HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 04 2010sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present there being nine (9) members present.
II. Members Present: Tom Brock
“Goose” W. Changose
Janet Dillon
J. T. Ferstl
Dan Harpool
Troy Laha
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Bill Rector
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: None
Two (2) Open Positions
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 23, 2010 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 4, 2010
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
A. Z-4953-C Park Avenue Revised Long-form PCD, located on the
Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and South University
Avenue.
B. Z-8573 Wilson Short-form PD-R, located at 66 – 70 Avignon Court.
C. Z-8574 Buntaine Short-form PD-R, located at 303 Rosetta Street.
D. Z-8556 Red’s Towing Inc. Short-form PD-C and Right of Way
Abandonment for West 24th Street, located at 2227-2229
Wilson Road.
E. Z-3419-E A Cut Above Revised Short-form PCD, located at 302 North
Shackleford Road.
F. Z-8589 Lei Short-form POD, located at 2019 Watt Street.
G. Z-8585 National Property Holdings Short-form PID, located at 1608
Nichols Street.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
1. S-57-SS Riverdale Addition Replat Tracts E-2, F and G1, located at
#1 Allied Drive.
Agenda, Page Two
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
2. S-1240-N Nissan of Little Rock Subdivision Site Plan Review, located
at #1 Colonel Glenn Plaza.
3. S-1081-D Kaufman Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 5100
Asher Avenue.
4. S-1649-B The Valley Estates Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at
9501 Mabelvale Pike.
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
5. Z-6476-C Coulson Oil Company Revised Short-form PCD, located at
19500 Cantrell Road.
6. Z-6640-B Bailey Revised Short-form POD, located at 1723 North
University Avenue.
7. Z-6732-E Downtown Dog’z Short-form PCD, located at 918 East 7th
Street and 625 Byrd Street.
8. Z-6883-B Duce Revised Short-form PD-R, located at 5212 I Street.
9. Z-8294-A Oak Glenn Revised Short-form PD-R, located in the 1900
Block of Watt Street.
10. Z-8490-A Johnson Revised Short-form PCD, located at 4314 Asher
Avenue.
11. Z-8603 West Short-form PD-R, located at 2406 West 13th Street.
12. Z-8604 Talbert Short-form PCD, located at 18601 Kanis Road.
Agenda, Page Three
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
13. Z-8605 Lot 1 Edwards Subdivision Short-form POD, located at
11601 Kanis Road.
14. Z-8606 Watson Short-form PD-R, located at 431 Midland Street.
15. Z-8607 Angles Short-form PD-C, located at 15005 Cooper Orbit
Road.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
16. LA-0033 Baseline Road Land Alteration Variance Request, located
East of 10701 Baseline Road.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
NAME: Park Avenue Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and
South University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
ENGINEER:
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
PLANNER:
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development – Residential, Office (O-2, Office and
Institutional District uses), Retail (C-2, Shopping Center District uses)
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development – Residential, Office (O-2, Office and
Institutional District uses), Retail (C-2, Shopping Center District uses)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Park Avenue Long-form PCD was approved by the Planning Commission at their
June 19, 2008, public hearing. The plan reviewed and approved by the Planning
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
2
Commission contained 748,250 total square feet of which 429,000 square feet was
proposed as residential. A total of 476 residential units were proposed. Of this
126 units were located in the western most building. The residential units were located
within the “town center”. The site plan indicated the placement of 1,798 total parking
spaces of this 889 parking spaces were located in the existing parking deck. The site
plan indicated a total of 42,800 square feet of common space. Included in the common
space was the plaza area containing 15,760 square feet.
Ordinance No. 19,990 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 1, 2008,
rezoned 28.39 acres from C-3 to PCD to allow the establishment of the Park Avenue
Long-form PCD.
The Board approved plan allowed for mixed-use development containing residential,
office and commercial uses. The development proposed the construction of
753,400 square feet of space including a four level multi-family residential building
located near the intersection of St. Vincent’s Circle and South University Avenue. The
approved site plan allowed the use of an existing parking deck in addition to surface
parking. A new parking deck was proposed in conjunction with the multi-family at the
intersection of South University Avenue and St. Vincent’s Circle. The breakdown of the
753,400 square feet is as follows:
Project Data:
Retail/Restaurant 89,400 square feet
Anchor 162,600 square feet
Cinema 36,000 square feet
Residential or Residential and Hotel 313,900 square feet
(MAX. INCLUDING HOTEL – 127 rooms)
900 SF AVG. 330 Units
Office 31,500 square feet
Office Options 120,000 square feet
Total Square Footage 753,400 square feet
Parking Provided:
Surface Spaces/Lot A 384 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot B 276 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot C 17 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot D 39 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot E 0 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot F 47 spaces
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
3
Existing Parking Structure 679 spaces
New Parking Structure Up to 360 spaces
Total Spaces 1,802 spaces
Building Lot Coverage 333,400 Sq. Ft. 27.0 %
Parking Lot Coverage 387,400 Sq. Ft. 31.3 %
Common Space 43,400 square feet
With the overall approval a variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow an increased wall height for the retaining wall located along the western
perimeter of the site near the intersection of St. Vincent Drive and McKinley Street was
granted. Also approved was a variance request from the Master Street Plan to allow
driveways spaced along the abutting streets less than typically required per the
ordinance. The Board of Directors approved a variance request from the Master Street
Plan to allow a reduced right of way width for South University Avenue by the adoption
of Ordinance No. 19,989.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
Strode Property Company is now requesting an amendment to the current
planned zoning development to reduce the total square footage and to modify the
locations of some of the approved elements. The site of the former University
Mall is 28.39 acres of land and has been improved with a Target store of
137,000 square feet of retail and related site work.
Strode Property Company purchased the property in September of 2007 and
began demolition of the deteriorating facility in November 2007. The University
Mall was demolished in 2008 and the hazardous materials were removed under
the supervision of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
The revised plan for the new development, named Park Avenue, still involves a
mixed use concept incorporating retail, restaurant, office, residential and hotel.
The design scheme will use building materials and site-scapes that invite
customers, residents and employees to the development with open space and
comfortable street-scapes. Integrating retail with multi-family and designing open
street scapes into the site plan is intended to give the development a much
desired “sense of place”.
Specifically the revised plan includes 579,650 square feet of total building area.
The development will utilize the existing two (2) story parking structure. The
remainder of the site will be surface parked using a formula that reduces the
standard parking ratios by complimentary use (i.e. office parking by day,
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
4
residential by night). Traditional retailers and restaurants will continue to demand
a parking field in front of their store for customers.
With the current plan of 567,050 square feet, the components breakdown as
follows:
Retail (anchor, restaurant, retail) 245,750 square feet
Potential Office 70,000 square feet
Residential Phase I 230 units 207,000 square feet
Residential Phase II 127 units 114,300 square feet
The total number of parking spaces for the development is calculated at a ratio of
3.2 per 1,000 square feet of floor area or a total of 1,898 spaces. The site is
proposed to allow the parcels to be subdivided into smaller parcels and out-lots.
Park Avenue is designed to meet the purpose and intent of the Mid-town DOD by
creating the ability to work, live, shop and recreate in one location. This will be
achieved by using the ground floor of key building pads for retail space similar to
the description in the DOD. There will also be multiple free standing single user
retail buildings within the site plan.
The project architect will use common elements (either colors or materials) to
achieve architectural harmony throughout the development. The building
façades will be constructed using a predominance of masonry, stone or exterior
insulation finish system and the retail ground floor will utilize a glass store front
system. To address long or tall building elevations, special care will be taken to
break up the mass with articulations of color and/or material changes.
The signage will include multi tenant and single tenant monument type structures
at all entrances. Directional and “way finding” signs will direct visitors across the
project and will include tenant logos. Tenant signage will be strictly governed by
the owner to insure a cohesive, controlled and unique “branding” of the
development. Tenant signage on some buildings may be allowed along the rear
of the building abutting the public right of way and on the internal drives and in
some cases signage may be allowed on three sides of the building.
The residential units of Park Avenue will initially be for rent and the residents will
utilize the parking structure mentioned previously. This component will include
private areas for fitness, sunbathing or congregating and there may also be
balconies to encourage the residents to embrace the open spaces and promote
the “sense of place”. A skywalk is proposed to allow residents of the southern
building covered/heated and cooled access to the parking deck. The materials of
the skywalk will be compatible to the materials used in the remainder of the
development.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
5
Parking lot lighting will be pole mounted over a concrete base at levels necessary
to promote residents and customer safety at the development. A cohesive
landscape plan along the street-scape/common space plan that will cover
49,600 square feet of the site is proposed with special emphasis on the “town
center” of Park Avenue. Whether it is residents walking pets, customers eating
ice cream or holiday celebrations, Park Avenue will invite “community” within the
development and Little Rock.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The anchor, Target, is currently under construction and near completion. The
internal drives and parking for Target have been installed. The developers
retained the parking deck structure of the former University Mall. The area is a
mix of office, commercial and institutional uses. St. Vincent’s Hospital is located
to the east of the site, across South University Avenue, and has recently
undergone an expansion in the emergency department. Doctors Office building
and St. Vincent’s Doctors Hospital is located to the South of the site, across
St. Vincent Circle. To the west of the site is residential housing, both
single-family and multi-family homes. North of the site are office and commercial
uses including a multi-story office building located at the southwest intersection
of West Markham and South University Avenue. A branch bank building once
stood at the property’s northeast corner but has been removed. There is a
restaurant with a drive-through, a high rise residential tower and a funeral home
located to the north of this site fronting West Markham Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of phone calls from the area
residents and property owners requesting additional information. All property
owners located within 200 feet site, all residents, who could be identified, located
within 300 feet of the site, the Briarwood Neighborhood Association and the
Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The access easement of McKinley Street should be dedicated to the City of
Little Rock. A portion of the right-of-way is a private access easement.
Additional right-of-way may be required to be dedicated if the eastern half of
the right-of-way is not 30 feet from centerline.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
6
2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Stormwater
detention is not required for the proposed development due to the amount
of proposed impervious surface compared to the amount of impervious
surface that existed prior to site work beginning.
3. Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
4. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
5. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
South University Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
6. With site development, provide the design of the streets conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to St. Vincent
Circle including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The street
improvements have been installed except for completing the sidewalks at
the intersection of South University Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
7. South University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is
required per the Master Street Plan. A variance has been approved by the
Board of Directors to reduce the right-of-way dedication. With this approval
no dedication is required along South University Avenue since sufficient
right-of-way exists.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The minimum driveway
spacing on a commercial street (St. Vincent Circle) is typically required at
250 feet. The width of driveway is not to exceed 36 feet. A previous
variance was approved by the Planning Commission to allow the driveway
locations as shown and to allow a driveway that exceeds 36 feet in width.
As per the approval, the western driveway is used for truck access only.
9. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
10. 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).
11. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction if the amount of cut
and fill is equal to or greater than 1,000 cubic yards or if vertical cuts and
fills are greater than 10 feet. Site grading and drainage plan will be required
to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
7
12. 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.
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 regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). On site fire
protection and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or
fire protection system 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 Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a major connecting point between five CATA
routes. In order to prevent major tie-ups along St. Vincent Circle a bus pullout
lane of at least 140-feet must be available along westbound St. Vincent Circle
between South University Avenue and McKinley Street. The current curb lane
along the south side of St. Vincent Circle for eastbound buses must also be
maintained. The final street configuration for St. Vincent Circle should allow for a
minimum of two lanes in each direction. One of the two lanes will be used for
bus loading; the other lane will be used for through traffic.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
8
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Planned Commercial Development. The revised Planned
Commercial Development is proposed to continue to have commercial,
residential and office uses. Each Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its
own merits with consideration of the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding
areas. This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood Plan, but the plan
does not address this issue.
Master Street Plan: South University Avenue is shown as 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 South University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial.
St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street are both shown as Local Streets. 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
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 this immediate area.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The Mid-town DOD addresses specific criteria related to landscaping.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 2, 2010)
Mr. Chuck Keller of Strode Property Development Company was present
representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were a number
of outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing
prior to the Commission acting on the request. Staff requested Mr. Keller provide
the areas included in the calculation for common space. Staff stated some areas
of the site did not appear to provide pedestrian connectivity. Staff stated the site
plan indicated some of the buildings located along South University Avenue with
building setbacks greater than 20-feet as typically allowed in the Mid-town DOD.
