-seven foot (27’) wide street buffer along the remainder of West Markham Street, in front of the existing January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 6 retail space. In no case can this amount be less than thirteen foot (13’) in width. 4. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine-foot (9’) wide perimeter landscape strip around the sites entirety. There are currently parking spaces, driveways, backup areas, and perhaps dumpster pads within this area. These must be removed or request a variance from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the item being forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors. 5. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. 6. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight per cent (8 %) of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 300 square feet in area. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 7. An automatic irrigation system is required. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 9. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. Frank Riggins of Crafton Tull was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating the request included the remodeling of an existing building on the site and construction of two new buildings. Staff questioned if the office building would utilize the ten percent accessory uses as identified in the O-2, Office and Institutional zoning district. Staff also requested the site plan label the cross access easement, which existed between the two lots. Staff questioned if the site would contain any perimeter fencing. Staff also requested the applicant provide the location of any proposed dumpster facilities on the site plan. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the driveway south of the proposed restaurant was to be signed and striped as exit only due to the distance from the curb of West Markham Street. Staff stated the angled parking on the west side of the proposed restaurant was to be turned for the drives to be one-way to the south. Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated based on the percentage of redevelopment of the site a 100 percent upgrade to the landscaping was required. Staff stated the street buffer along West Markham Street adjacent to January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 7 the new building should be increased to a seventeen foot average. Staff stated in front of the existing retail space a twenty-seven foot average street buffer was required. Staff stated a small amount of building landscaping was required. Staff stated the interior islands were to be a minimum of seven and one-half feet and a minimum of 300 square feet in area. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the parking located at the western end of the building will be redesigned as requested by staff. The revised plan has increased the landscape strip along West Markham Street adjacent to the proposed new building. The landscape strip in front of the existing building is not proposed to change. The revised cover letter states the office building is proposed utilizing the accessory uses as identified in the O-2, Office and Institution zoning district. All site lighting will remain in place. Any additional lighting will be placed on the site similar to the existing lighting. The existing lighting does not overspill onto adjacent properties. The existing building contains 9,773 square feet and houses the showroom and service area for the existing automobile dealership. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing space to be used as C-3, General Commercial District uses. Within the building the applicant has indicated restaurant space will be available. The amount of space will be dependant on the proposed new building located to the west. A single story building located directly to the west of the existing structure is proposed to contain 7,377 square feet. This building is proposed with C-3, General Commercial zoning district uses as allowable uses. The applicant has indicated within this building and the existing building a combined total of 8,000 square feet of restaurant space will be available. The development is proposed with the future construction of a 20,000 square foot two-story office building in the northeast corner of the property. The building will utilize O-2, Office and Institutional District uses as allowable uses. The building is proposed with the 10 percent allowable accessory uses as identified in the O-2 zoning district. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 8 A total of 164 parking spaces will serve the three buildings. The development is proposed containing a total of 37,150 square feet of leaseable space. Based on the typical parking requirements for a mixed use (shopping center development – 1 per 225 gross square feet) a total of 165 parking spaces is required. The development is proposed with a “landmark” sign equal in size to the existing sign. The sign will not exceed signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160-square feet in area. Building signage will be placed on the north and south facades of the two retail buildings and on the front (south) façade of the office building. The signage will not exceed ten percent of the façade of each building. The hours of operation for the development are proposed as 6:00 am to 12:00 am seven days per week. The revised plan has increased the landscape strip in front of the western building to a 9-foot minimum with a 17-foot average as required by the landscape and buffer ordinances. The perimeter landscape strip has also been increased to a 9-foot minimum as required by the landscape ordinance. There are no buffer ordinance requirements along the eastern and western perimeters. The landscape strip/street buffer along West Markham Street in front of the existing building has not been changed. The landscape strip appears to be six feet (6’) near the entrance drive reducing down to near two feet (2’) near the eastern end of the existing parking. According to the applicant the existing parking arrangement was accomplished at a time when landscape setbacks were not as stringent as currently exist. The applicant has indicated the location of utilities and other facilities was also less stringent when the property was first developed. The applicant has indicated they are fearful of any construction on this specific portion of the parking area which would result in damage to sewer, gas, fiber optics, or any other underground utilities that currently exist under that specific portion of the parking area. Within the title search, the applicant discovered several occasions where special conditions had been made to this property in order to accommodate utilities. The applicant is requesting the Commission consider their request to keep the parking area of this specific portion of the property undisturbed and allow a reduction in the street buffer requirement. The City Beautiful Commission will also have to review and approve a request for a reduction in the landscape strip as required by the Landscape Ordinance. The site plan indicates the placement of a dumpster near each of the proposed buildings. A note indicates the dumpsters will be screened per the typical standards of the zoning ordinance. Dumpster enclosures will be masonry enclosures with metal swing gates. The site plan indicates the dumpster located along the western perimeter within the landscape strip which is required by the January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5258-D 9 landscape ordinance. The applicant has indicated based on the configuration of the property and the desire to allow this building a dumpster the minimum landscape strip of 9-feet cannot be achieved. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed request but feels the applicant can increase the landscape area along West Markham Street adjacent to the existing building by increasing the landscape islands and provide additional plantings within this area. In addition the applicant could request a franchise of the right of way within this area and place plantings within the franchised area to give the site a visual appearance of more green space. Based on the applicant’s current proposal staff is not supportive of the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had revised the site plan based on their suggestions in the analysis section of the staff write-up of the agenda. Staff stated the revised plan had redirected the traffic flows in the parking area located west of the proposed new retail/restaurant building. Staff stated with this revision the dumpster located along the western perimeter was now located outside the nine foot (9’) landscape strip required by the City’s Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated the revised plan had increased the three (3) landscape islands in front of the existing building as suggested by staff. Staff stated the applicant had also indicated a desire to franchise the placement of landscaping within the public right of way in front of the existing building. Staff stated based on the revisions to the site plan they were now supportive of the request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5703-C NAME : Shackleford Commercial Revised Short-form POD LOCATION : Located at 10303 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER : CG – Shack Properties, LLC P.O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER : White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA : 11.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 4 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : POD ALLOWED USES : Lot 1 C-3, General Commercial District & Lots 2 – 4 Office/Showroom/Warehouse PROPOSED ZONING : Revised POD PROPOSED USE : Add a private tennis center as an allowable use for Lot 4 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : A deferral request of the required street improvements to Shackleford Road. BACKGROUND : In June of 1993, the applicant filed a request for the consideration of a plan to construct a mini-storage complex in two phases on a portion of this site. The Little Rock Board of Directors at their September 21, 1993, Public Hearing approved a Planned Commercial Development by the adoption of Ordinance No. 16,491 to allow the proposed development. There was no development within the allotted three years and the ordinance expired on September 21, 1996. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,760 at their July 7, 1998, Board of Director’s meeting repealing the PCD zoning classification and restoring the R-2, Single-family District. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 2 A POD was recommended for approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission on June 30, 2004, to allow the creation of a two lot plat with office/showroom/warehouse uses as allowable uses on proposed Lot 2 and a future retail development on proposed Lot 1 (C-3 General Commercial District uses). The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,137 on July 20, 2004, establishing Shackleford Commercial Long-form POD. The proposed development would provide 128,000 square feet of office/showroom/warehouse space in three buildings. The applicant indicated 133 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. Ordinance No. 19,278 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15, 2005, allowed a revision to the previously approved POD to allow Lot 2 to develop as three individual lots; one lot without public street frontage. The applicant indicated Lot 1 would remain as a future commercial development and proposed Lots 2 – 4 would contain office/showroom/warehouse uses as allowable uses. Lot 1 was approved with C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses. The applicant indicated the building layout had been slightly modified to decrease the size of the buildings. The applicant indicated Lot 2 would contain a 40,000 square foot building, Lot 3 would contain a 27,500 square foot building and Lot 4 would contain a 47,500 square foot building. There were 191 parking spaces proposed with the development. The proposed buildings on Lots 2 – 4 would be served with loading docks in the rear. The proposed site plan also indicated a single sign on each of the proposed lots. Lot 1 was approved with a maximum sign height of thirty-six feet and a maximum sign area of one hundred sixty square feet. Signage for proposed Lots 2 – 4 would be consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved POD to add a private tennis center, as an allowable use for Lot 4. Lot 2 has developed with a strip center and is currently leased to a variety of users. The remaining lots are vacant. The developer is proposing to construct an indoor tennis facility on Lot 4. The building proposed is similar in size to the building approved in the original POD. The current configuration of the building will allow six (6) indoor tennis courts. The developer is requesting to be allowed to reduce the size of the building should he choose to only construct four (4) courts. If the four (4) courts are constructed this would shorten the length of the building by approximately 100- feet. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The site is located at the intersection of South Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn Road. Lot 2 is developed with a strip center, which is currently leased to a January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 3 number of office users. The remainder of the site was cleared with the development of Lot 2. East of the site is an office warehouse site. West of the site is a lawn care service. North of the site are single-family residences. Other uses in the area include mini-warehouse, office/warehouse and Clear Channel Metroplex. Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater Utility are located to the southwest of this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the John Barrow Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. 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. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Shackleford Road with construction on Lot 3 including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. 4. Measures to control the increase in stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property. 5. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 8. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code of ordinances. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 4 9. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : 20-foot overhead easement on private property adjacent to new street right of way is required. Contact Entergy 501-945-5151 for additional information. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required they will be installed at the developer’s expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections off the private fire system. There is an additional CIC Main Charge associated with the water main in Shackleford Road. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 5 Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located near CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale route. The Rosedale Route runs north of the property on Colonel Glenn Road. As the road moves east, on the northeast corner of the property the road narrows. This location would be a great location for a bus stop, to move out of traffic to directly serve the office development. Sidewalk abruptly ends, so extend north to street for easier accessibility at bus stop. Provide bus shelter for safer bus stop. Parks and Recreation: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division: This request is located in the 65 th West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial (LI) for this property. The Commercial category provides for light warehouse, distribution or storage uses, and/or other industrial uses that are developed in a well-designed "park like" setting. The applicant has applied for a revision to the existing POD (Planned Office Development) to add a tennis center to the current list of permitted uses. Master Street Plan : Shackleford Road is shown as Minor Arterial and Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Principal Arterial is to serve thorough traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on both Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads since they are both Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan : A Class II Bike Lane is shown along Shackleford Road. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Landscape : 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. There is a small portion of this site that adjoins residentially zoned property along the southeasterly property line. This area needs to remain undisturbed January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 6 or if there is no existing vegetation, large evergreen trees and shrubs must be planted in conjunction with this application. 3. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. 4. Berming along the streets is encouraged. 5. It appears behind all of the buildings is completely asphalted. Recommend the addition of some greenspace/permeable surface area. 6. An automatic irrigation system is required. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the item stating the applicant was requesting the addition of a tennis center as an allowable use for proposed Lot 4. Staff stated the remainder of the development would remain as previously approved or office/warehouse uses for Lots 2 and 3 and Lot 1 with C-3, General Commercial District uses. Staff requested Mr. White provide additional details concerning the proposed tennis center. Staff questioned the hours of operation, the number of staff, the number of clients and if the center would offer private lessons. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of way on Shackleford Road was required to 45-feet from centerline. Staff also stated the stormwater detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site. Staff stated measures to control the increased in stromwater runoff from the site due to the increased impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated there was a small portion of the site, which abutted residentially zoned property. Staff stated in this area screening was required. Staff also stated it appeared behind the building was entirely asphalt and suggested the applicant provide additional green space and/or permeable surface in this area. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system was required to water landscape areas and prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect would be required. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 7 Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the facility will be private, the hours of operation, the number of staff and the number of clients. The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required street improvements to Shackleford Road adjacent to proposed Lot 3. The deferral request is for five (5) years or until the development of Lot 3, whichever occurs first. Staff is supportive of the deferral request. The improvements to Colonel Glenn Road and the improvements adjacent to proposed Lot 1 on Shackleford Road were installed with the development of Lot 2. The applicant is requesting approval of a revision to the existing POD to add a tennis center as an allowable use. The development is proposed with the construction of a new building. The building is proposed 125-feet by 380-feet (47,500 square feet) with a maximum building height of 48.5 feet and an average building height per mid line calculation of 37 feet. The current configuration of the building will allow six (6) indoor tennis courts. The developer is requesting to be allowed to reduce the size of the building should he choose to only construct four (4) courts. If the four (4) courts are constructed this would shorten the length of the building by approximately 100-feet. The site plan includes 69 parking spaces located on the south side of the building. The building is a metal frame construction with a polymer fabric exterior. Brick or stone entry features will be located at the front of the building. The facility will be a private facility for teaching pros and tennis clinics/academics. The facility will not be used to host tournaments. During private lessons for teaching pros, traffic to the site is anticipated to be eight persons plus instructors. During tennis clinics/academics, that will increase to 40 students, plus instructors. Days and hours of operation are proposed as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The facility will employ a maximum of ten persons. Private lessons for adults will primarily be in the morning and lessons for children will be in the afternoons. There will be no more than ten adults and two teaching pros instructing at any one time. In the afternoons/ evenings there will be no more than 16 children and three teaching pros. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-C 8 Site lighting will be low-level and directed downward and into the site. Signage will consist of a small plaque on the façade of the building and a single ground mounted sign. A ground mounted monument sign is proposed on the lot with a maximum height of six feet and 64 square feet in area. A small directional sign will be placed on Shackleford Road within a sign easement. There will be a dumpster located on the site in the rear of the building. The dumpster will be screened per the typical ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated an eight-foot tall rubber coated chain link fence will be placed around the perimeter of the property along the east and south sides. The applicant has indicated screening will be installed adjacent to single-family zoned or used property as required by the buffer ordinance. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the revision to the existing POD to add a private tennis facility as an allowable use will significantly impact the overall development or the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request for street construction along Shackleford Road for a period of five (5) years or until the development of proposed Lot 3, whichever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the deferral request for street construction along Shackleford Road for a period of five (5) years or until the development of proposed Lot 3, whichever occurred first. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 recusal (JT Ferstl). January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8531-A NAME : Dowler Properties, Inc Short-form PCD LOCATION : Located at 3618 Baseline Road DEVELOPER : Dowler Properties, Inc. Ron and Donna Dowler 4201 Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 SURVEYOR : Donald Brooks Surveying 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA : 0.50 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES : Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING : PCD PROPOSED USE : Retail sales and warehousing VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. BACKGROUND : The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to C-4, Open Display District and provided a recommendation of approval as a part of the Consent Agenda at their April 22, 2010, public hearing. The item was forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors for final action and was heard by the Board of Directors at the June 1, 2010, public hearing. The Board of Directors denied the requested rezoning and suggested the applicant file to rezone the property to PCD. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property located at 3618 Baseline Road to be used as a retail location and warehouse for Southwest Radiator Shop Inc. The property is owned by Dowler Properties, Inc. and leased to Southwest Radiator Shop Inc. Presently the property is being used as warehouse space for Southwest Radiator. The future plans for the site include retail sales and service of heat exchange products along with the warehousing of products for distribution. The development is proposed in phases. Under Phase I the applicant is proposing to improve and/or upgrade the property which include landscaping, awnings over the entrance doors and bay doors, signage on the building and cosmetic improvements to the façade of the building. Phase II will include improvements to the rear of the building, the addition of a loading dock and the placement of privacy or security fencing. The applicant has indicated both phases will be completed within five (5) years. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The area is a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Across Baseline Road is an elementary school. To the east of the site is a laundry facility and to the west is a vacant commercial building. There are single-family homes located to the north and northwest of the site. Other uses in the area include convenience stores, a pawnshop, daycare center, grocery store, mobile home park and multi-family. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association have indicated they are supportive of the request. 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. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 3 2. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The property must place a single driveway access centered on the lot. The width of driveway must not exceed 28 feet. 3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : No comment received. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required they will be installed at the developer’s expense. Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located on CATA Bus Route # 15 – The 65 th Street route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : This request is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow for retail uses and warehousing on the site. Master Street Plan : Baseline Road is a Principal Arterial. A Principal Arterial is to serve thorough traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Baseline Road since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan : There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape : 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. An additional upgrade may be required if the rehabilitation of the structure exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the current replacement cost. 3. Asphalt/concrete must be removed in conjunction with this application. 4. Curb and gutter will be required to separate the parking areas from the landscape areas. 5. Staff recommends installing two (2) interior islands that are seven and a half foot in width (7 ½’) and a minimum of one hundred fifty square foot (150) in area. These islands will also help with vehicular circulation. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Ms. Donna Dowler was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview stating the existing commercial building was zoned R-2, Single-family. Staff stated the request was to rezone the site to PCD to allow the use of the building for retails sales and warehousing for Southwest Radiator. Staff requested Ms. Dowler provide the days and hours of operation. Staff stated the cover letter indicated fencing would be installed in the future and questioned the materials proposed for the fencing. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 5 There was a general discussion concerning screening along the western perimeter. Ms. Dowler stated the adjacent property owner accessed the rear of their building across property owned by Fun Wash and angled across their property. Ms. Dowler requested fencing not be required in this area to continue to allow access to the adjacent building. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the drive was to be narrowed to a maximum of 28-feet in width. Staff stated permits from AHTD would be required prior to any work in the right of way. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated an additional upgrade to the landscaping would be required if the rehabilitation cost exceeded 50 percent of the current replacement cost of the building. Staff stated two interior islands that were seven and one half foot in width and a minimum of one hundred square feet in area should be installed on the site along Baseline Road. Staff stated the existing asphalt was to be removed with the installation of the new landscaping in this area. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to staff addressing issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided a landscape plan which has narrowed the driveway as requested by public works staff and has indicated landscaping on each side of the drive as noted in the landscape comments. The site plan also includes the placement of a small amount of building landscaping. This will be placed in raised beds. The landscaping along Baseline Road will include the removal of the existing asphalt and the placement of curbing around the new planter beds. The request is to rezone the site to allow Southwest Radiator Shop to use the building for retails sales and warehousing. Currently Southwest Radiator is using the building for warehousing but plans to move the retail sales and service portion of their business to this location. The business will operate from 8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. The development is proposed in phases. The Phase I portion of the development is to improve and/or upgrade the existing building and paving and install landscaping in the front of the building and along Baseline Road. In January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 6 addition awnings over the entrance doors and bay doors will be installed and cosmetic improvements to the façade of the building will be completed. Phase II will include improvements to the rear of the building, the addition of a loading dock and the placement of security fencing. The Phase II portion of the development will require an access easement or the purchase of property from the adjoining property owner to the east. The Fun Wash property is an “L” shaped property with a strip along Christen Drive, which extends along the northern boundary of this property. This prohibits this property from accessing Christen Drive without crossing onto the property owned by Fun Wash. The applicant has indicated they will approach the adjacent property owner to secure an access easement or if the owners are willing to sell the property to the rear of this site, purchase the property. Should the sale occur both properties will be replatted to eliminate the creation of a separate parcel. The applicant has indicated both phases will be completed within five (5) years. The request includes a waiver of the required screening fence along the western perimeter. The property is a non-residential property but is still zoned R-2, Single-family. The applicant has indicated should the property become a residential use then a screening fence will be installed. The development will be served by building signage on Baseline Road and a ground sign within the landscape area along Baseline Road. The building signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten percent of the façade area. The ground sign is proposed with a maximum height of 36-feet and a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. The applicant has indicated a dumpster will be placed in the rear of the building with proper screening. The applicant has indicated prior to the placement of the dumpster an access agreement will be reached with the adjacent property owner. Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning. The property has a history of commercial uses and this area of Baseline Road contains predominately non-residential uses. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the rezoning to PCD to allow the use of the property for retail sales and warehousing for Southwest Radiator is an appropriate use of the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8531-A 7 Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the required screening fence along the western perimeter. Should the adjacent property become a residential use the screening fence will be installed at that time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the deferral request of the required screening fence along the western perimeter. Staff stated should the adjacent property become a residential use the screening fence would be installed at that time. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8728 NAME : Worsham Short-form PCD LOCATION : Located at 910 East 9 th Street DEVELOPER : Melvin Worsham P.O. Box 774 Little Rock, AR 72203 SURVEYOR : Laha Engineers 6602 Baseline Road, Suite E Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA : 0.225 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES : Retail PROPOSED ZONING : PCD PROPOSED USE : Auto repair and sales VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. The applicant failed to respond to comments raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends deferral of this item to the February 16, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to respond to comments raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the February 16, 2012, public hearing. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8728 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-8729 NAME : McMath Short-form PD-R and Alley Abandonment LOCATION : Located at 822 Beechwood Street DEVELOPER : James Bruce McMath 822 Beechwood Street Little Rock, AR 72205 SURVEYOR : Global Surveying Consultants, Inc. 217 West 2 nd Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA : 0.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES : Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING : PD-R PROPOSED USE : Carport addition – Hillcrest Design Overlay District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The request is a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD-R for this home located at 822 Beechwood Street, which is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. The request also includes the abandonment of an unused portion of the alley located behind Lots 2 and 4 in this block. The home was constructed in 1914, and at one time the home had a one car car-shed, which was removed several years ago when the structure became unsound. Since that time uncovered parking has been employed adjacent to the alley at the rear of the lot. As part of the renovation/remodeling project of the house, the applicant would like to upgrade the parking and eliminate a safety hazard inherent in the current arraignment. The later related to the fact that the alley is not negotiable from Lot January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8729 2 3 north and there is no practical way to turn around in the existing parking area. Vehicles leaving must, back down the alley to the south for half a block, past two houses, one of which is a rental house on Lot 9 and at times has had children among its tenants. The later is of particular concern because there is no fence where Lot 9 abuts the travel portion of the alley, only a frequent broken hedge. Moreover, the final portion of the alley involves a significant drop in grade, which renders the driver blind to anything at or near ground level when backing. The proposed plan adjoins the carport to the house in approximately the same general location as the original car-shed and in the current uncovered parking area. The area will be accessed from the existing alley. Additional paving will be added to the alley where it is not currently being used to facilitate back-out and turning vehicles around when leaving the carport. A variation from the typical zoning setbacks for the rear and side yard setback is required to implement this concept. The portion of the alley to be closed has apparently never actually been used as an alley. It does not appear to ever have been paved and has a very large oak tree growing in the middle of it between Lots 3 and 9, this property and the property to the west. Lot 9’s (the property located behind this property) eastern fence line runs near the middle of the platted alley and likewise a parking pad serving Lot 2 (the property to the north of this property) has been constructed within the platted alley. Should the abandonment be approved Lot 9 has agreed to sell the narrow strip of land that would fall east of the existing fence to this property owner so that lot lines will conform to the existing use. The alley will be retained as a utility easement. The applicant has indicated the alley closure is not necessary to the carport addition but is sought for two reasons. One is to allow the applicant to pave the portion of the current platted alley to be used to access the new carport/parking area and clean the area up esthetically. The second is to align lot property lines so that they conform to long standing use by the adjoining property owners. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : Like most areas of Hillcrest this area contains a mixture of single-family and multi-family units. To the northeast is Alsop Park and to the south is the commercial district located on Kavanaugh Boulevard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site and the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8729 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS : PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS : 1. The alley should be replatted as a drainage easement and an access easement following the abandonment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : No comment received. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required. Fire Department : Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. Building Codes : The required fire separation distance (building to property line) prescribed by the building code terminates at five (5) feet. Buildings are allowed to be closer than five (5) feet if they have properly constructed firewalls, which provide the requisite one (1) hour fire resistance rating. When buildings are five (5) feet or more from the property line, the requirement no longer applies to the wall itself, only the projections such as eaves or overhangs. Openings such as doors and windows are limited when the exterior wall is three (3) feet from the property line, and are prohibited when the exterior wall is less than three (3) feet from the line. There is no restriction on openings when the exterior wall is more than three (3) feet from the property line. Contact the City of Little Rock Building Codes at 371-4832 for additional details. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8729 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. Residential Low Density is for single-family homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PDR to allow the addition of a carport to the home in the rear yard. The site is within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Master Street Plan : Beechwood Street is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan : There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape : No comment on this single-family rezoning request. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. James McMath was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating the property was located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Staff stated there were two variations from the typical DOD standards related to setbacks. Staff stated the side yard setbacks did not comply with typical ordinance standards and the rear yard setback would not comply with the typical ordinance standard. Staff stated the request also included the abandonment of the alley located behind the home. Staff questioned the total square footage of the upper floor and the lower floor of the home. Staff also questioned if there was any attic or storage space under roof. Public Works stated the alley was to be replatted as a drainage easement and an access easement following the abandonment. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS : Mr. McMath provided a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan indicates the total square footage of the home on the upper floor and the lower floor. The revised plan also includes attic and storage space under roof. The applicant states the abandoned alley will be retained as a drainage and utility easement. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8729 5 The site is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. The DOD has specific development criteria related to lot coverage, building height and setbacks. The DOD states for residential structures with more than two floors (i.e. built-out attics) located on lots with less than 8,000 square feet there shall be a maximum floor area (FAR) ratio of 0.55. The structure along with the proposed additions contains a total of 3,689.3 square feet. The maximum building square footage allowed per the DOD is 3,928.1 square feet or a FAR of 0.51. The DOD states the maximum lot coverage for all structures under roof shall not exceed fifty percent. The site plan as proposed complies with this minimum standard (41.3 percent). The site plan as proposed does not comply with the typical setbacks per the underlying zoning district. The request includes a reduction the in the side yard setbacks for a 3.5-foot setback along the south property line and a 2.5-foot setback (existing) along the north property line. The rear yard setback also does not comply with the typical 25-foot setback. The setback, including the alley abandonment, is approximately 16-feet. The DOD states if for any reason the DOD cannot be adhered to the applicant must seek a rezoning to a planned zoning district with the intent to devise a workable development plan, which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. The request includes the abandonment of a portion of the alley located behind the home. All affected property owners have signed the petition for the abandonment request. The applicant has contacted all the utilities and Public Works Department concerning the abandonment. The alley will be maintained as a utility and drainage easement as requested by Public Works and the various utilities. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the setbacks do not fully comply with the typical standard of the ordinance staff does not feel the variances as proposed will negatively impact the adjoining properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the right of way abandonment for the alley as proposed by the applicant. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8729 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the right of way abandonment for the alley as proposed by the applicant. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-8730 NAME : Stonebriar Imaging Short-form PCD LOCATION : Located at 3924 West Markham Street DEVELOPER : Phillip Clifford 3550 Parkwood, Suite C-302 Frisco, TX 75034 ENGINEER : Crafton Tull 10825 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA : .335 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES : Retail PROPOSED ZONING : PCD PROPOSED USE : MRI clinic, Clinic (maximum of 2 doctors) and General and Professional Office – Hillcrest Design Overlay District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The applicant is proposing to construct a new imaging center (MRI) at 3924 West Markham Street. The site contains .335 acres, is located at the corner of Cedar and West Markham Streets, and is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District. The site has been previously developed and the new development will require that the existing building be demolished. The parking lot will take access from West Markham Street and provide parking for 11 cars. There is no dumpster planned for this development. The building is a one-story building with a maximum building height of 35-feet. The building will be brick and stone with a pitched roof with residential shingles. The existing alley will remain as is. The January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 2 request includes the allowance of a clinic with a maximum of two doctors and general and professional office uses as allowable alternative uses for the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : This section of West Markham Street has developed with office and commercial uses. The site contains a vacant building which was previously a medical office. Across North Cedar Street is an office use and south of the site, across West Markham Street, is a Walgreen’s Drug Store. The area to the north and east are primarily residential uses. Other uses in the area include the UAMS and VA medical centers, a fire station and fast food restaurants. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association and the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS : PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS : 1. Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Cedar Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. 3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of West Markham Street and Cedar Street. 4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Cedar Street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The existing location of the curb and gutter should be maintained. 5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 7. Measures to control the increase in stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : No comment received. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required they will be installed at the developer’s expense. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection systems to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZ assembly, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed in the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain access at least 20-feet wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : The site is located near CATA Bus Route # 5 – the West Markham route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office (O) for this property. Office allows services provided directly to consumers as well as general offices, which support more basic economic activities. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-3, General Commercial to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow for construction of a new MRI clinic. The site is within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Master Street Plan : West Markham Street is a Minor Arterial and Cedar Street is a Collector. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on West Markham Street since it is a Minor Arterial. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan : There is a Class III Bike Route shown along Cedar Street. Bike Routes require no additional right-of-way or pavement markings, but signage to identify and direct the route. Landscape : 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning ordinance requires a six foot nine inch wide (6’-9”) land use buffer along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned property. This area is to remain undisturbed. If ample evergreen vegetation is not present then additional evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs will be required in conjunction with this application. 3. A six foot (6’) high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is required along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned property. The dense evergreen plantings may suffice for screening, in that, it must screen year around. 4. The zoning ordinance requires a six foot nine inch (6’-9”) wide street buffer along West Markham Street. The current proposal reflects parking within this area. 5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum nine-foot wide (9’) landscape perimeter around the sites entirety. A variance from this minimal amount will January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 5 require approval from the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. This site is located within the designated mature area of the City; therefore, this amount can be reduced to six foot nine inches (6’9”). 6. A small amount of building landscaping will be required. 7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (December 8, 2011) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the property was located in the Hillcrest Design Overlay District and there were a few areas the proposed development did not comply with the typical DOD standards. Staff questioned if the request was for a MRI clinic or was the applicant also requesting to maintain the C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable alternate uses. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated West Markham Street was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Staff stated dedication of right of way 35-feet from centerline was required. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication was required at the intersection of West Markham and Cedar Streets and a dedication of right of way to 30-feet from centerline was required on Cedar Street. Staff stated measures to control stormwater runoff from the increased impervious surface should be implemented to not damage adjacent property. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated since the site was located in the Designated Mature Area of the City the zoning buffer ordinance and the landscape ordinance required the placement of a perimeter landscape strip of six feet nine inches. Staff stated a screening fence was required along the northern perimeter adjacent to the residentially used property. Staff stated two of the parking spaces along West Markham Street should be removed to allow for the minimum street buffer. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 6 H. ANALYSIS : The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 8, 2011, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has limited the proposed use and future uses of the building, indicated the required street buffer along West Markham Street and noted screening will be installed along the northern perimeter. The property is located in the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. The DOD has specific development criteria related to signage, setback and parking. The proposal includes the removal of the existing non-residential building and the construction of a new imaging center (MRI) center. The building is proposed containing 3,181 square feet. The site plan indicates the placement of 11 parking spaces. The parking lot will take access from West Markham Street. The building is a single story building with a maximum height of 35-feet. The building will be brick and stone with a pitched roof with residential shingles. The DOD states the building setbacks are to comply with the underlying zoning district but may align with adjacent structures. The street side setbacks (West Markham and Cedar Street) are to be 25-feet and the rear and side yard setbacks are to be 15-feet. The plan indicates the Cedar Street setback as 20-feet and the West Markham Street setback as 11.54 feet. The eastern (rear yard) is indicated at 56-feet and the northern (side yard) setback is 10.12-feet. The building appears to align with the structure located to the north of the site. The building has a larger setback along West Markham Street than the adjacent structure. The DOD states signage is to be consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of 6-feet in height and 64-square feet in area. The applicant has indicated ground signage will comply with the typical DOD standard. The building signage will be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the façade area abutting the public streets. The request includes the allowance of a clinic (medical, dental or optical) with a maximum of two (2) doctors and general and professional office uses as allowable alternative uses for the site. If the site were to redevelop as a medical clinic with two (2) doctors the zoning ordinance would typically require the placement of twelve (12) parking spaces. If the site were developed as a general or professional office seven (7) parking spaces would be required. Parking in the DOD however is allowed at 50-percent of the typical standard per the zoning ordinance. Per the DOD based on the total square footage of the office building three (3) parking spaces are required and based on two (2) doctors six (6) parking spaces are required. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 7 The DOD states wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of twenty contiguous feet not to extend over twenty percent of the façade shall be required. Arcades, display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least sixty percent of the façade. The applicant has indicated the development will comply with this typical DOD standard. There is no dumpster planned for this development. The existing alley will remain as currently exist. Staff is supportive of the request. Although there are variations from the typical DOD standards staff does not feel these variations are significant enough to adversely impact the development or the area. The variations are from typical building setbacks along the southern perimeter and the allowance of parking in excess of typical ordinance standards. Staff does not feel the reduction in the street side setbacks is significant enough to impact the development or vehicular movement along the streets. Along the northern perimeter a screening fence along with the required landscaping will be installed to aid in softening the impact. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the existing commercial structure would be removed with the proposed development. He stated the development was a low intensity use and he felt the use was a good and proper use for the site. He stated the proposed site plan would reduce the building square footage and paved areas on the site. He stated the building would be constructed with characteristics of the homes in the neighborhood. He stated the maximum building height would be 27.5 feet. He stated the site plan indicated 11 parking spaces and a substantial amount of green space and landscaping. He stated the plan was to take access from West Markham Street and remove the driveway on Cedar Street. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8730 8 Ms. E. K. Franklin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she had provided staff with information. She questioned if the Commission had received the information and if the Commission had a chance to review the information. Chairman Ferstl stated staff had provided them with two letters of opposition and with her follow-up e-mail containing the crime statistics in the area. Ms. Franklin stated non-residential development should not include ½ block development but should include the entire block. She stated a good example was to look to the west to see how ½ block development impacted the residential units in the area. Ms. Franklin stated the non-residential development should include property from West Markham Street up to the area where if A Street extended over to Pine/Cedar and possible Elm Streets. She stated there were a number of lots available in the area. She stated most of the homes within this area were rental units with very few owner occupied units. She stated to the south of the site was UAMS property with the exception of the drug store. She stated she was concerned with the placement of the driveway on West Markham Street. She stated if the patients missed the driveway they would be forced to travel through the neighborhood. She stated the alley was also a concern. She stated the alley had a lot of foot traffic and had been a hang-out in the past. She requested the Commission deny the request and not allow ½ block development in the area. Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission stating there would not be a fence placed along the alley. He stated landscaping would be placed in this area. He stated the development was a low impact development with a low traffic volume. He stated the development was limited to two doctors and general and professional office uses. He stated the business hours would be typical business hours 8 am to 5 pm or 8 am to 6 pm. He stated there would not be a dumpster located on site. He stated he felt the development was a good use for the property. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the existing zoning and the allowable uses. The Commission stated there were a number of uses, which could locate on the site under the current C-3, General Commercial zoning district which were more intrusive than the proposed MRI clinic. The Commission questioned the number of patients the facility would serve in a typical day. Mr. Riggins stated he could not answer that question because he was not familiar with the length of visits per patient. Commissioner Rector stated the Commission was charged with reviewing the proposal that was before them. He stated he felt the proposed development was an improvement over the existing building and previous use. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: LA-0040 NAME : Westpark Meadows Apartments Land Alteration Variance LOCATION : 1701 Westpark Drive APPLICANT : ReManCo APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE : Sandy Edlemon AREA : approximately 0.27 acres CURRENT ZONING : Residential (R6) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : A variance from the Land Alteration Regulations for issuance of a grading permit to select cut timber on the property. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST : The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations for the issuance of a grading permit to select cut 54 mature pine trees on approximately 0.14 acres located on the north side of Boyle Park Road along the west property line of the applicant’s property. The applicant initially proposed to replant bamboo in place of the trees removed. The applicant revised the application and now proposes to replant 15 Savannah Holly trees (2-1/2 caliper) with a spacing of 30 feet. The trees will be planted in an area of approximately 0.27 acres along the southwest property line of the applicant property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The 8.6 acres property zoned residential (R6) is a developed apartment complex. Along the western property line are mature pine trees. Along this western property line is a utility easement with overhead electric transmission lines. Approximately, half of the pine trees within this easement have already been removed by Entergy. The remaining trees (54) have been delimbed on the side closest to the overhead electric lines. The property on the north of the applicant property is the Rebsamen Tennis Center which is owned by the City of Little Rock and zoned Parks and Recreation. The property on the east is owned by Westpark Meadows Apartments and zoned O3. The property located on the south across Boyle Park Road is undeveloped and owned by Westpark Meadows Apartments and zoned R2. Several properties are located to the west of the applicant’s property. The January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0040 2 northern most western property is a warehouse office development zoned I2. Other properties along the western property line are undeveloped and zoned O3 and R2. Just to the south and west those undeveloped properties are Rock Creek and Boyle Park which is owned by the City of Little Rock. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any requests for additional information either by telephone, e-mail or letter. The Little Rock Parks Department commented that the stumps should be ground; all underbrush removed; and no damage is to be done to the trees remaining. D. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS : 1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required to be obtained prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. 2. Per Section 29-187(e)(2), clear cutting or total harvest shall not be allowed. 3. Treetops and debris generated from the harvest activity must be removed at the conclusion of harvest to reduce the potential fire hazard. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for conditions and additional requirements. E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS : 1. Since the only adjoining property owner is City Parks; their opinion/thoughts/ideas can dictate the direction of the application. 2. There is not a land use buffer requirement; therefore, the landscape ordinance would only require a minimum 2 ½ inch caliper tree be planted 30 feet on center down that entire property line. 3. Bamboo is a very evasive species; therefore, should only be planted in areas that are contained. This area is next to a City park; therefore, the City would be required to upkeep any invasion of bamboo in the park. There is also a major water way next door that needs to remain open for free water flow; therefore, another species should be chosen to replant the area that is less evasive. Trees are required either way at one per 30 foot. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0040 3 F. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMENTS : 1. Stumps should be ground and removed. 2. All underbrush is to be removed 3. No damage should occur to trees that are to remain. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS : (December 8, 2011) Sandy Edlemon and Jessica Rooney, representing the applicant, were present at the subdivision committee meeting. The item was discussed with the Subdivision Committee members. Staff explained the application and the staff comments. Staff commented that trees should be replanted on 30 inch centers in place of bamboo due to its evasiveness. H. STAFF ANALYSIS : Westpark Meadows Apartments is requesting to select cut 54 mature pine trees along its western property line. The applicant stated pine cones, pine bark, and pine needles are causing the gutters to clog and the roofs to leak. The tree roots are also causing problems with the fence and sidewalks. Also, the trees are regularly cut back by Entergy from the power lines. The trees are located in an area about 250 feet long by 25 feet wide. The trees have already been delimbed by Entergy nearest their overhead power lines. Just to the north of the tree covered area, an approximately 220 feet long by 25 feet wide area with mature pines was recently cleared by Entergy for their power lines. This area is also along the western property line of Westpark Meadows Apartments. The applicant has revised the application to replant 15 Savannah Holly trees with a spacing of 30 feet between trees. The trees will be at least 2 ½ inch caliper in size. Trees will be replanted on the entire 470 feet long by 25 feet wide area. Following the tree removal, all stumps will be ground and removed. All tree debris must be removed. Prior to beginning tree removal, a grading permit must be obtained from Public Works, Civil Engineering. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the tree harvest variance request subject to compliance with conditions and comments stated in paragraphs D, E, and F. January 5, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0040 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the tree harvest variance request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 10 Subject : Amendments to Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances to change terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions STAFF REPORT : On April 20, 2010, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 20,255 which made changes to various provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to mobile homes. The changes were made in conjunction with changes in Chapters 8 and 20. The gist of the changes was to eliminate preregulation mobile homes as a permitted use. Throughout the Zoning Ordinance, the term “preregulation mobile home” was replaced with “manufactured home”. These proposed changes to language in Chapter 31, the Subdivision Ordinance, are “clean-up” in nature. Section 1 deletes the current defined term “mobile home subdivision” and replaces it with “manufactured home subdivision”. Section 2 rewrites Division 7 of Chapter 31, which contains the development criteria for mobile home subdivisions. The rewrite replaces the term “mobile home” with “manufactured home” throughout the Division. No other changes are made. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 31. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. [P AGE 1 OF 4] ORDINANCE To amend Chapter 31 of the Code to change terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions and to declare an emergency ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 31 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CHANGE TERMINOLOGY REGARDING MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISIONS; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, on April 20, 2010, the City Board of Directors passed Ordinance Nos. 20,253, 20,254, and 20, 255, regarding changes to the Code of Ordinances in Chapters 8, 20 and 36 concerning mobile homes and manufactured homes, and WHEREAS , the City now finds it necessary and desirable to change some terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions in Chapter 31, Article III, Division 7 of the Code of Ordinances to make it consistent with the terminology in other chapters of the Code of Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: Section 1 . The definition for Mobile home subdivision in Chapter 31, Article I, Section 31-2 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by a new term and definition to read as follows: Manufactured home subdivision means the division of a tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for the placement of manufactured homes. Section 2 . Chapter 31, Article III, Division 7 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by a new Division 7 to read as follows: DIVISION 7. MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS Sec. 31-336. Generally. (a) In order to ensure proper placement of individual manufactured homes within manufactured home subdivisions, to provide for necessary off-street parking and storage facilities, and to integrate such developments appropriately with their surroundings, the design standards in this division shall be applied. For the purpose of this chapter, all divisions of land into two (2) or more lots for the placement of manufactured homes is a subdivision and shall be submitted to the planning commission for approval. [P AGE 2 OF 4] ORDINANCE To amend Chapter 31 of the Code to change terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions and to declare an emergency (b) Subdivisions designed to accommodate manufactured homes on separate lots for individual ownership shall conform to residential plat development standards. Sec. 31-337. Minimum size. Manufactured home parks shall be at least five (5) acres in size including open space. Sec. 31-338. Design requirements. (a) Each manufactured home lot in a manufactured home subdivision shall have a clearly defined minimum lot size of four thousand (4,000) square feet with a maximum density of eight (8) units per gross acre. (b) The manufactured home subdivision shall have a minimum frontage on a dedicated public street of fifty (50) feet. The depth of the subdivision shall not be more than three (3) times the width of the subdivision. For pipestem lots, the pipestem shall not be more than three hundred thirty (330) feet in length. Manufactured home subdivisions with a pipestem lot configuration greater than three hundred thirty (330) feet in length must provide a dedicated street to provide access to the property. (c) A twenty-five (25)-foot side and rear yard shall be provided around the subdivision. For subdivisions abutting an