Staff also requested Mr. Keller provide the location for dumpster facilities and to
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
9
include a note on the site plan concerning the proposed screening mechanism
for the dumpsters. Staff stated parking fields were indicated with more than
50 parking spaces. Staff questioned the measures that would be taken to soften
the indicated parking fields.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated access easements for
McKinley Street should be dedicated to the City. Staff stated all street
improvements plans should include signage and striping. Staff stated the drives
indicated did not meet the minimum standards of the Master Street Plan but
during the previous review process the Commission approved the driveway
locations on St. Vincent’s Circle. Staff stated these drives were existing today.
Staff stated the Board of Directors approved a reduction in the required right of
way for South University Avenue during the initial review process. Staff stated
they felt this approval would carry forward to the current request.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the landscaping was to
comply with the City’s buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. Staff stated
the landscaping within the development was to also comply with the Mid-town
DOD.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed site plan and the
previously approved site plan. Staff stated they administratively approved a
revision to the “town center” area. Mr. Keller stated he felt the current design of
the “town center” would allow the ends of the “town center” to be barricaded and
allow for events to take place within the area. Mr. Keller stated there would not
be a step-up curb located in the “town center” area. He stated automobile
bumpers would be installed to allow for the continuous flow of the area. He
stated landscaping would be incorporated into the “town center” area to provide a
streetscape as is located in the typical downtown areas.
There was a general discussion concerning the design of the buildings and the
multi-family being located on the ground floor of the southern “town center”
building. Mr. Keller stated the units would be walk-up units but the fronts would
be designed as a block face.
Mr. Keller stated the request for the number of uses located within the western
most building was so broad because there was not a true user at this time. He
stated the multi-family developers felt there was need to add a second phase to
the multi-family portion of the development. He stated with the multi-family as an
option allowed the additional phase for multi-family units.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
10
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 and updated cover letter addressing
the issues raised at the September 2, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated areas of common space, addressed issues raised
concerning the Mid-Town DOD and indicated all rights of way dedications would
be taken care of when the final plat for the development is filed in the next few
weeks. The following Analysis addresses issues which were a part of the original
approval as well as new items which are being considered.
The revised plan for the development still involves a mixed use concept
incorporating retail, restaurant, office, residential and potentially a hotel.
Integrating retail with multi-family and designing open street scapes into the site
plan is intended to give the development a “sense of place”. Staff
administratively approved a redesign of the “town center” to allow for the removal
of the median.
With the current plan of 567,050 square feet, the components break down as
follows: (based on the western building having various options the total square
footage will not total the 567,050 total square feet)
Retail (anchor, restaurant, retail) 245,750 square feet
Potential Office 70,000 square feet
Residential Phase I 230 units 207,000 square feet
Residential Phase II 127 units 114,300 square feet
Included within the 567,050 square feet of building area is 321,300 square feet of
residential or 56.7 percent. The residential units are proposed with
approximately 900 square feet of livable space per unit and a maximum of
357 units are proposed (230 units in the “town center”. The developer has
indicated the northwestern building with alternative uses. The building is
indicated with 127 apartment units, or with a 127 room hotel, or 70,000 square
feet of office or 50,000 square feet of retail. The building is proposed with a
maximum of seven stories or 105-feet maximum height.
The revised plan includes 567,050 square feet of total building area. The
development will utilize the existing two (2) story parking structure. The
remainder of the site will be surface parked using a formula that reduces the
standard parking ratios by complimentary use (i.e. office parking by day,
residential by night). Traditional retailers and restaurants will continue to demand
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
11
a parking field in front of their store for customers. The development is proposed
to contain 567,050 square feet of both residential and commercial space and a
total of 1,898 parking spaces. Of the 1,898 parking spaces, 839 spaces
(44 percent) are located within the existing parking deck. The site is proposed
with 23.5 percent of the site covered with buildings and 28.8 percent of the site
covered with parking. The maximum parking allowed per the DOD is 2,520. The
minimum parking per the DOD would be 50% of the required parking or
1,260 parking spaces.
The site plan indicates the placement of 49,600 square feet of common space.
The plaza area contains 16,870 square feet of common space. An architectural
landmark at the western end of the plaza drive remains on the site plan. Based
on the DOD, a total of 5,670.50 square feet of common space would typically be
required.
The project is proposed with common elements (either colors or materials) to
achieve architectural harmony throughout the development. The building façade
will be constructed using a predominance of masonry, stone or exterior insulation
finish system and the retail ground floor will utilize a glass store front system. To
address long or tall building elevations, special care will be taken to break up the
mass with articulations of color and/or material changes. The development
includes the placement of a skywalk at the second level of the “town center” to
allow residents of the four story building access to the parking deck. The
applicant has indicated in inclement weather a covered/heated and cooled
access is desired for these residents. The skywalk will be constructed with
material compatible with the remainder of the development.
The right of way and bus pull-off are as approved with the original site plan. The
drive serving the western building is not indicated to comply with typical
ordinance standards. The drive must be relocated to eliminate the potential of
cars stacking onto McKinley Street waiting to turn left into the western most
building.
The fronts of the buildings will be located along the interior drive and the signage
in this location will allow identification of the tenants. In addition, the request is
also to allow wall signage along the street sides. Building signage is intended to
allow window, blade, awning and building signage for the retail and office uses.
Sign totals will equal 10% of the height multiplied by the width of the fascia area
to be “signed”. For freestanding buildings, building signage would be allowed on
three sides, except the second or third sign area total would be reduced by half,
as an example:
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
12
A. Primary Entrance Elevation: Assuming 190’ wide and 30’ tall x 10% would
allow 570 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning
signs on the front elevation.
B. Rear Elevation: Assuming 190’ wide and 30’ tall x 5% would allow
285 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the rear elevation.
C. Side Elevation: Assuming 160’ wide and 30’ tall x 5% would allow
240 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the side elevation.
Buildings with a second entrance “end-cap” or two faced storefronts would be
allowed a second sign as described in B or C above.
The development is proposing to place an identification sign at the
St. Vincent’s/South University Avenue entrance mounted on the existing wall.
The sign is proposed with individual letters and project logo with a maximum area
of 100 square feet. Two tenant identification signs are proposed with a
maximum height of six feet and a maximum sign area of 52 square feet. The
signs will be masonry sign constructed of materials used on the shopping center
building. Four shopping center identification sign are proposed with a maximum
height of 36-feet and a maximum sign area of 430 square feet. The signage is
larger than signage typically allowed per the Overlay District. The signage is
proposed with an overall dimension of 36 feet in height and 20 feet in width.
Seasonal Banners will be placed on light poles within the development.
The applicant has indicated all mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. The applicant has also indicated the low
architectural walls mansard roofs, parapets, gable or high roofs conforming to the
general architectural theme of the center.
All dumpster facilities will be screened with structurally sound materials that use
materials directly used on the face of adjacent structures, and will be at locations
accessible to tenants; exact locations as yet undetermined. Any dumpsters
located in an area visible from the street will be additionally screened with trees
and/or hedges.
The applicant has indicated the street buffer along South University Avenue to
meet the minimum landscape ordinance requirement of nine feet. The applicant
has also included landscape islands within the development to soften the impact
of the on site paved area. Pedestrian accesses are indicated to the site from all
three abutting streets. Staff has concerns with the pedestrian access from the
northern drive to the future retail building located at the intersection of
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
13
St. Vincent’s Circle and South University Avenue. Staff recommends the
applicant provide safe access through the eastern portion of the site to the
southern most lot.
The development is proposed to contain two lots but has been indicated to allow
for subdividing of the lots for out-parcels in the future. The lots have been
indicated to allow the developer flexibility should a potential user desire to own
their own property. The development will be served by an Operating and
Easement Agreement which will define cross access and cross parking
agreements within the development.
The following table is a side by side comparison of the DOD and the previously
approved plan with notes in bold type indicating the current plan and areas of
change:
Midtown Overlay District
Applicant’s Proposal
A planned zoning district process shall
be required for a new development,
redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of
the structure’s current replacement
value based on its configuration at the
time of the DOD’s adoption, and for
expansion of existing developments
exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s
current square footage at the time of
the DOD’s adoption. Routine repairs,
maintenance and interior alterations to
accommodate existing, expanding or
new tenants within the existing building
envelope shall not require compliance
with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown
Design Overlay District). The proposed
planned zoning development shall be
reviewed to realize a development plan
that is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Midtown Design Overlay
District.
The development is proposed as new
construction therefore a rezoning from
C-3, General Commercial District to
PCD is required.
A PCD was approved for this
site on July 1, 2008 by the
adoption of Ordinance No.
19,990.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
14
For a new development or structure of
over 100,000 square feet (excluding
structured parking), a mix of uses must
be provided. This mix may occur either
under the same roof or in adjacent
structures as part of a common
development. In order to be considered
a mix, the new development must
either:
Devote the majority of its leasable
ground floor space to a secondary use
i.e. retail in a multi-story office building;
or
Devote ten percent of the gross
leasable area of a single building to the
secondary use i.e. residential on the
upper levels of a multi-story office, retail
or institutional building; or
Devote fifteen percent of the gross
leasable area to a secondary use in a
separate building constructed and
occupied at the same time as the
primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a
pad adjacent to an office building.
The proposal is for a mixed-use
development containing retail and
residential; both in separate buildings
or as mixed uses within multi-story
buildings.
No change
The Midtown Design Overlay District
requires developments in excess of
200,000 square feet to contain a
residential component. The residential
may be in the same structure or a
separate structure, as long as the
separate structure is part of the overall
development and the overall
development is built simultaneously.
For any development constructed in
phases, a portion of the secondary
uses shall be included in the initial
phases.
Park Avenue will contain the required
residential component. However, the
residential or hotel at the northwest
corner of the property (separate
structure) may be constructed in a
separate phase as shown on the site
plan (phasing).
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
15
Façade treatment – for new
construction at least 60 percent of the
ground floor level facing internal
pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets shall be glass-windows, entry
features or displays.
The primary façade of a building shall
be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or
private.
Buildings shall maintain a distinction
between upper and lower levels; an
elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment,
which visually divides the structure into
stories.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum
of three feet deep and a minimum of 20
continuous feet not to extend over 20
percent of the façade shall be required.
Arches, display windows, entry areas or
awnings shall exist along at least 60
percent of the façade.
Some of the buildings will not contain a
minimum of 60 percent of the ground
floor as glass-windows, entry features
or displays.
The primary façade of the building will
be oriented parallel to the private
vehicular routes of travel within the
development.
Architectural treatments are indicated
on the multi-story buildings to visually
divide the structure into stories. The
proposed elevations for the major
anchor indicate an attempt to visually
break up the height of the structure
through the use of different colors and
materials.
Projections will be included along the
facades to break the massing of the
structure. Some of the buildings will
not contain arches, display windows,
entry areas or awnings along at least
60 percent of the façade.
No change
Entryway – Primary entrances shall be
oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel
within a development.
Buildings shall have clearly defined and
visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades,
arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
The primary entrances will be oriented
to the vehicular or pedestrian routes
within the development.
The buildings will contain clearly
defined and visible customer entrances
featuring elements such as overhangs,
arcades, arches, canopies, peaked
roof forms, and display windows.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
16
All sides of buildings that face abutting
public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one
customer entrance.
Elevations - No elevation facing an
arterial or greater street shall be
primarily used as a service entry or
otherwise be treated as the rear of the
structures.
New construction wider than 100 linear
feet shall be visually massed so as to
break the structure visually.
Rooflines shall be varied with changes
in height every 100 liner feet in building
length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable
roofs, high roofs, shall be used to
conceal flat roofs and roof top
equipment.
The buildings will not contain customer
entrances on all abutting streets.
The elevations abutting South
University Avenue will be designed as
four (4) sided buildings and will not be
used as a service entry or treated as
the rear of the buildings.
Based on the information provided to
staff, it appears the buildings will be
constructed to visually break the mass
of the structure through the use of
various materials and colors.
The site plan appears to comply with
this typical standard. There may be
exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3 based
on the information provided to staff.
No change
Exterior building materials and colors
shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors
used in neighboring developments.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall be of high quality materials; such
as but not limited to: brick, wood, store,
tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) concreted masonry
units. Façade colors – shall be low
reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone
with trim and accents brighter colors.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall not be smooth-faced concrete
block, tilt-up concrete panels or
prefabricated steel panels.
The development will be constructed
with painted concrete tilt wall, masonry
veneer, stone veneer or CMU block,
Glass storefronts, Metal panels,
Painted metal, Plaster or EIFS,
Perforated metal screens, Composite
wood panels.
The development will utilize tilt-up
concrete panels. The panels will be
scored for visual aesthetics.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
17
Projections (all requirements for a
franchise remain in place). Objects
shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way
except for awnings, signs, and
balconies.
Not applicable.
No change
Awnings shall not project more than five
(5) feet from the building facade and
have a minimum clearance of nine (9)
feet above pedestrian areas and
thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas.
Not applicable.
No change
Balconies over the public right-of-way
shall have a minimum clearance of nine
(9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1)
inch of projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above eight
(8) feet, provided that no such
projection shall exceed a distance of
four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be
supported with posts extending to the
sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony
brackets shall conform to minimum
clearance standards.
Not applicable.
No change
Building height – No building hereafter
erected or structural altered shall
exceed a height of 60 feet, except as
provided below. Structures may have a
greater height as follows, and these
bonuses may be cumulative:
Any structure that is certified by CATA
as provide a portion of the structure for
mass transit is entitled to add 15-feet.
Structures with a mix of uses with the
street-level primarily devoted to retail
uses and at lease 50 percent of these
uses having direct access to the street,
is entitled to add 25 feet to the
structure; alternately a development
The maximum building height will be
105 feet.
No change
The buildings along the “main street”
driveway are a maximum of 5-stories
in height. The buildings contain
ground floor retail and 4 stories of
residential. The northern buildings
incorporate access to the existing
parking deck. The southern buildings
are located over the underground
parking garage.
This was not on the plan
approved by the Board of
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
18
with an integrated parking facility
substantially located within the footprint
of the primary structure, is entitled to
add 25 feet to the structure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
structure located north of West
Markham Street and east of University
shall be limited to a height of 35 feet.
Directors – the “town center”
allowed two story buildings
with retail ground level and
live/work space on the
second level – the under
ground parking deck was
removed from the plan
approved by the BOD
The proposed building height of 105
feet is less than the 110 allowed with
the bonuses if consideration is given
for use of the existing parking deck
and underground garage.
No change
Building setbacks from property lines
and street rights of way shall be:
Front yard setbacks may be zero but
will not be more than 20-feet excepting
in those cases where grade changes
make such setbacks impractical.
The property fronts onto S. University
Avenue. It appears 2 of the 3 buildings
along the street are set in excess of
the 20-foot typical requirement.
No change
Side yard setbacks may be zero except
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the side yard setback shall be
a setback of not less than four (4) feet.
There is not residential abutting the
development.
No change
Rear yard setback may be zero, except
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the rear yard setback shall
have a setback of not less than 25-feet.
There is not residential abutting the
development.
No change
Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys –
Driveways and internal circulation
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
in width, but not more than 12 feet
excepting that width needed for bike
lanes or special pedestrian
accommodations.
The development is requesting the
allowance of 15-foot drive lanes.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
19
Intersections of internal drives or
streets will be minimally controlled by
stop signs, and will feature special
crossway paving or treated surfaces.
The development appears to be
complying.
No change
Access driveways running parallel with
the street shall not create a four-way
intersection within 125 feet of the
ultimate curb line of the public street.
The drives are located in excess of
125-feet from the street intersections.
No change
No more than one curb cut per block
face shall be permitted. Driveways and
parking lot entrances-exit shall be
combined and where appropriate
located in alleys.
There are 2 driveways on each street
perimeter. The property has more
than 2 blocks of frontage on each
street.
No change
Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways –
All driveways and internal streets shall
have minimum five foot sidewalks on
both sides located away from the back
of curb.
Some of the drives do not have
sidewalks located along both sides.
No change
All sidewalks fronting buildings with
ground floor retail shall be at least 10
feet in width.
Some of the walks are indicated less
than ten (10) feet.
No change
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be
provided through parking lots.
All developments shall include as part
of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent
buildings or developments.
Crosswalks shall be incorporated at
strategic locations to provide
pedestrian linkages to structures within
the development.
Additional pedestrian
connectivity is required to
link Retail Building E with
Retail Building L
Alleys – shall not be more than 20-feet
wide unless needed for emergency
access. Where an alley runs along a
property line, it shall be screened from
the adjacent property by a permanent
wall of high quality materials compatible
with neighboring buildings.
Not applicable. There are no alleys
located within the development.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
20
All new utilities for developments within
the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all
utilities onsite or within adjacent public
right of way wherever determined by
the utility agency to be feasible.
All new utilities for the proposed
development will be buried where
technically feasible.
No change
Trash enclosures shall be located in
alleys wherever available or in common
service areas for multiple
developments.
In all areas, service and waste removal
areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and
pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall
comply with Section 36-523.
Waste removal areas shall be
screened and located away from public
outdoor spaces and pedestrians when
physically possible.
No change
Parking facilities – wherever feasible,
multilevel parking structures shall be
encouraged. Surface parking shall be
limited to the side and rear of
structures, unless grouped in quantities
of 50 spaces or less separated by a
landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required
for the property by Chapter 15 of the
code or a structure from other vehicular
areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface
parking area. Surface parking areas
should be broken up or distributed
around large structures so as to shorten
the distance to other buildings and
public sidewalks. For corner lots,
parking is allowed along the side street
frontage.
The applicant is utilizing an existing
parking structure and is proposing to
construct an underground parking
garage.
A portion of the parking fields contain
more than 50 spaces.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
21
Parking requirements within the District
shall be 50 percent of that required by
Article VII of Chapter 36. The
maximum allowed parking shall be the
minimum standard established in Article
VII of Chapter 36.
The maximum parking allowed for the
development is 3,325 spaces. The
minimum parking allowed is 1,662
spaces. The development is proposed
to contain 1,798 spaces.
The maximum parking allowed
2,520 spaces. The minimum
parking allowed is 1,260
spaces. The development is
proposed with 1,898 spaces.
Shared parking. As an alternative to
subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use
developments may utilize the shared
parking methodologies developed by
the Urban Land Institute and published
in Shared Parking (Second Edition,
2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project
may elect this means of determining the
total parking requirement by submitting
a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified parking or traffic consultant,
a licensed architect, city planner, or
urban planner or civil engineer.
Not applicable.
No change
On-street parking. On-street parking on
internal streets or circulation routes
shall be allowed and may count
towards the parking requirement. On-
street parking is permitted either
parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent
to, retail or commercial entries. Angled
street (drive) parking shall not be
permitted on streets (drives) that
provide the development majority
access. Such parking may count
towards the overall project parking
requirements. No on-street parking
shall be allowed on University Avenue
or Markham Street.
Not applicable.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
22
No parking shall be allowed in the front
yard setback area.
Some of the parking will be located
within the front yard setback of South
University Avenue.
No change
Parking garage design – Parking
facilities should be designed consistent
with the overall project design. Where
possible, other uses, residential or
commercial should be used to wrap or
otherwise block the view of a parking
garage.
The development is utilizing an
existing parking structure (682
spaces). The structure will be
screened from view in most locations.
An underground parking garage is also
being constructed (207 spaces).
The parking structure is
indicated with 839 spaces. No
underground parking structure
is proposed.
Signage – Signage shall comply with
Article X except as follows – No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No
pole mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs are to identify the
development and be limited to 72
square feet in area and 6 feet in height
for developments greater than one
acre. Signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose
design theme and materials are directly
related to the primary development may
be submitted for approval under the
PZD process if located along University
southerly of Lee. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more
than 400 square feet.
No off-site signage is proposed. The
development is proposing signage
larger than typically allowed.
Four major tenant identification signs
are proposed with a height of 36 feet
and a sign area of 430 square feet.
The total area of the sign structures is
720 square feet (36’ X 20’).
No change
No street buffer or landscaping is
required along streets classified less
than an arterial. When the structure is
not built to the property line,
landscaping is required in the area
between the building and property line
up to that required in Chapter 15 of the
Code.
Landscaping will be placed along
South University Avenue where the
building is not placed at the zero
setback and where conflicts do not
exist.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
23
Land use buffers shall only be provided
where single-family and duplex use or
zoning is the abutting use. In those
cases where a land use buffer is
required, buffers shall be the same as
those for multi-family uses in Section
36-522(b)(1). In areas where terrain
variation is great or other features result
in the loss of privacy, alternative
designs and massing shall be
considered.
Not applicable.
No change
Common use areas and plazas shall be
a minimum of 300 square feet for
30,000 square foot structures. For
each additional 5,000 square feet or
portion thereof, a minimum of an
additional 50 square feet of plaza area
is required.
The site plan indicates the placement
of 42,800 square feet of common
space.
The site is indicated with the
placement of 49,600 square
feet of common space.
Surface parking lots shall meet all
current landscape requirements.
The surface lots will meet the
requirements of Chapter 15.
No change
Street trees shall be a minimum of 3-
inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the
back of curb, 30 feet on center. The
canopy shall be maintained with an 8
foot clearance. A four foot planter strip
shall be maintained.
Street trees will meet this requirement
as well as 4’ planter strip, where
possible. Conflicts could be
encountered along portions of
University and St. Vincent’s where
existing structures or utilities exist.
No change
Common use areas and plazas shall be
maintained by a common authority.
Attempts shall be made to maintain
vegetation, trees, bushes, in
undisturbed conditions to serve the
aesthetic, recreational and ecological
needs of the district. Trees planted in
these areas shall be a minimum of two
inches in caliper and ten feet in height.
Common areas will be maintained by a
common authority by private document
such as an “Operating and Easement
Agreement” between the parties within
the project.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
24
Trees greater than 14 inches in
diameter, measured at 4 ½ feet above
the ground, shall be protected from
removal and damages in future
development of the district. Any
development within 50 feet of such tree
shall be reviewed prior to development
to assure protective measures are
included and in place.
There are no trees located on this site.
No change
Lighting shall conform to the design
overlay district standards. The intent is
to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively
illuminating the property in question,
other properties or the night sky. Only
light fixtures which are categorized as
full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights are
permitted but not encouraged.
The maximum allowable fixture
mounting height is proposed to be 38
feet. The photometric plan will provide
that foot candle at the property line will
be zero.
No change
The ordinance provides for the
following specific standards for lighting
intensity based upon the activities
performed involved. Values are
presented in allowable foot candles (fc)
maintained (measured horizontally) at
grade and are to be averaged
throughout the site to avoid hot spots,
i.e. areas of extreme light intensity
relative to the remainder of the site:
Pedestrian areas/sidewalks
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc
Street lighting
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Pedestrian areas / sidewalks
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Has not been addressed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
25
Parking area
Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc
Playgrounds
Maximum 5.0 fc
Sports grounds
Maximum 20.2 fc
Site perimeter
Maximum 0.5 fc
Parking areas
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Site perimeter
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
No change
Gas station canopies shall be
illuminated at a maximum luminance of
thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall
be flush mounted or have the canopy
edge below the lowest light-emitting
point on the fixtures. All existing gas
station canopies that exceed this
standard shall be made compliant
within seven (7) years of the date of
adoption of this article.
Not applicable.
No change
Up lighting may be used to illuminate a
building, landscaping element or
architectural feature, provided the
lighting design has a maximum
luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured
in a vertical plane. Down lighting is
preferred.
Has not been addressed by the
applicant.
Will comply.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for
staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan
shall contain the following information:
An area lighting plan, drawn to scale,
indicating all structures, parking lots,
building entrances, vehicular and
Will comply.
No change
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
26
pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that
may interfere with lighting, and adjacent
land uses that may be adversely
impacted by the lighting. The plan shall
contain a layout of all proposed fixtures
by location, orientation, aiming
direction, mounting height and type.