expressway, freeway or occupied mainline railroad, a fifty (50)-foot side and year yard shall be provided. (d) The minimum width of a manufactured home lot at the platted setback line shall be forty (40) feet, and the minimum depth shall be one hundred (100) feet. In the case of a corner lot the minimum width shall be sixty (60) feet. (e) The minimum separation between individual manufactured homes shall be twenty (20) feet. (f) The minimum setback from any service easement shall be twenty (20) feet. (g) Open unenclosed awnings and carports may occupy only forty-five (45) percent of the required minimum spacing between manufactured homes. (h) Each manufactured home lot shall be provided with a minimum of two (2) paved parking spaces, of at least nine (9) feet by twenty (20) feet each, located on the manufactured home lot. (i) No mobile home space having double frontage shall take access on a dedicated public street. Sec. 31-339. Service easement. Design of streets and width of service easements shall be according to residential or minor residential standards in the “Master Street Plan.” [P AGE 3 OF 4] ORDINANCE To amend Chapter 31 of the Code to change terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions and to declare an emergency Sec. 31-340. Screening. Manufactured home subdivisions shall be effectively screened on all sides by means of walls, fences or plantings. Fences shall be of wood, masonry or metal construction having a height of four feet if located between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way or, if located at the setback line or beyond, having a height of six (6) feet if adjacent to residentially zoned property. The fence or wall shall otherwise meet the standards set forth in section 36-516. In lieu of a wall or fence, a strip of land not less than ten (10) feet in width and planted and maintained with an evergreen hedge or dense planting of evergreen shrubs not less than four (4) feet in height may be substituted. Screening shall meet sight distance requirements in section 32-8. Sec. 31-341. Recreation space. Common recreation space in a manufactured home subdivision shall be provided at the rate of five hundred (500) square feet per manufactured home. The minimum size of any recreation space shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet. All required recreation areas shall be located back of the require setback lines. All recreation areas shall be used solely for recreational purposes. Sec. 31-342. Storage facilities. A paved storage area shall be provided at a central location in a manufctured home subdivision at the rate of fifty (50) square feet per manufactured home for the outdoor storage of boats, campers, and similar vehicles. Sec. 31-343. Utility installations. Each manufactured home lot in a manufactured home subdivision shall be provided with a wastewater outlet and a water connection. All utility installations shall meet the requirements established by this chapter and shall be provided for each manufactured home. Sec. 31-344. Improvements. Each subdivider shall be required to install at his own expense or have installed by the appropriate public utility the following improvements in a manufactured home subdivision: (1) All surfaces subject to vehicular traffic shall be paved, according to the standards of chapter 30, article III. [P AGE 4 OF 4] ORDINANCE To amend Chapter 31 of the Code to change terminology regarding mobile home park subdivisions and to declare an emergency (2) Accommodations for on-site fire hydrants shall be provided for the installation of necessary mains, T’s, and cut-off valves as required by the water department and fire department. Section 2. Severability . In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part of the ordinance. Section 3. Repealer . All ordinances or resolutions of the City in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4. Emergency . It has been determined that it is necessary that the proposed amendments become effective immediately to protect the quality of life in residential neighborhoods; therefore, an emergency is hereby declared and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED: _______________, 2011 ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________________ _____________________________ Susan Langley, City Clerk Mark Stodola, Mayor APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: __________________________________ Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney // // // // // // // // // // // January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 11 Amendment to Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to allow a variance to be issued by the Planning Commission for clearing and grading without imminent construction Staff recommends deferral of this item to the February 16, 2012 public hearing to allow the item to be presented to the City Beautiful Commission prior to the Commission reviewing the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) The City as the applicant for the item presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the February 16, 2012, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral was necessary to allow the item to be presented to the City Beautiful Commission prior to the Commission reviewing the item. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. January 5, 2012 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-4411-L NAME : Pleasant Ridge Towne Center Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION : Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road DEVELOPER : Lew Schickel 11601 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER : White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA : 27.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 3 FT. NEW STREET : 0 LF CURRENT ZONING : PCD ALLOWED USES : C-2, Shopping Center District PROPOSED ZONING : Revised PCD PROPOSED USE : Redesign the driveways and Cantrell Road, Open the “rear entrance” and add additional parking along the south side of Buildings 600 - 800 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED : None requested. BACKGROUND : On December 20, 1994, through Ordinance No. 16,808, the City Board of Directors approved a PCD that would allow the development of a mixed use “Neighborhood Commercial” shopping center and an accompanying office development. The site was a 12.83 acre-tract and of the area, 11.48 acres was proposed to be developed as the shopping center. The proposed structure was 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking spaces were indicated. A 1.35-acre tract was to have 10,000 square feet of office building space with an additional 50 parking spaces. The uses proposed for the shopping center were all by-right C-2 and C-3 zoning district, except that there were to be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car washes January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 2 within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office building were all uses by right in the O-2 and O-3 zoning district. On January 9, 1997, the Commission reviewed a request for a change in the right-of- way dedication and street improvement requirement to Fairview Road. The developer requested all right-of-way dedication and street improvements be taken from the property located to the east of Fairview Road. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,331 on December 3, 1996, which allowed a five-year deferral of street improvements (or until development of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD) to Fairview Road. The Little Rock Planning Commission granted a three-year time extension for the proposed submission of the final development plan at their December 22, 1997, Public Hearing. The applicant submitted a Final Development Plan for the Pleasant Ridge Square Long-form PCD, which was approved on February 1, 2002. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,233 on November 9, 2004, establishing a revision to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center PCD. The development was proposed as a 300,000 square foot retail center with restaurant space developed as a “Life-style Center”. The approval allowed the creation of three lots. That approval included the condition that “no rear entrance/access will be installed without Board of Directors action.” Ordinance No. 19,281 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15, 2005, revised the previously approved PCD to allow Coulson Oil to add an additional driveway to their site and adjust the southern property line. The site plan indicated the drive would be added to the southwestern corner of the property to adjoin to the proposed driveway for Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The applicant indicated with the adjustment, the existing Coulson PCD would function more appropriately with the approved Pleasant Ridge Town Center site plan. Coulson Oil also proposed the sale of a portion of their lot to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center along the southern perimeter. The sale of the property resulted in a rear yard buffer and landscape strip that was less than the typical minimum required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,633 on November 21, 2006, revising the previously approved PCD for the shopping center to allow the creation of two (2) additional lots for the Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The previous approval allowed for the creation of three (3) lots which had been final platted. The developer proposed the placement of the two (2) additional lots along Cantrell Road within the area identified as future restaurant sites. According to the applicant the restaurant out-parcels were needed to allow the transfer of property to prospective tenants. The approval brought the total available lots on the site to five (5). There were no other modifications proposed to the previous approval. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 3 On December 7, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to allow the western-most drive located along Cantrell Road to become a full service intersection. The denial of the request was appealed to the Board of Directors and was scheduled to be heard on February 20, 2006. The item was withdrawn from the Board of Directors agenda prior to action by the Board of Directors. Ordinance No. 19,730 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 3, 2007, allowed a revision to the previously approved PCD to allow additional sign locations within the development. The approval allowed building signage located on the portion of the flat wall located on the northeast corner and northwest corner of the center shopping center building. No other modifications to the approved site plan were proposed with the revision to the PCD. On October 15, 2009, the Little Rock Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval of a request by Chick-fil-A to place signage along their western façade. On November 17, 2009, the Little Rock Board of Directors denied the request. Ordinance No. 20,240 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 6, 2010, allowed a revision to the PCD to allow seasonal sales on the site. The approval allowed the placement of a temporary trailer for a shaved ice business to be placed on the site from April through September yearly. A subsequent revision to the previously approved PCD allowed the creation of an additional lease parcel to the site. The lease parcel/building footprint is located between the existing Chick-fil-A restaurant and the proposed Chipotles Mexican Grill. The building did not increase the square footage of the overall development beyond the approved 315,000 square feet. Also the original PCD approved 15,000 square feet in two buildings within the out-lot area. The total square footage for the three buildings will be less than the approved 15,000 square feet. The revised PCD indicated a maximum 6,000 square foot building with a drive-thru along the west side. The developer was approved the flexibility to vary the plan to eliminate the drive-thru and add parking and also reduce the building size to add parking or some combination thereof should the tenant space vary from the approved site plan. On June 2, 2011, the Little Rock Planning Commission withdrew a request to allow signage on the eastern façade of an out-parcel located along the eastern entrance drive to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center shopping center. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT : The developer is proposing to amend the previously approved PCD in four areas. The revisions consist of driveway realignment and openings in three areas and to January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 4 add additional parking in the southeastern portion of the site. The revisions are as follows: 1. Construct a new driveway opposite the main entrance adjacent to Chipolte’s Mexican Grill and the Shell Station. The new driveway will create a four (4) way intersection at the existing traffic signal. The existing driveway serving the Cantrell West office building just to the east of the new driveway location will be eliminated. The future driveway serving the proposed office building at the northwest corner of the proposed driveway will take access to Cantrell Road as indicated and eliminate a proposed driveway apron located further to the west to serve this office use. 2. Eliminate the existing median at the current driveway that aligns with Southridge Drive. This will create a full four (4) way intersection and eliminate the confusion for drivers at this entrance to the shopping center. It will decrease the traffic at the main entrance to the east and allow patrons from Walton Heights direct access between their neighborhood and the shopping center. 