The submission shall include, in
addition to proposed area lighting, all
other exterior lighting, e.g.,
architectural, building entrance,
landscape, flagpole, sign, etc.
A ten-foot by ten-foot luminance grid
(point-by-point) of maintained foot-
candles overlaid on the site plan plotted
out to 0.0 foot-candles, which
demonstrates compliance with light
intensity standards.
Property, if for any reason, that cannot
be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a
PZD.
Staff is continuing to review the site plan. Staff recommendation is forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair
explained that the Commission’s practice had been to offer the applicant a deferral of
their item to a later meeting when eight (8) or fewer Commissioners were present. He
stated to move an item forward with a positive recommendation the applicant had to
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
27
secure six (6) positive votes regardless of the number of Commissioners present. The
Chair questioned the applicant as to their desire for a deferral or if the wished to move
the item forward. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 4,
2010, public hearing.
A motion was made to defer the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
The developer submitted a revised site plan to staff on October 26, 2010, modifying the
building heights for two (2) of the buildings located within the “town center”. The revised
plan indicates the construction of a two (2) story retail building containing 58,000 square
feet along the northern portion of the entrance drive and the construction of a five (5)
story residential and retail building along the southern portion of the entrance drive. The
buildings located within the western portion of the “town center” have not changed. The
northern building remains as a five (5) story building containing retail on the ground floor
and residential on the remaining four (4) levels. The southern building remains four (4)
levels of multi-family residential housing and no retail. The developers have also
indicated Building D will contain less square footage than originally proposed. The site
plan indicates the building between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet.
The revised plan includes a total of 621,850 square feet, the components breakdown as
follows:
Anchor 136,932 square feet
Retail/Restaurant 151,818 square feet
Residential Phase I 235 units 218,800 square feet
Residential Phase II 127 units 114,300 square feet
The total number of parking spaces for the development is 1,862 spaces. The lot
coverage is 24.5% and the parking lot coverage is 28.2%. The common area proposed
is 49,600 square feet. All other aspects of the development remain the same.
Within the “town center” plaza area staff feels there should be an area of softscape or
green space integrated into the design. Staff feels this will provide a comfortable
atmosphere for the residents and visitors of the “town center”. Per the Statement of
Expectations for Redevelopment of the University Mall the Statement calls for the
creation of Public Open Spaces within the development. The Statement indicates the
space should be created as a kind of urban “living room”, near the core of the project
and constructed with high quality amenities such as fountains or public art.
For the most part staff feels this development meets the purpose and intent of the
Mid-town Design Overlay District ordinance and the Statement of Expectations for
Redevelopment of the University Mall. The purpose and intent of the DOD is to create a
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
28
medium density urban neighborhood that offers people the opportunity to live, work,
shop and recreate in a compact, pedestrian-friendly environment. Retail and services
and multi-family residential are to be the primary land uses. New development and
redeveloped properties are encouraged to vertically and horizontally integrate
compatible residential and non-residential uses. The DOD is intended to encourage
compatibility of existing and proposed land uses, the protection of established
neighborhoods and creation of strong linkages between major developments. The goal
is an economically healthy mixed-use neighborhood that features streetscapes,
public spaces and building forms that embody a unique sense of place. Within the
Statement of Expectations for the Redevelopment of the University Mall, the Design and
Aesthetics state the redevelopment should create a strong sense of place, provide a
pedestrian-friendly environment and provide public open spaces. Parking in midtown
should be correctly sited and designed with teaser parking and small lots as well as
within parking decks to eliminate the sea of asphalt. The buildings should be multi-story
constructed as mixed use buildings. Access and connectivity to West Markham Street,
Park Plaza and the adjacent hospital and medical centers should be provided.
The development approved by the Board of Directors allowed for two (2) story buildings
within the “town center” and no dedicated residential within this area. The current plan
allows for multi-family and retail within the “town center” core as intended by the DOD.
Staff feels with the current plan the developers have placed the residential in the “town
center” and incorporated the residential and retail allowing for a 24/7 activity center. In
staff’s opinion this creates a true mixed use development. The developers have
maintained the existing parking deck, created teaser parking within the “town center”
and created smaller parking lots allowing for the “seas of asphalt” to be broken as
intended by the Statement of Expectations. Staff feels the five story buildings with retail
on the ground floor allows for verticality within the development. Staff feels allowing one
building to contain residential on the ground floor allows for residential options within the
development and once again creates the 24/7 environment. Staff also feels this adds to
the pedestrian-friendly environment. The “town center” is proposed with an open plaza
area and the development will be constructed with a zero curb. As proposed the “town
center” can be barricaded at each end during special events such as concerts or street
fairs which will create the sense of place as intended with the Statement of
Expectations. Not only will the zero curb allow for more useable common area this will
also aid those who are physical challenged to move around within the space with ease.
The developers have indicated pedestrian connectivity within the site and provided for
options to allow connections to adjoining properties such as the adjacent hospitals.
Staff does feel however additional pedestrian connectivity should be installed to link
Retail Building E with Retail Building L. All other areas of pedestrian connectivity
appear to allow for proper movement through the site.
To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff feels the developers have done a good job in trying to develop the site
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
29
meeting the spirit of the intent of the Mid-town DOD and the Statement of Expectations
for the Redevelopment of the University Mall Site.
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 additional pedestrian connectivity be installed to link Retail Building E
with Retail Building L.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
Mr. Brock Martin, Chairman of the Midtown Redevelopment District #1 Advisory Board,
addressed the Commission providing the Commission with concerns raised at the
Advisory Board’s September meeting. He stated the mission of the advisory board was
to increase property values within the district. He stated the moving of the multi-family
to the “town center” was not a concern of the advisory board. He stated the advisory
board was concerned the site plan did not offer walkability and there were few open
areas for residents and visitors to use. He stated the advisory board was concerned
with the loss of retail along the “town center” street. He stated the southeast building
was indicated as a single-story building which did not allow for verticality within the
development. He stated the sidewalks were smaller with the current plan. He stated
the original approval allowed for walks 30-feet in width and in the current plan the walks
were reduce to 15-feet. He stated a big concern of the advisory board was the lack of a
destination feel the plan provided.
Mr. Chuck Keller addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated
the major change from the old and new plan was the moving of the multi-family to the
center of the development. He stated the original plan had the multi-family located at
the northeast corner of St. Vincent’s and South University Avenue. He stated the plan
included four (4) levels of residential and a parking garage. He stated this was the
biggest cost of the development. He stated by moving the multi-family to the center of
the development this would allow the multi-family to use the existing parking garage
and the residential aspect within the center of the development would lend itself to
a 24/7 environment. He stated the site plan did include pedestrian connectivity within
the development. He stated the main drive would include park benches, bicycle racks
and allow for places to congregate. He stated the development would include private
areas for the residents for grilling and recreation. He stated the parking located along
the main drive would be restricted parking. He stated parking within a development was
a management issue. He stated any parking issues could be resolved by management.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
30
Ms. Sharon Henry addressed the Commission in support of the development. She
stated her neighborhood was the Plaza Terrace Subdivision and was the closed
neighborhood to the development. She stated the neighborhood was excited by the
development and the developers investment in the area. She stated she was also
thankful to the Commission for working with the developers to redevelop the University
Mall site and not allow the site to sit with deteriorated buildings and a weed lot. She
stated she was thankful the area was continuing to change for the good and the
Commission for allowing the change to occur.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
current plan was better than the original submission but was not what the area needed.
He stated there were two areas of concern. He stated connectivity within the
development and around the perimeters of the development were lacking. He stated
the bus stop located on St. Vincent’s Circle was not located in a good location to access
the center. He stated the stop should be relocated to the east nearer the entrance drive
from St. Vincent’s Circle to allow bus riders easier access to the center. He stated
within the perimeter sidewalks there were light poles. He stated with the light poles in
the walks this was not very friendly to persons walking or persons with a disability. He
stated internally there were not enough walks to allow pedestrian to get out of the drive
lanes. He stated better connectivity was needed between the retail areas.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the request. She stated the League did feel this was an improved application but was
still lacking. She stated the areas around University and West Markham was
inhospitable for walkers and bicyclist. She stated the retail uses would require persons
visiting the center to support the businesses and would not be able to rely solely on the
residents of the multi-family units. She stated efforts should be made to make the site
more friendly to those not visiting the center in automobiles and discourage patrons
from getting in the cars to move from shop to shop within the development.
Mr. James Thompson, President of the Briarwood Neighborhood Association,
addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated he had questions of the developer
he would like answered. He questioned if there would be secure parking within the
parking deck, if the parking areas would be concrete or paved and if there would be any
indoor public space for residents of the Mid-town area to hold meetings.
Mr. Keller stated if there was secured parking for the residents of the multi-family it
would be in the parking deck on the second level, the parking areas would be concrete
and all the spaces were being constructed for lease. He stated if someone was
interested in leasing space his company was more than willing to talk with them. He
stated the multi-family would be sold to a group outside his company and they would
development residential. He stated his company was responsible for the retail
development. The Commission questioned who would be responsible for the common
areas. Mr. Keller stated Strode Properties would be responsible for the common areas.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-C
31
Mr. Keller stated the entrance drive from University Avenue as temporary. The
remaining improvements had been completed. The Commission questioned if the poles
were in the walks before the redevelopment began. Mr. Keller stated the poles were in
the walks prior to the redevelopment activities that had occurred on the site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and
2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-8573
NAME: Wilson Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 66 – 70 Avignon Court
DEVELOPER:
Robert M. Wilson, Jr.
c/o Stephen R. Giles, PA
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3200
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.75 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 – 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: MF-6
ALLOWED USES: Residential – 6 units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Allow to existing homes to be connected via a covered heated and
cooled walkup with both structures retaining full kitchens thus per the zoning ordinance
creating a duplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated July 29, 2010, requesting a deferral of this item
to the September 23, 2010, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010)
Mr. Stephen Giles was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated July 29, 2010, requesting a deferral of this item to the September 23,
2010, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8573
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, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated September 10, 2010, requesting a deferral of
this item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
Mr. Steve Giles was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted
a request dated September 10, 2010, requesting a deferral of this item to the
November 4, 2010, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item on the consent agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 15, 2010, requesting withdrawal of the
item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 15,
2010, requesting withdrawal of the item without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-8574
NAME: Buntaine Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 303 Rosetta Street
DEVELOPER:
Rolfe Buntaine
1201 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
BTE – Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Existing duplex
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Triplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property located at 303 Rosetta is currently a duplex unit with both units
located on the first floor. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow
the top floor to be finished as a studio apartment. The site contains an existing
paved drive located along the northern property line and a paved parking pad
within the rear yard area for two (2) cars. The parking pad is accessed via a
gravel drive across the property located to the north.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is zoned R-3, Single-family and is currently a duplex unit. Within
the general area there are a number of duplex and triplex units. There is a paved
drive extending from West 3rd Street to the rear parking pad. It appears the drive
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
2
has been constructed encroaching onto the adjacent property. Across from the
site is a property zoned R-4 which appears to be multiple units.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
property owners. A few have indicated opposition to the request. A few have
indicated support of the request. All property owners located within 200 feet site,
all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the
Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the public
hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A platted alley and/or platted access easement is not shown on the east side
of Lots 23 and 24 of C.S. Stifft's Addition to access the concrete parking area
on Lot 23.
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: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility,
installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be
installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires
that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW'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: Approved as submitted.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
3
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning to PRD to allow the conversion of an existing duplex
into a triplex. Residential Low Density is meant for single family homes and
triplex homes may be seen as too dense for this land use classification. Each
Planned Zoning District is to be reviewed on its own merits with consideration of
the Land Use Plan for the site and surrounding areas.
This area is covered by the Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Plan. Their
Community Preservation Goal states: “Enact a 'No Net Loss' policy in the
neighborhood, that is no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use,
etc.”
Master Street Plan: Rosetta Street 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.
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. Screening of parking areas will be required with the development of the site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 22, 2010)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating they had
contacted the applicant concerning the issues which had been raised during the
review process. Staff stated the applicant was working with an abstract company
to verify if there was a platted alley located on the rear of the lots. Staff stated if
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
4
the access issue was resolved then the applicant would add additional paving
within the rear yard area to provide three parking spaces and a fourth was
located in the front yard area. Staff stated the additional paving would allow the
development to meet the typical parking required by the zoning ordinance.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the July 22, 2010, Subdivision Committee
meeting in need of addressing via a revised site plan. The applicant has
provided staff with a determination from the abstract company which indicated
there was not an alley platted with the original subdivision abutting these lots.
There are two of the lots located in the area which have excepted five (5) feet
from the rear of their property. Lot 24 located to the north of this lot and Lot 21
which is located to the southeast of this lot. Residents have been using a
graveled drive extending from West 3rd Street to take access to the rear parking
area for this property which appears to be located outside the five (5) foot
exception on the western lot.
The site is proposed as a triplex unit with access to three (3) parking spaces in
the rear yard and the drive located on Rosetta to serve as a fourth parking space.
Based on the typical parking required for a multi-family development containing
three (3) units four (4) spaces would be required.
The applicant has provided staff with an agreement from the property owner to
the east allowing residents to drive across her property to access the rear
parking area. The drive is graveled and is 12-feet in width. The applicant has
not provided staff with an easement which will follow the property to provide
proper access continuously. Staff does not support the application as filed. Staff
has concerns with the rear parking area being provided proper access. The drive
as indicated is inadequate to serve the site as typically required for City services.
Within areas of the City which have platted alleys the alley is usually platted with
a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and in new areas a minimum width of
twenty (20) feet is required. Staff cannot support the request without proper
access to the rear yard area which is providing the parking required to serve the
units.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required
by the Planning Commission’s By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation of deferred
of the item to the September 23, 2010, public hearing.
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, 3 absent and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
Mr. Routh Buntaine was present representing the request. There was one registered
objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff
stated the applicant did not have legal access to the parking area in the rear yard area
proposed to serve the units.
Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he had
permission from the property owner to the east to allow access across her property. He
stated the area was not in an easement but people had been using the access for a
number of years. He stated the rear parking area contained two (2) spaces and were
used by the residents in the rear unit. He stated the City did not maintain the area but
there were utilities located in the area.
Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
area behind her house was not an easement according to the City. She stated the area
was overgrown and she had called the City to request the area be maintained. She
stated the City had told her the clearing of this area was not the City’s responsibility
because the area was not an alley.
She stated she had three concerns. She stated the first concern was parking. She
stated currently there were cars parked in the street from the multi-family development
across the street. She stated the addition of one more unit could create additional
street parking needs. She stated her second concern was dogs. She stated the current
residents had three to four dogs and the addition of one more unit could create
additional dogs. She stated this could cause a problem in the neighborhood by barking.
She stated her third concern was the possibility of a bad neighbor. She stated the
current neighbors were very pleasant but the addition of a third unit created the potential
for a bad neighbor.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
6
Mr. Buntaine stated he screened his residents very closely. He stated the current
residents had lived in the units for more than two (2) years. He stated the upstairs unit
would not be allowed pets. He stated the current duplex allowed for fenced yard areas
for the front and rear units which allowed a yard area for each unit for their pets. He
stated there would not be a problem with parking. He stated the upstairs unit would be
accessed from the alley and would not park in the front.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the current access and
the lack of an easement to provide proper parking. Mr. Buntaine stated he had an
agreement from the adjacent property owner indicating his residents had the right to
drive across her property for access. The Commission indicated this was not adequate.
Cindy Dawson, the Deputy City Attorney, stated an easement was required to allow for
continued access. She stated an agreement could be rescinded at will but a properly
recorded easement could not.
Mr. Buntaine requested a deferral of the item to allow time to visit with an attorney and
surveyor to determine the best means of access to the parking area.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral
of the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant is working with the adjacent property owners and a surveyor to provide a
legal description and dedication easement to allow for proper access to the site. Once
the additional information is received staff will review the information. Staff will provide
the Commission with a full update and final recommendation at the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Mr. Rolfe Buntaine was present. There was one registered objector present. Staff
presented the item stating the item was deferred from the Commission’s September 23,
2010 public hearing to allow the applicant time to secure easements to allow proper
access to the parking area located within the rear yard area. Staff stated the
easements had been obtained. Staff stated in the original staff write-up staff requested
an 18-foot access easement to allow for proper City services. Staff stated no services
would be provided from the alley and they were now comfortable with allowing the
access easement to be 10-feet.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8574
7
Mr. Buntaine addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated there
were currently two units downstairs and the upstairs unit would be completed as a
studio apartment. He stated there was sufficient parking on the site to handle three
units. He stated he would provide a paved drive from the parking area to the street as
requested by staff.
Ms. Lee Cowan addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her concern was
with the number of bedrooms and the potential number of residents within the structure.
She stated the existing duplex had four bedrooms and the studio apartment would add
an additional bedroom. She stated two persons per bedroom could generate ten
automobiles. She stated the area was predominately single-family. She stated there as
also a concern with additional pets. She stated additional units could generate
additional pets. She stated the approval of the triplex would change the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Buntaine stated the upstairs units would not be allowed dogs. He stated the only
exterior modifications to the site would be the rear parking area and the drive from 3rd
Street.
There was a general discussion by the Commission of the application and the access to
the parking area. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented
by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-8556
NAME: Red’s Towing Inc. Short-form PD-C and Right of Way Abandonment for
West 24th Street
LOCATION: Located at 2227-2229 Wilson Road
DEVELOPER:
Larry Warner – Red’s Towing
2227 Wilson Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
SURVEYOR:
Arrow Surveying
P.O. Box 13087
Maumelle, AR 72113
ARCHITECT:
Terry Burruss Architects
614 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Towing Service and Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The request is a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-C to allow the
use of the property as a vehicle towing business. The property is owned by
Red’s Towing, Inc. and has an established non-conforming use as an auto repair
facility. An existing structure containing an office, a shop with two (2) vehicles
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
2
lifts, tire changing equipment and storage areas is contained within the existing
building. The balance of the site is cleared and has been used for parking of
vehicles for the business.
The applicants is proposing to continue to use the existing structure for the
towing business and shop for repair of his personal vehicles. To operate the
towing business, the applicant proposes the following conditions:
1. The business hours of operation are Monday through Friday 9:00 am to
4:00 pm and 8:00 am to 12:00 pm on Saturday.
2. Parking areas will be improved, surfaced with asphalt strips/chips and will
park a maximum of 25 vehicles at any one time. Fill material and grading will
be done on the site as required.
3. Two (2) tow trucks and one (1) rollback will be in use and parked on site when
not towing vehicles.
4. The site will be enclosed with a security fence.
5. Security lighting will be downward directed away from adjacent properties.
6. Landscaping will be installed and maintained as per the site plan.
7. All business ingress and egress will be via 24th Street to Aldersgate Road with
a single access point on the southwest portion of the site.
8. No vehicle recovery (repossession) will be carried on at the site.
The applicant is also requesting the abandonment of a portion of West 24th
Street. The right of way was dedicated with the subdivision plat but has not been
constructed. The right of way dedication was 20-feet. The entirety of the
abandonment will revert to the property owners on the north side of Wilson Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a commercial building which previously housed an auto repair
business. There are two (2) paved parking spaces located within the right of way
of Wilson Road. The area to the south and east are undeveloped heavily
wooded properties. The area to the north is single-family with a number of new
homes in various stages of completion.
Within the general area from Aldersgate Road, Kanis Road and Junior Deputy
Road there are a number of new homes that have been constructed. Located to
the south of the site is Good Shepard Retirement Village. Two (2) blocks west
along Aldersgate Road is Camp Aldersgate, a facility serving persons with
medical or physical conditions or developmental delays and their families, as well
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
3
as senior adults by providing educational and recreational opportunities in an
out-of-doors camp environment.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
Wilson Road for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Wilson Street including
5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. The new back of curb should
be located 18 feet from centerline of the street.
3. 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).
4. Drainage easements should be maintained in the right-of-way to convey
stormwater from adjacent property.
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. Contact Central Arkansas Water if
additional fire protection or metered water service is required. All Central
Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service
must be met. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved
reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
4
domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of
use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results
must be sent to CAW'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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning to Planned Development—Commercial for a towing
company to utilize a former auto repair garage for an office to house the towing
equipment. The surrounding land is also shown for Residential-Low Density,
Residential-High Density and Residential-Medium Density. This use is not
typically allowed in any residential land use category. This area is covered by
the John Barrow Neighborhood Plan. Their Business and Commercial Goal
states: “enhance the climate directed towards encouraging new businesses and
commercial establishments to located in the area as well as retention of existing
businesses.”
Master Street Plan: Wilson Road and West 24th Street are both Local Streets.
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
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances
and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
5
2. Any new paving will require the placement of landscaping.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
northern, eastern and southern perimeters of the site. Credit towards fulfilling
this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies
this year-around requirement.
4. The landscape ordinance requires a nine-foot (9’) wide landscape strip
around the sites entirety.
5. 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: (June 10, 2010)
Mr. Terry Burruss was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development stating the request was filed as a result of an
enforcement action on the property. Staff stated the site had a history of an
automobile repair shop but the current user was a wrecker and towing company.
Staff stated the use of the site as the wrecker and towing company was not
allowed under the existing non-conformity. Staff also requested any fencing be
noted on the site plan. Staff questioned the days and hours of operation and the
number of employees and vehicles to be stored on the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Wilson Road would
require right of way dedication and street improvements per the Boundary Street
Ordinance. Staff sated the new back of curb should be located 18 feet from the
centerline of the street.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any new paved areas
would be required to comply with the landscape ordinance. Staff also stated
screening would be required along the sites northern, eastern and southern
boundaries. Staff stated a minimum landscape strip of nine (9) feet was required
around the sites entirety.
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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing the issues raised
at the June 10, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan
indicates screening along the site’s eastern, northern and southern perimeters.
Additional right of way has been indicated on the proposed site plan. The
applicant has provided the days and hours of operation and the number of
vehicles to be stored on the site. Landscaping will be installed and maintained
as per the landscape and buffer ordinance requirements.
The request is a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-C to allow the
use of the property as a vehicle towing business. The property is owned by
Red’s Towing, Inc. and has an established non-conforming use as an auto repair
facility. An existing structure containing an office, a shop with two vehicles lifts,
tire changing equipment and storage areas is contained within the existing
building. The balance of the site is cleared and has been used for parking of
vehicles for the business. Parking areas will be improved, surfaced with asphalt
strips/chips and will park a maximum of 25 vehicles at any one time. Fill material
and grading will be done on the site as required. Security lighting will be
downward directed away from adjacent properties. Section 36-508 prohibits the
use of asphalt roofing and by products of its manufacture as a base course or
surfacing materials on parking lots and/or drives.
The applicant is proposing to continue to use the existing structure for the towing
business and shop for repair of his personal vehicles. No commercial auto repair
garage is proposed. The business hours of operation for the towing business are
Monday through Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm and 8:00 am to 12:00 pm on
Saturday. Two (2) tow trucks and one (1) rollback will be in use and parked on
site when not towing vehicles. All business ingress and egress will be via 24th
Street to Aldersgate Road with a single access point on the southwest portion of
the site. No vehicle recovery (repossession) will be carried on at the site.
The applicant is requesting the abandonment of a portion of West 24th Street
along the applicant’s frontage. The right of way was dedicated with the
subdivision plat but has not been constructed. The right of way dedication was
20-feet. The entirety of the abandonment will revert to the property owner to the
north. The applicant is securing approval letters from the various utility
companies indicating their desire for easements. Staff is supportive of the right
of way abandonment. The need for easements will be dictated by the utility
companies. This request will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until all
approval are received.
Section 36-153(b) states for a change in use if no structural alterations are made,
a nonconforming use of a building may be changed to another nonconforming
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
7
use of the same or less intensity. In no case, however, shall a building revert to a
more intensive nonconforming use. Section 31-151 identifies the purpose of
non-conformities and exceptions. The purpose of this division is to establish
regulations and limitations for exceptions to the continued existence of uses, lots
and structures which were established prior to the effective date of this chapter
which do not conform to the provisions of this chapter. Such nonconformities may
continue, but the provisions of this division are designed to curtail enlargement or
expansion of such nonconformities and to encourage their eventual elimination in
order to preserve the integrity of the zoning districts and the regulations by this
chapter.