3. Open a new driveway at the rear of the shopping center that would align with Woodland Heights Road adjacent to the Easter Seals facility and Christ the King Church and School complex. This would allow cares access to and from the shopping center without looping the site on either Fairview Road or Woodland Heights Road to the east. 4. Add parking along the southeast property line behind current buildings 600, 700 and 800. This will create additional employee parking and free up parking at the front entrances of the stores for patrons. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS : The site is developed with a shopping center with two out-parcels located along Cantrell Road. The western most out-parcel is a Chick-fil-A restaurant and the eastern most out-parcel is currently under construction for a Chipotle’s Mexican Grill. Also located in the immediate area of this development are a number of restaurants, two convenience stores, banks and office buildings, a drycleaners, a liquor store and a City of Little Rock Fire station. North of the site, across Cantrell Road, is the Walton Heights Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS : As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site, the Pleasant Forest Property January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 5 Owners Association, the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association and the Walton Height Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS : PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS : 1. Due to the lack of alignment of the Woodland Height Road/Fairview Road/Pleasant Ridge driveway intersection, a round-a-bout should be constructed at the Woodland Height Road/Fairview Road/Pleasant Ridge driveway. 2. Provide the expected number of left turn movements from the Pleasant Ridge development onto Cantrell Road during peak hour. 3. The entrance into the Pleasant Ridge development off Cantrell Road must be channelized to reduce the number of conflicts. 4. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 5. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 6. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING : Wastewater : Sewer available to this project. Entergy : No comment received. Center-Point Energy : No comment received. AT & T : No comment received. Central Arkansas Water : All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas water. That work would be done at the expanse of the Developer. Contact central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water service is required or regarding the size and location of the water meter. Due to the nature of the facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 6 required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water requires that upon the installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross Connection Section within ten (10) days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department : Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain at least a 20-foot wide access. Install a Knox box and properly place the address on the building. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning : No comment. CATA : Approved as submitted. The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25 – the Highway 10 Express Route. Parks and Recreation : No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN : Planning Division : This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial and Mixed Use for this property. The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has requested to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to allow modifications to two driveway locations along Cantrell Road including eliminating the existing median of the drive aligning with Southridge Drive to allow the creation of a four-way intersection, to redesign the drive located adjacent to the Shell Station and to allow a “rear entrance” to be opened accessing Woodland Heights Road. Master Street Plan : Cantrell Road is a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Woodland Heights Road is a Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard the same as a Collector. These streets may require January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 7 dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan : There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Landscape : 1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The proposed new parking along the southeast corner of the site does not comply with the City’s Buffer and Landscape Ordinances. The plan show a perimeter landscape strip of only two (2) feet. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum landscape strip of nine (9) feet in this area. A variance from this standard will require approval by the City Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. All existing vegetation, fencing, dumpster enclosures, and paving must be in good condition or replaced. 4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT : (June 23, 2011) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted the site plan needed to be cleaned up to indicate the previously approved snow cone stand and to eliminate notes that are no longer relevant since the development has occurred. Staff requested more information on the proposed parking located on the southern perimeter of the site. Public Works and Landscape comments were discussed. Staff commented that a round-a-bout should be constructed at the Woodland Height Road/Fairview Road/Pleasant Ridge driveway due to the lack of alignment of the intersection. It was noted that the plan appeared to show grading for the southern parking lot occurring off site. It was noted that the landscaping appeared to be deficient on this area. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 8 H. ANALYSIS : The applicant did submit a cleaned-up site plan. The outstanding issues still remain. The proposed new parking along the southeast perimeter is still in violation of the minimum standards of the Landscape Ordinance. Apparently, no change has been made to the Woodland Height Road/Fairview Road/Pleasant Ridge Driveway. The lack of alignment is still a concern. Staff is not supportive of the proposed changes to the driveways on the Cantrell Road frontage due to the negative impact those changes will have on the traffic on the congested arterial street. Staff is not supportive of the proposed rear entrance due two concerns. When the development was approved under Ordinance19,233, it was clear that rear access was a concern; so much so that the Ordinance included a provision that no rear access would be permitted without specific Board approval. Secondly, the lack of alignment in the intersection is of concern to the Traffic Engineer and Public Works. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JULY 14, 2011) The applicant was present. There were several persons present, both in support and in opposition. One letter of support and several letters of opposition had been received by staff and given to the commissioners. Commissioner Dillon recused on the item. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a recommendation of denial. City Traffic Engineer Bill Henry addressed the commission and discussed the history of traffic and driveway issues related to the site. He stated the site had been well-studied and there had been a lot of traffic analysis done on and around the site. He said changes had been made to the driveways in the past to increase traffic capacity on Highway 10. Mr. Henry stated the changes proposed by the applicant would significantly reduce the capacity of traffic on Highway 10 and would “lock-up” traffic on the street. He stated the City also did not support the proposed rear entrance. He said the design was dangerous as proposed and he saw no need for the driveway as the site had plenty of other access. Philip Kaplan, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the commission. He stated there had been much skepticism when the development was proposed in 2004 and that the skepticism has disappeared. He spoke of the positive qualities of the development and how much the site provided in the way sales and property taxes. He January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 9 stated it was the traffic engineers’ responsibility to work with developers and asked the commission to imagine if the City’s westward growth had not occurred. Mr. Kaplan said allowing the change to the Highway 10 driveway on the east would result in the elimination of two driveways on the north side of the street. He noted other four-way intersections providing access to a private site on Highway 10. He said the proposed changes to the western driveway would result in a safer condition since many people ignore the left turn prohibition at the driveway anyway. He said the driveway worked fine when it was a full-access driveway, before the City made the driveway be changed to a right-in/right-out only. Mr. Kaplan said the applicant had stated in 2004 that he would come back prior to opening the rear driveway; that he had not stated there would never be a rear driveway. He said messages texted in about the rear driveway ran 157-12 in support. Mr. Kaplan said the rear driveway would not create new traffic, that the traffic was already there. Mr. Kaplan recalled the opposition to the initial development and asked who would be opposed now. Keith Wingfield, of 6 Tory Court, spoke on behalf of Christ the King Church. He said the Church supported the rear driveway because they were interested in pursuing the abandonment of Woodland Heights, which bisects the Church’s ownership. He said as a residential home builder, he thought the shopping center was beneficial to the neighborhood. Tom Vaughan, of 11300 Cantrell Rd., indicated his support for the application. Linda Stauffer, of 13106 Pleasant Forest Drive, spoke in opposition. She said the Center had created traffic problems on Cantrell which, in turn, caused an increase in traffic on Pleasant Forest. She stated she was opposed to allowing the rear entrance. Ms. Stauffer said the neighborhood expected that the rear entrance would not be opened. She said the Center may have provided increased value to the City but she asked at what cost. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition to each aspect of the applicant’s proposal. Craig Williams, of 11902 Pleasant Forest Dr., spoke in opposition. He recalled the 2004 process and said the developer had agreed at the time not to have a rear entrance to the Center. He said the neighbors had concerns about traffic at the time and to open the rear entrance would cause more traffic to come through the neighborhood. Mr. Williams said the Center had an occupancy rate of 90% so the lack of a rear entrance was apparently not a problem. He said Easter Seals was neutral on the subject, not coming out in support. He asked the commission to support staff and keep the rear entrance closed. Marlena Grunewald, of 11325 Rocky Valley Dr., noted her opposition and deferred to the Pleasant Valley POA representative. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 10 Gina Bass, Director of the Pleasant Valley POA, spoke in opposition. She said most of her neighborhood’s concerns at the time the Center was originally approved were traffic-related. She questioned why the applicant was even coming back to the commission. She questioned the “texted” numbers quoted by the applicant. Ms. Bass stated a survey indicated 84% of the Pleasant Valley residents wanted the rear driveway kept closed. She asked the commission to support staff and keep the rear entrance closed. Brandon Mazander, of 12306 Pleasant Forest Dr., spoke in opposition. Ray Rodgers, of 12219 Pleasant Forest Dr., spoke of his concerns about traffic on his street. He said the developer had agreed in 2004 not to have the rear entrance. Mr. Rodgers said the Center had five (5) entrances. He asked the commission to “do the right thing” and reject the applicant’s proposal. Dale Emmerling, of 10701 Crestdale Ln., spoke of traffic problems in the area and voiced his opposition to opening the rear entrance. Gary Jefferson, of 10 Shawbridge, recalled the past opposition to the development by Pleasant Valley residents. He said the developer had agreed to not have the rear entrance. He said he was opposed to opening that entrance. Jeff Yates, of 66 El Dorado Dr., complemented the Center but stated he too had concerns about traffic and opening the rear driveway. He said compounding the problem wouldn’t make it right. He said traffic in the overall area was a problem and would continue to get worse. He said a comprehensive State and City response was needed to address the larger issue of traffic problems in the area. He asked the commission to deny the application. Jim Beechboard, of 3224 Shenandoah Valley, stated he too remembered the 2004 discussions and he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Kaplan’s memory of events. He said there was an expectation that the rear driveway would not be opened. Mr. Kaplan reiterated that the applicant had never committed to never having the rear driveway. He said the applicant could not fix traffic problems in the overall area. He said making the proposed changes in the driveways onto Cantrell Rd. would help traffic on that street. He asked the commission to approve the application. In response to a question from Commissioner Brock, Traffic Engineer Bill Henry stated the traffic count on Pleasant Forest Drive was 6,000 vehicles per day. He said the City had tried to slow traffic on the street. Mr. Henry said the count on Cantrell Road was in the range of 40,000-50,000 vehicles per day, which was 25% over the road’s capacity. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 11 Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Henry about Mr. Kaplan’s comments about the western driveway onto Cantrell. Mr. Henry said AHTD had erected signage telling motorists not to make a left turn but some people just don’t obey the law. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the problem was more prevalent due to a design flaw. Mr. Henry responded that the problem wasn’t as prevalent as Mr. Kaplan made it out to be. Commissioner Rector asked if it wouldn’t help to have two opportunities to make a left turn in to the site. Mr. Henry responded that making the entrances full service would result in having to give extra time at the driveways to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site, thus slowing traffic on Cantrell. In response to a question from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Henry said the State (AHTD) regulated traffic from a private drive onto a state highway (Highway 10). In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, Mr. Henry reiterated his contention that allowing the two full service drives, as proposed by the applicant, would result in backing up traffic on Cantrell Road, both east and west bound. He said the proposal would result in a serious congestion issue. Chairman Ferstl asked if staff would support one or the other driveway changes on the Cantrell Road driveways, as opposed to both as requested by the applicant. Mr. Henry responded that staff could not support either change as they would each affect traffic on Cantrell and reduce the traffic capacity of the street. Commissioner Changose asked Mr. Henry if it was his opinion that both driveway changes proposed by the applicant for the Cantrell Road driveways would slow traffic on Highway 10. Mr. Henry responded yes. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Kaplan, if the concession was made in the original application to not have the rear driveway, why was it being reconsidered now. Mr. Kaplan responded that concessions are made politically, if it appears it will take a concession to get approval, as long as the concession is made with the proviso that it may be reconsidered in the future. He said the concession was necessary at the time, but it was not intended to be in perpetuity. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Kaplan why he should vote for the changes. Mr. Kaplan responded because they make sense. Commissioner Nunnley said his concern was the integrity of the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Kaplan if there was one of the proposed changes he could chose to ask for over the others. Mr. Kaplan responded that he could not. Mr. Kaplan stated the traffic engineer employed by the applicant disagreed with the City’s traffic engineer’s assessment of the issue. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 12 Commissioner Rector told Mr. Kaplan that the applicant had made a compromise to gain the original approval and a deal is a deal. He said the other side doesn’t agree to any change. A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff comments and conditions except that of denial. The vote was 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 recusing (Dillon) and 1 absent. The motion failed. STAFF UPDATE : The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a proposed amendment to the Pleasant Ridge Towne Center PCD at their July 14, 2011, public hearing. The amendment to the PCD was to add a rear entrance, reduce the landscape strip between this property and property owned by the Catholic Church to allow for additional parking and to modify two driveway locations/entrances along Cantrell Road. The Commission did not support the request and recommended denial. This item was on the Little Rock Board of Directors agenda on December 13, 2011, as an appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial. The applicant amended the request prior to the Board of Directors hearing the appeal. The amended request removed the rear entrance and the reduction in the landscape strip for additional parking. The Board of Directors determined this was a significant change from the item as presented to the Planning Commission and referred the item back to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : (JANUARY 5, 2012) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates, Mr. Phil Kaplan and Mr. Ernie Peters were present representing the applicant. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated Public Works staff had modeled the existing traffic volumes in the corridor and had used the traffic volumes provided by the applicant. Staff stated during the PM peak traffic was congested but did continue to function. Staff stated when there was an accident this could create a problem with traffic back-ups. Staff stated the 2011 accident rates were at .4 per million vehicles. Staff stated at the intersection of Chenal and Bowman the rate was 1.5 and at University and Cantrell the rate was 1. Staff stated the role of an arterial was to move vehicles through a corridor and the secondary function was to serve the adjacent businesses. Staff stated the existing driveway locations served to allow the traffic to flow through the area and allow the businesses to be served. Staff January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 13 stated signal spacing was typically allowed at ½ mile spacing but there were four traffic lights within less than ½ mile in this area. Staff stated there were 53,000 vehicles per day traveling this section of Cantrell Road. Staff stated this volume was nearing freeway volume levels. Staff stated increasing access did not come for free. Staff stated the changing of the signals would impact traffic on Cantrell Road. Staff stated when reviewing traffic flows it was important to not look at one area but to look at the corridor as a whole. Staff stated the original plan submitted included intersections as proposed by the applicant but was modified based on staff concerns to the current configuration. Staff stated the current configuration was what was approved in the original plan and was currently working. Staff stated Cantrell Road was overcapacity. Staff stated with the changes the congestion would increase which would result in a decreased capacity. Phil Kaplan addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the continuous issues had been removed from the request and the objector now was the City’s Traffic Engineer. He stated the modifications to the traffic signals would assist traffic flows in the area. He stated the problem was not at the Shopping Center but at I-430 and Cantrell Road and Rodney Parham and Cantrell Road. He stated there had been two letters of support provided to the Commission. He stated these letters were from residents of Walton Heights. He stated the letters outlined traffic and safety concerns of the residents of Walton Heights. He stated in addition one of the letters outlined how the Walton Heights/Candlewood Property Owners Association was set up and that the Association was not representative of the entire neighborhoods desires. He stated with the revisions a future driveway on the north side of Cantrell Road proposed to serve an office building would be eliminated. He stated the completion of the AHTD Traffic Study was five to six years away. He stated the proposal would improve access in the area which was a benefit to the public and the residents of Walton Heights. Ernie Peters of Peters and Associates addressed the Commission outlining the traffic study his firm had prepared. He stated the development was mostly built-out with one vacant out-parcel and a few vacant lease spaces. He stated the proposed “T-Intersection” was similar to a number of intersections in the City. He stated this was a major east/west route and the traffic volumes were high. He stated the traffic counts indicated 48,000 to 53,000 vehicles per day in front of the Shopping Center. He stated the congestion was not caused by the three signals at this location but due to the I-430 and the Rodney Parham Cantrell Road intersections. He stated there were a number of proposal being considered and one was to connect Woodland Heights Road to Rodney Parham Road. He stated this would improve connectivity in the area. He stated the left turn conflict with the through traffic interrupted traffic flows. He provided the Commission with 2011 Traffic Volumes and turning movements at the intersections of Cantrell Road and Rodney Parham Road and at Cantrell Road and I-430. He stated the problem was not at the three intersections serving the Shopping Center but at these January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 14 higher volume intersections. He stated AHTD was currently working on a project, which would allow west bound motorist to access I-430 without having to turn and go south to then go north. He stated a portion of the congestion was caused by left turns and the inability to stack these left turns out side the through lanes. He stated there was currently 420 feet of left turn capacity located in front of the Shopping Center that could not be used because of prohibited striping. He stated with the redesign additional stacking for left turn capacity could be obtained reducing the spill-over into the through lanes. Mr. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated Cantrell Road functioned as a through street but also accommodated stop and go traffic for shopping. She stated it was inefficient to look at these two intersections. She stated it was important to review the corridor from Pleasant Valley to Taylor Loop Road. She stated it was important to look at the big fix. She stated the State, the City and the private section should all work together to develop a long-term solution and not just a quick fix for a short term problem. Commissioner Finney questioned why the two traffic models differed if both engineers used the same modeling program. Mr. Peters stated there was a large amount of data input and assumptions that went into developing the traffic analysis. He stated signal data was also entered into the model. He stated he could not explain the difference in the results. He stated he felt the request would improve traffic flows in the area as well as access and provide additional time for the side streets. He stated this was not a total fix but a significant improvement for the area. Public Works staff stated they too could not explain the difference in the results. Staff stated it was true a large amount of data input and a number of assumptions went into the model. Staff stated allowing the extra signal would result in the loss of some green time on Cantrell Road. Staff stated based on their model these seconds lost would create additional congestion in the area. Chairman Ferstl questioned the time frame for the AHTD study currently underway in this area. Staff stated they could not respond to the time frame for completion. Staff stated the Highway Department had held public meetings to obtain in-put for area residents. He stated he felt to approve a request prior to the Study being completed would handcuff the City in the future when the Highway Department recommendations were finalized. Mr. Peters stated there were projects currently funded by AHTD that would improve traffic in the area. He stated the placement of a ramp to allow direct northbound movements for motorist traveling west on Cantrell Road to I-430 would be an improvement. He stated with the current design should additional lanes be added to Cantrell Road in this area the only modification would be to relocate the signal poles. January 05, 2012 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-L 15 He stated the additional 420 feet of left turn stacking capacity would also improve traffic flows in the area. He stated with the current request all the changes were privately funded. Commissioner Rector stated the bottleneck was at Rodney Parham Road. He stated the additional 400 feet plus of left turn stacking capacity not being used was a concern. He stated he felt the signals could be timed to allow the left turns at the three signals all at one time and this would not result in additional delays on Cantrell Road. He stated he felt the proposal made sense. He stated once the AHTD study was complete if there were changes the State would make those changes regardless of what the City approved. A motion was made to approve the request as presented including all staff recommendations and comments except that of denial. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes and 4 absent. O 0 w w 0 U) 0 0 C �1 L1J O qz _0 c 73 0 -70 C C].] 00. LJ U) W Of Z Q Z m uj L 6 L1J missal I III come m Emile ININN milli milli 1 IN 11111111 IN loon Nil mom Cr E © UZ(D��ywZfZ C] m LU (J) 0 0 - Q �L U Lu Z - O � i t_ m Q}' Z LL. S Z LL _..1 0 CL' 2 0 C)f � Z 2 Z < a- p U LY 1111111111110 mom sommorm Sam momommilles _0 c 73 0 -70 C C].] 00. LJ U) W Of Z Q Z m uj L 6 L1J Cr E © UZ(D��ywZfZ C] m LU (J) 0 0 - Q �L U Lu Z - O � i t_ m Q}' Z LL. S Z LL _..1 0 CL' 2 0 C)f � Z 2 Z < a- p U LY _0 c 73 0 -70 C C].] 00. LJ U) W Of Z Q Z m uj L 6 L1J January 5, 2012 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. l�v ! Dat Ch ' man