Staff is not supportive of the rezoning request. Within this general area there are
a significant number of new homes (more than a dozen) which have been
constructed or are under construction along Wilson Road within this two (2) block
area. Within the general area as a whole there are a significant number of
homes which have been constructed from Kanis Road to West 24th and
Aldersgate Road to Junior Deputy Road. West 24th Street is a narrow
unimproved road which is not adequate to handle commercial traffic to and from
the site. Staff feels as indicated in the purpose section of nonconformities that
the whole premise of allowing nonconformities is that the uses will eventually be
eliminated and the property redevelop as per the under lying zoning district. As
is the current development pattern staff feels single-family the best use for this
site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 1, 2010)
Mr. Steve Giles was present representing the property owner. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated June 29, 2010, requesting a deferral of this item to the August 12, 2010,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the
Commissions By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
8
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 12, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair
explained that the Commission’s practice had been to offer the applicant a deferral of
their item to a later meeting when eight (8) or fewer Commissioners were present. He
stated to move an item forward with a positive recommendation the applicant had to
secure six (6) positive votes regardless of the number of Commissioners present. The
Chair questioned the applicant as to their desire for a deferral or if the wished to move
the item forward. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the September 23,
2010, public hearing.
A motion was made to defer the item to the September 23, 2010, public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up
and analysis. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. The Chair
explained that the Commission’s practice had been to offer the applicant a deferral of
their item to a later meeting when eight (8) or fewer Commissioners were present. He
stated to move an item forward with a positive recommendation the applicant had to
secure six (6) positive votes regardless of the number of Commissioners present. The
Chair questioned the applicant as to their desire for a deferral or if the wished to move
the item forward. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 4,
2010, public hearing.
A motion was made to defer the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8556
9
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous staff write-up
and analysis. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated November 3,
2010, requesting deferral of this item to the December 16, 2010, public hearing. Staff
stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with
regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the requested By-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The Chair
entertained a motion for placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
NAME: A Cut Above Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 302 North Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Lynda Bowers and Associates
650 Edgewood Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
SURVEYOR:
Arrow Surveying
550 Edgewood Drive, Suite 592B
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 0.42 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: O-3, General Office District uses, Deli/Restaurant and
Beauty Salon
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Office District uses, Deli/Restaurant and Beauty
Salon – Add C-2, Shopping Center District uses as allowable uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 10, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to
rezone the site from O-3, General Office District and R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow
the construction of a second building on the site and to utilize C-2, Shopping Center
District uses as allowable uses for the site. The proposal included the development of
28,224 square feet of total land area and involved the construction of a second building
on the site containing 3,444 square feet. Thirty parking spaces were proposed to serve
the development. No new curb cuts were proposed as a result of the development.
The existing curb cuts along Beverly Hills Drive and Shackleford Road would continue
to provide access to the development.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
2
The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for rezoning at their
September 14, 2006, public hearing. The applicant was requesting to rezone the site
from O-3, General Office District to PCD to allow C-2, Shopping Center District uses as
allowable uses on the site. During the public hearing before the Commission the
applicant amended the request to limit the uses to O-3, General Office District uses, a
Deli/Restaurant and a Beauty Salon and to limit the hours of operation to 10:00 am to
8:00 pm daily. The hours of dumpster service were also limited to daylight hours. The
Commission denied this request.
The recommendation of denial was appealed to the Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors approved the amended application request limiting the hours of operation and
the proposed uses of the site on December 5, 2006, with the adoption of Ordinance No.
19,648.
Ordinance No. 20,116 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 2, 2009
allowed a modification to the PCD to extend the hours of operation for the site. The
hours approved were from 6:00 am to 10:30 pm Sunday through Thursday and from
6:00 am to 11:00 pm Friday and Saturday. No other modifications to the previous
approval were proposed with the request.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the request to add C-2, Shopping
Center District uses as allowable uses for the site. The building contains
3,232 square feet. The restaurant/deli occupied approximately 2,430 square feet
of the building with approximately 800 square feet remaining vacant. The
applicant has indicated a number of retail users have approached the owner in
the past requesting to locate within the building including a cellular telephone
business. There are no other modifications proposed to the previous approvals.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a commercial building with a restaurant occupying a portion of
the building and the remainder of the space is vacant. There are commercial
businesses located to the east across Shackleford Road including a grocery
store and restaurants. To the west is a single-family subdivision. There is a
veterinarian clinic and daycare center located to the north of the site and further
north of the site is an elementary school. Northeast of the site is a large church
campus.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200 feet, all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Beverly Hills Property
Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
Beverly Hills Drive for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
Additional sidewalk should be provided west of the driveway.
3. 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 site.
Entergy: A fifteen foot (15’) overhead utility easement is required along the
northern, eastern and southern perimeters. Contact Entergy for additional
information.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this 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 (CAW) requires that upon
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
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW'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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
4
Fire Department: The development may require additional fire hydrants. 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.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property.
The applicant has applied for a revision to a previously approved Planned
Commercial Development to allow the use of the entire site for retail and/or
restaurant uses. Commercial uses are not typically allowed in the Residential
Low Density category, however this is a revision to a previously approved PCD.
The Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan covers this location. The
Community Redevelopment Goal states the need to “maintain and reinvigorate
existing retail areas to provide active retail for local residents.”
Master Street Plan: North Shackleford Road is shown as a Collector on the plan.
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.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
Landscape: No comment on the change in use of the existing building utilizing
the existing parking.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (June 10, 2010)
Ms. Lynda Bowers was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development stating the current request was to allow the entire
building as a commercial or retail uses. Staff stated the building contained
approximately 3,200 square feet of which a restaurant currently occupying
2,400 square feet. Staff stated the previous approval limited the remaining
800 square feet to an O-3, General Office use or a barber/beauty shop use. Staff
stated the applicant was now seeking to expand the allowed uses for the
800 square feet to a retail use as identified in the C-2, Shopping Center District.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the previous approval
required a dedication of right of way on Beverly Hills Drive and the construction
of sidewalks along the property frontage on Beverly Hills Drive. Staff stated the
dedication nor sidewalk construction had been completed. Staff requested these
improvements be completed in a timely manner.
Staff stated there were no additional landscaping requirements due to the
request being a change in use. Staff stated any modifications to the site and/or
parking would possibly require additional landscaping to be installed.
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:
A revised site plan was not required to address the issues raised at the June 10,
2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to allow this 3,232 square
foot building to be used for commercial uses including the allowance of the entire
building as a restaurant or multiple restaurant uses. Currently a restaurant
occupies approximately 2,430 square feet of the building and approximately
800 square feet is vacant. The applicant has indicated the current user is a
cellular phone dealer but does not desire to limit the use of the vacant portion of
the building for this user. The request is to allow the use of the entire building for
“retail uses”. The applicant has indicated C-2, Shopping Center District uses are
desired as allowable uses.
Staff is not supportive of the request. Originally the site was zoned O-3, General
Office District with a conditional use permit to allow a beauty salon on the site.
The property to the north is zoned O-3, General Office District and the property
on the corner of Mara Lynn and Shcakleford Road is zoned O-1, Quiet Office
District. The office zoning allows for a buffer between the single-family homes
located to the west and Shackleford Road as well as the commercial activities
located on the east side of Shackleford Road. Staff feels the requirement for the
office portion of the development to allow this buffering should be maintained.
In addition the site is shown as Single Family on the City’s Future Land Use Plan
even though the property is zoned non-residentially. In the 2006 filing the Future
Land Use Plan was studied for this property and it was determined by the
Commission to not allow a Plan Amendment and to maintain the Single Family
designation on the Future Land Use Plan even though the commercial aspect of
the development was approved. Staff feels the rezoning of the site to allow the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
6
entire site as a commercial use will potentially cause other non-commercial
properties in the area to request a rezoning for their use with commercial
activities. Again staff feels the residential neighborhood to the west should be
protected and the commercial activities not be approved for this site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 1, 2010)
Ms. Lynda Bowers was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating they were not in support of allowing
the site to become a commercial center. Staff stated the applicant was requesting C-2
uses but had eliminated a number of the allowed uses under this zoning district. Staff
stated the applicant had removed from the request a bar, lounge or tavern, beverage
store, establishment of religious, charitable or philanthropic organizations, private club
with dining or bar service. Staff stated the request did include the conditional uses in
the C-2 zoning district excluding a carwash, high rise multi-family, multi-family dwellings
and a service station with limited motor vehicle repair
Ms. Lynda Bowers addressed the Commission stating the building was originally
constructed as a quick shop and later turned into an insurance agency. She stated
presently there was a restaurant occupying just over 2,000 square feet of the building
and 800 square feet was vacant. She stated it was difficult to lease the remaining
800 square feet to an office user. She stated the desire was to allow a quiet
commercial user in the space. She stated most recently a T-Mobile cellular phone store
had requested to lease the space.
A letter from the League of Women Voters was read into the record stating they were
not in support of allowing the site to become a commercial center. The League stated
the adjacent neighborhood should be protected against the nearby commercial uses
and that office served as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses.
There was a general discussion by the Commission and Ms. Bowers concerning the
uses of the site and the open ended ness of allowing all the indicated C-2 uses.
Ms. Bowers stated a number of the uses would not locate on the site because the space
was to small for a number of users. The Commission questioned staff as to if there was
a retail use that could be supported. Staff stated they were not willing to support a
commercial development on this corner adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 7 noes and 4 absent.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
7
STAFF UPDATE:
This item is being returned to the Commission by the Board of Directors to allow the
applicant to more clearly define the uses proposed for the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair
explained that the Commission’s practice had been to offer the applicant a deferral of
their item to a later meeting when eight (8) or fewer Commissioners were present. He
stated to move an item forward with a positive recommendation the applicant had to
secure six (6) positive votes regardless of the number of Commissioners present. The
Chair questioned the applicant as to their desire for a deferral or if the wished to move
the item forward. The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 4,
2010, public hearing.
A motion was made to defer the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has provided staff with a listing of the proposed commercial uses for the
entire building located at 302 North Shackleford Road. The building is currently divided
into two spaces. More than one use may occupy the building at one time. The specific
listing of uses is as follows: Ambulance service post; Animal clinic, enclosed; Antique
shop, with repair; Bakery or confectionery shop; Bank or savings and loan office; Barber
and beauty shop; Book and stationery store; Butcher shop; Camera shop; Catering,
commercial; Church; Clinic, medical, dental or optical; Clothing; Community welfare or
health center; Custom sewing and millinery; Drugstore or pharmacy; Duplication shop;
Eating place without drive-in service; Florist shop; Food store; Furniture repair shop;
Furniture store; Handicraft, ceramic, sculpture or similar art work; Hardware or sporting
goods store; Health studio or spa; Hobby shop; Jewelry store; Job printing, lithographer,
printing or blueprinting; Key shop; Laundromat or pickup station; Library, art gallery,
museum or similar public use; Medical appliance fitting and sales; Office, general and
professional; Office equipment sales and service; Optical shop; Pawnshop, regulated;
Pet shop; Photography studio; School, business; Shoe repair; Studio, art, music,
speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors; Studio, broadcasting and recording;
Swimming pool sales and supply, indoor; Tailor; Travel bureau; Cabinet or woodworking
shop; Glass or glazer, installation, repair and sales; Private school or kindergarten or
institution for special education; School, commercial trade or craft.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
8
Staff continues to not support the request. Staff feels a portion of the building should
remain as an office use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Ms. Lynda Bowers was present representing the request. Staff presented the item
stating the item had been returned to the Commission by the Board of Directors to allow
the applicant to more specifically define the uses. Staff stated the applicant had done
so and the uses were listed under the staff update in the agenda package. Staff stated
they did not support the site being entirely commercial and they continued to
recommend denial of the request.
Ms. Bowers addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated there
was not a market for office use in this area. She stated the uses identified were
neighborhood commercial uses. She stated the goal was to market the property and
revitalize the area.
Ms. Sharon Connell addressed the Commission. She stated she was the property
owner and this was her retirement. She stated as a property owner she desired to
reinvest in the property but to be able to do so she had to have income. She stated
without the entire building being leased then the income generated did not allow her to
properly maintain the building.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the request. She stated the site was not a large site. She stated the applicant was
requesting too many uses, a number of which could generate a great deal of traffic into
the neighborhood. She stated the uses should be limited to small scale neighborhood
retails uses.
Ms. Mindy McArthur addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated her concern was with additional foot traffic and vehicular traffic into the
neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood was experiencing a crime problem. She
stated with the addition of commercial uses in the building this would potentially
generate additional foot traffic into the neighborhood. She stated the rezoning would
leave the door open to allow for additional commercial uses to locate in the area.
Ms. Bowers stated there were a number of uses which would not work in the building
because of the size. She stated the City required the drive on Beverly Hills to be
installed with the original approval. She stated with the approval of the PCD the City
required the drive to be closed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3419-E
9
The Commission questioned Ms. Bowers if she was willing to limit the uses of the
building to a specific user. She stated she did not want to represent that she had a
signed lease with a tenant and did not want to have to keep coming back to the
Commission for approvals as tenants moved out. She stated she felt the listing of uses
would not impact the neighborhood.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the proposed uses of
the building and the impact on the neighborhood. The Commission questioned the uses
located to the north and east of the site. Ms. Bowers stated there was a vet clinic,
daycare and school located to the north. Ms. Bowers stated across Shackleford Road
there were restaurants and a grocery store.
A motion was made to approve the request limited to the uses identified in the staff
update of the agenda write-up and subject to the conditions and all staff comments
except for that of recommendation of denial. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
2 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-8589
NAME: Lei Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 2019 Watt Street
DEVELOPER:
Jerry Calloway – Agent
112 South Maple Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20320 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.642 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family - Church
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant failed to respond to comments raised at the September 2, 2010,
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the
November 4, 2010, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
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
September 2, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8589
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item on the consent agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 19, 2010, requesting deferral of this
item to the December 16, 2010, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 19,
2010, requesting deferral of this item to the December 16, 2010, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-8585
NAME: National Property Holdings Short-form PID
LOCATION: Located at 1608 Nichols Street
DEVELOPER:
National Property Holdings
1608 Nichols Road
P.O. Box 17386
Little Rock, AR 72222
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying, Inc
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.61 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family – Non-conforming
ALLOWED USES: Contractor’s Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: Contractor’s Office/Warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 8, 2010, requesting a deferral of
this item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 23, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated September 8,
2010, requesting a deferral of this item to the November 4, 2010, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8585
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion of approval
of the item on the consent agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 6, 2010, requesting a deferral of this
item to the December 16, 2010, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 28,
2010, requesting withdrawal of the item without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-57-SS
NAME: Riverdale Addition Replat Tracts E-2, F and G1
LOCATION: Located at #1 Allied Drive
DEVELOPER:
Alltel Communications, LLC
1 Verizon Place
Alpharetta, GA 30004
ENGINEER:
Development Consultants, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 27.89 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional 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 to replat three (3) existing lots to allow the lot lines to
be reconfigured. The site is developed as an office campus with multiple
buildings and parking. Lot E-2-R and Lot F-R are proposed with an 18-foot side
yard setback along the common lot line. There is an existing canopy connection
which is proposed to remain. The connection crosses the property line between
the buildings resulting in a zero setback in this area.
With the adjustment of the lot lines there will be lots created with parking on the
individual lot less than typically required to serve the building. The site will
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-SS
2
contain cross parking agreements between the lots or the applicant has
committed to construction of additional parking on property under their ownership
to ensure adequate parking is provided for each of the lots.
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, a bar, a stone manufacturer and the Jr. Deputy Ball Field.
West of the site, across Riverfront Drive is an open field zoned C-3 currently
being used as soccer fields. 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.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Centerpoint has existing 2-inch mains located on the north
side of Cottondale Lane and the north side of Cedar Hill. This provides gas
through easements to Riverdale Addition. A ten foot (10’) easement is required
in these two (2) locations.
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 regarding the size and location of the water meter.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-SS
3
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #21 – University Avenue.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Robert Brown of Development Consultants Inc. and Mr. Cliff McKinney of
Quattlebaum, Groom, Tull and Burrow PLLC were present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were few
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff noted there was
a variance associated with the request to allow a reduced building setback
between Tracts E-2-R and Tract F-R. Staff stated the setback was proposed as
eighteen (18) feet between the two (2) buildings. Staff stated the buildings were
connected by a canopy which was proposed to remain and in this area the
setback would be zero.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated any damaged curb, gutter
or sidewalk within the public right of way should be replaced or repaired prior to
the execution of the final plat.
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 October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the setbacks to be zero where adjoined by the canopy with each of the
buildings having an 18-foot building setback from the property line. The applicant
has also indicated any broken curb, gutter or sidewalk damaged in the public
right of way would be repaired prior to occupancy.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-SS
4
The plat is to allow the reconfiguration of three (3) previously platted lots and
allow a reduced side yard building setback on Tracts E-2-R and Tract F-R. As
stated, the buildings are connected by a canopy and the side yard building
setback will be zero where the connection is made. The side yard building
setback will be eighteen (18) feet between the faces of the buildings and the
property line.
Although there are multiple lots within the existing office campus, the lots were
under one ownership and viewed as one zoning lot. With the revision to the
existing lot lines and the future sale of buildings the site will longer be viewed as
one (1) zoning lot. According to the applicant, the cross access and parking
agreements are still being negotiated. There will be cross access but there may
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 will not have parking on the lot itself to meet the
typical parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is not concerned
with the creation of these lots with insufficient parking due to the applicant’s
commitment to provide sufficient parking for these buildings either through a
cross parking agreement or 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.
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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-57-SS
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Mr. Robert Brown was present representing the request. 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 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 a cross parking agreement being completed or additional
parking being constructed.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1240-N
NAME: Nissan of Little Rock Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at #1 Colonel Glenn Plaza
DEVELOPER:
Asbury Automotive Group
2905 Premiere Parkway, Suite 300
Duluth, GA 30097
ENGINEER:
Thomas Engineering
3810 Lookout
North Little Rock, AR 72116
CONTRACTOR:
CBM Construction
Ron Boyeskie
P.O. Box 17016
North Little Rock, AR 72117
AREA: 7.913 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-4, Open Display District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a replat and
subdivision site plan review request to allow the replatting of three previously platted
lots into a single lot and the addition of a pre-owned automobile sales office to the
existing complex. The applicant indicated with the addition of the sales office the
parking would be increased. The building was proposed containing 4,000 square feet
and 136 new spaces were added to the site. The paving was added but the sales office
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1240-N
2
was not constructed. On September 20, 2010, staff administratively allowed the
applicant to move the sales office building to the north adjacent to the existing service
area and to construct the building as a single bay carwash facility to be used by the
dealership only.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The current request is a Subdivision Site Plan review to allow an expansion of
the existing building. The applicant is proposing an addition along the western
façade to allow a covered customer drop area and along the southern façade to
allow the existing service bay area to be expanded. The west side addition is to
accommodate customers who presently have to stand in the weather to check in
their vehicles for service work. The south addition is to add service bays for
service work. There is also a fourth building being proposed within the southern
parking area to be constructed in the future and is proposed as a pre-owned
sales office building.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address this specific request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an automobile dealership fronting Colonel Glenn Road and
accessed from Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive. There are two additional automobile
dealerships located across Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive to the west. There is also
an automobile dealership located to the south of the site. Other uses in the area
include a movie theater located to the southwest of the site and an office
warehouse building located to the south. To the north is the Baptist School of
Nursing located on the northeast corner of Bowman Road and Colonel Glenn
Road and an office/warehouse development located on the northwest corner of
the roads. To the north of the site is a large tract of vacant C-2 zoned property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. 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. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed along
Colonel Glenn Road adjacent to this property in accordance with Section
31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1240-N
3
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
4. 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: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: The customer needs to contact Centerpoint regarding
existing meter station. The station may require relocation. Contact Billy Hale at
377-4539.
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 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: Install fire hydrants per code. 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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1240-N
4
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The building addition along the western property line encroaches into the
maneuvering area for automobiles parked in the parking aisle. Three (3)
additional feet are needed to meet this minimal ordinance requirement or
indicate this area as vehicle display parking only.
3. It appears interior islands are being removed with this application. All interior
islands and the associated vegetation will need to meet if not exceed the
amounts being removed.
4. The interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the site and to be
located to help with the on site vehicular circulation.
5. All the existing landscaping, fencing, dumpster enclosure, etc. are to be in
good condition or replaced in conjunction with this application.
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.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Ron Boyeskie of CBM Construction Company was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were few
outstanding technical issues in need of addressing associated with the site plan.
Staff requested the building setbacks be included from the property lines. Staff
questioned if the new customer drop-off would be enclosed. Staff stated the
previous approval allowed for a small sales office located within the southern
portion of the site. Staff stated if the sales office was desired in the future to
include the building location on the site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Mr. Boyeskie stated with the
construction of the dealership the Federal Highway Commission would not allow
the construction of sidewalks along the property frontage. Staff suggested
Mr. Boyeskie contact AHTD for a determination if anything had changed and if
sidewalks would be allowed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1240-N
5
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the stalls located adjacent
to the customer drop-off were not deep enough to allow proper maneuvering.
Staff stated the spaces could be used as display spaces by the dealership but
not for customer parking. Staff stated the site plan should be amended to
indicate the spaces as display parking only if the spaces were to be maintained.
Staff stated it appeared an interior landscape island was being removed. Staff
stated interior landscaping should meet or exceed the minimum landscape
ordinance requirements.
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 October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan
indicates the placement of display vehicles only adjacent to the new customer
drop-off area. The applicant has indicated the customer drop-off area will be
enclosed. The revised site plan includes the placement of a 4,000 square foot
pre-owned sales office within the southern portion of the site. The building is not
proposed for immediate construction but has been indicated to allow for flexibility
in the future should the additional building be desired.
The applicant has provided a letter from the Arkansas State Highway Department
indicating sidewalks will not be allowed to be installed along the frontage of this
property adjacent to Colonel Glenn Road.
The site plan indicates the addition to the existing automobile sales and service
areas. The additions include a 3,500 square foot enclosed customer drop-off
area and the addition of 5,850 square feet of service area. The height of the
additions will closely match the existing height of the building located on the site.
An automatic carwash facility is currently under construction near the eastern
portion of the service area. There are no other changes proposed for the site
plan at this time. With the new construction modifications will be made to the
façades of the building and the entrances will be redesigned. No change in the
existing signage plan is proposed. All new signage will comply with signage
allowed in commercial zones including ground and building signage.
Staff is supportive of the request. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The applicant is
proposing a multiple building site plan review to allow an expansion to the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1240-N
6
existing building and allow the addition of a fourth building on the site for future
construction. The proposed development complies with the minimum
requirements established by the Subdivision Ordinance for the multiple building
site plan review process and with the underlying zoning district with regard to the
development criteria. Staff feels if the development is constructed as proposed,
the construction should have minimal impact on the site itself with regard to
access and circulation or to any adjoining properties.
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: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1081-D
NAME: Kaufman Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 5100 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Kaufman Lumber Company
5100 Asher Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 4.33 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 – I-630
CENSUS TRACT: 19
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from Section 36-320(e)(2) to allow a
reduced side yard setback.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
Kaufman Lumber Company is proposing to remove three (3) existing open
storage buildings and replace these with an 80-foot by 100-foot lumber storage
building. The proposed building would be located within an existing sanitary
sewer easement. The abandonment request will be filed with the Little Rock
Board of Directors for final disposition. Little Rock Wastewater Utility has
indicated support of the abandonment in exchange for two (2) easements
running east-west which covers their existing improvements. The building as
proposed requires a variance for the side yard setback along Monroe Street.
The variance is approximately two (2) feet.
Ordinance No. 14,839 approved by the Board of Directors on March 5, 1985,
approved the abandonment of the west 24-feet of Monroe Street between Bracks
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081-D
2
Street and Asher Avenue. The abandonment abandoned the right of way but
retained the entire area as a utility easement.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address this specific request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lumber company covers a large area including a number of lots and blocks
north of Asher Avenue. There is a second lumber company located to the north
of this site on Brack Street. Other uses in the area to the east include
single-family homes, a convenience store and a liquor store. Uses to the west
include a private club, vacant commercial buildings and multi-family. Uses to the
south include auto repair, a drive-in restaurant and a large warehouse distribution
facility.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, the Curran
Conway Neighborhood Association and the South of Asher Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial
with special design standards. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from
centerline will be required.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersections of
Asher Avenue/Monroe Street and Asher Avenue/Mary Street.
3. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
4. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation
of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be
repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081-D
3
Entergy: A ten-foot (10’) underground utility easement is required along Colonel
Glenn Plaza Drive.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objections. 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. 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #14 Rosedale and #17A
Mabelvale-UALR.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping will be required with the addition of any new parking on the site.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081-D
4
3. Both the City of Little Rock and the City Beautiful Commission encourage and
appreciate the addition of some trees in conjunction with this application
some where on the site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were a few
outstanding technical issues in need of addressing related to the site plan prior to
the Commission acting on the request. Staff requested Mr. White provide the
centerline of Asher Avenue and Monroe Street. Staff requested additional
information on any proposed signage including building signage. Staff also
requested details of any proposed dumpster facilities.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk located within the public right of way would require repair prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication of
right of way was required at the intersection of Monroe Street and Asher Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated landscaping would be
required with any additional newly paved areas. Staff requested the applicant
consider planting trees with the new development activities.
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 October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated no additional signage is proposed and there are no new dumpster
facilities with this application. The applicant has indicated a radial dedication will
be provided at the intersections of the abutting streets.
The request is to allow for a Subdivision Site Plan Review for multiple buildings
located on the site. The site is developed with a number of existing buildings.
The applicant is proposing to remove three (3) buildings currently being used for
lumber storage and is proposing the construction of a new single building
containing 8,000 square feet under roof. This building will be used as lumber
storage as well.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081-D
5
The building is proposed to be 12.85 feet from the property line along Monroe
Street. The property is zoned I-2, Light Industrial which typically requires the
placement of a 15-foot side yard setback. Staff is supportive of the variance
request. One of the existing buildings is located with a similar encroachment and
does not appear to have significantly impacted the area.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff feels the developers have done an adequate job in addressing
potential issues and concerns. Staff feels the removal of three existing lumber
storage buildings and the construction of a single new building should have a
positive impact on 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 variance from Section 36-320(e)(2) to allow a
reduced side yard setback.
The sanitary sewer easement must be abandoned prior to construction of the
new building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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
variance from Section 36-320(e)(2) to allow a reduced side yard setback. Staff stated
the sanitary sewer easement must be abandoned prior to construction of the new
building.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1649-B
NAME: The Valley Estates Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 9501 Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:
Richsmith Holdings, LLC
9800 Maumelle Boulevard
Maumelle, AR 72118
ENGINEER:
The Holloway Firm
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 6.155 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 559 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading on proposed Lot 7
with the development of Lots 5 and 6.
2. A variance from Section 36-301(d) to allow an increase in the building height from
35-feet allowed to a building height of 50-feet 6-inches proposed.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat request on April 8,
2010, to allow the creation of four (4) lots from a 20-acre parcel which included the area
proposed for development with the current request. A revision to the preliminary plat
was approved on August 12, 2010, to allow the creation of eight (8) lots within this same
20-acre parcel.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
2
A rezoning request from C-3, General Commercial District to PD-R for Lots 3 and 4 was
approved to allow these lots to develop as elderly housing. These two (2) buildings
were approved with a building height of 50-feet 6-inches. The rezonings were approved
by the Board of Directors on May 4, 2010 and September 21, 2010 respectively.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now requesting a subdivision site plan review for the
development of Lots 5 and 6 with four (4) buildings, each containing 24 units of
multi-family residential housing. The multi-family buildings are proposed three
(3) stories with a total height of 50-feet 6-inches. The multi-family buildings are
proposed each containing 9,960 square feet. The development is also proposed
with a single story clubhouse containing 2,400 square feet. The site plan also
includes the placement of a pool, playground areas, volleyball court and two (2)
picnic areas.
The property is not located within a recorded subdivision therefore there is not a
Bill of Assurance for this site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The street to serve the previously approved PD-R rezoning request is currently
under construction. There are a number of large trees located on the site both in
the area proposed for development and within the area proposed for future
development. In the general area there are a number of uses including
commercial, residential and industrial type uses. To the northeast of the
proposed development area is a big box retailer, Home Depot. Northwest of the
site are two (2) single-family structures and southwest of the site is a single-
family structure. All About Tires and Brakes is located northwest of the site
fronting Mabelvale Pike. Arkansas Signs and Barricade is located further west of
the site on Davmar Drive.
Mabelvale Pike is a two lane road with open ditches for drainage. Street
improvements have been completed on a number of properties which have
redeveloped located to the north. The improvements include curb, gutter and
sidewalk. There are no improvements adjacent to this site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, Southwest
United for Progress, the Pinedale Neighborhood Association and the Mavis
Circle Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A temporary turn around consisting of compacted gravel with a radius of
80 feet must be provided at the eastern end of Richsmith Lane for
emergency vehicles.
2. Prior to final platting, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct street improvement to Richsmith Lane including
sidewalks on both sides. The street should be 36 feet in width with a
60 foot right-of-way.
3. Due to projected volume of vehicle turning movements onto Richsmith Lane
and Mabelvale Pike, boundary street improvements are required to be
constructed on Mabelvale Pike prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy on the proposed development.
4. 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).
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. 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.
9. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
10. 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.
11. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
4
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements for Lot 6. Contact
Little Rock Wastewater for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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. Please submit plans for water
facilities 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. Approval of plans by Central Arkansas Water,
the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
Department is required. 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. A main extension will be needed to
provide water service to the back of this property. Additional fire hydrant(s) will
be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: Gates must maintain a minimum opening width of 20-feet.
Install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for
additional information.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
5
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average twenty-six foot (26’)
wide street buffer along Richsmith Lane and in no case should be less than
half.
3. The zoning ordinance requires a thirty-three foot (33’) wide land use buffer
along the western property lines next to the residentially zoned properties.
Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed.
4. A six foot (6’) high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is also required along
the western property lines next to the residentially zoned property.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of nine-foot (9’) wide landscape
strip around the sites entirety. A variance from the City Beautiful Commission
must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 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: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Mark Redder of the Holloway firm was present representing the request.
Staff presented the item stating there were a few outstanding technical issues
associated with the site plan in need of addressing prior to the Commission
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
6
acting on the request. Staff questioned if the units would be age restricted. Staff
also questioned if the units would be market rate units. Staff requested
Mr. Redder provide details of any proposed fencing and details of any proposed
signage.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a temporary turn-around
would be required at the eastern end of the street. Staff stated due to the volume
of traffic generated from this development as well as the two previous approvals
street construction to Mabelvale Pike would be required at this time. Staff
questioned if advanced grading was being requested. Staff also questioned if
the development would be gated.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a land use buffer was
required along the western perimeter of the site. Staff stated screening in this
area was also required. Staff stated the back-up space located along the eastern
perimeter of the site was indicated within the minimum landscape strip.
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 addressing the issues raised at the
October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant indicated
details of the proposed fencing and signage. The lots proposed for development
are not proposed as gated. The revised site plan indicates screening will be
placed along the western perimeter and the parking has been redesigned to
allow for the minimum landscape strip required by the City’s Landscape
Ordinance along the eastern perimeter.
The applicant has indicated the units will not be solely market rate units. The
applicant has indicated the units will be income and rent restricted for individuals
and persons will have to qualify to occupy the units. The units are proposed as
workforce housing with the targeted occupancy as teachers, firemen, police, etc.
The development is not “HUD” housing or subsidized housing. The units will not
be age restricted. The development is proposed as a multi-family development.
The site will maintain an on-site manager and the maintenance personal will also
reside on site.
The request is a Subdivision Site Plan review to allow for multiple buildings on
the proposed lots. The site plan indicates the placement of four (4) buildings on
two (2) lots. The buildings are proposed containing 24 units each for a total of
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
7
96 units. The units are proposed with a single access from Richsmith Lane.
There is not a gate proposed with this phase of the development.
The site is presently zoned C-3, General Commercial District which allows for
multi-family development at a density not to exceed the R-5 zoning district or
36 units per acre. Lot 5 contains 2.516 acres and is proposed with 48 units for a
density of 19.07 units per acre and Lot 6 is proposed with 2.434 acres and
48 units for a density of 19.72 units per acre. The overall density of the two (2)
lots is 19.35 units per acre.
The units are proposed as three (3) story with a maximum building height of
50-feet 6-inches. The C-3, General Commercial Zoning District allows a
maximum building height of 35-feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow
the increased building height. The two (2) developments approved for elderly
housing to the west were approved with the same building height as proposed for
this development.
The applicant has indicated a single development sign will be located near the
entrance to the development. The sign is proposed consistent with signage
allowed in multi-family zones or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and thirty-two
(32) square feet in area. Building signage will comply with building signage
allowed in multi-family zones.
The site plan indicates the placement of a perimeter fence. The fencing along
Richsmith Lane, the western and northern perimeter is proposed as a six (6) foot
decorative fence with brick columns. The fencing along the western perimeter is
proposed as a six (6) foot decorative fence with plantings placed within this area
to provide the required screening.
The applicant has indicated they do not desire to construct the improvements to
Mabelvale Pike with the current application request. The applicant has indicated
they do not feel the addition of this phase of the development will generate
enough traffic to warrant the street construction. Staff does not feel this is the
case. With the two (2) previous approvals near 200 units of multi-family housing
are being constructed on this section of the street. Staff feels there will be a
need for a turn lane from Mabelvale Pike adjacent to this site and the addition of
paving on the street would allow the turn lane to be installed.
Although staff is supportive of the application request and the associated
variance to allow the increased building height staff is not supportive of request
to not make the improvements to Mabelvale Pike with this development.
Therefore, staff can not support the request as filed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
8
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Mr. Robert Holloway was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had agreed to
constructing improvements to Mabelvale Pike. Staff stated they were now supportive of
the request. Staff stated the specifics of the improvements were that the street
improvements along the east side of Mabelvale Pike would be initiated within
twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of a building permit for construction of this
development (Lot 5 & 6 of the Orchards of Mabelvale Addition). Staff stated the street
construction would include the widening of Mabelvale Pike and the installation of a
maximum 150 linear feet of left turn lane onto Richsmith Lane and the associated taper
section. Staff stated at the time of development of Lots 1 or 2 of the Orchards of
Mabelvale Addition the entire improvements would be completed. 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. Staff
presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from
Section 36-301(d) to allow an increased building height for the development. Staff also
presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow grading on
proposed Lot 7 with the development of Lots 5 and 6.
Mr. Randy Blue addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
neighborhood was concerned with the additional traffic the multi-family units would
generate. He stated the neighborhood was not opposed to the elderly housing because
these units would most likely not generate the same number of vehicles as a true
multi-family development.
Ms. April Washington addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated the concerns were traffic and safety. She stated there were a number of
apartments on Stagecoach Road and there were safety concerns within the area. She
stated elderly housing would not generate traffic the same as multi-family. She stated
Stagecoach Road was a four lane road and Mabelvale Pike was only a two lane road.
She stated the additional units would generate traffic which would impact the residents
of Pinedale.
Mr. Holloway stated the developers would install street improvements to help minimize
the traffic concerns of the residents. He stated Ms. Danielle Null was the owners
representative and would address some of the concerns of the residents. Ms. Null
stated the development would have on-site security and an on-site maintenance person.
She stated the company conducted criminal and credit checks on all tenants. She
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B
9
stated the only persons allowed within the residents were persons on the lease. She
stated if an of age child moved back in with the parents the child would have to be
added to the lease or leave.
Commissioner Rector stated the purpose of the review was not if the use was allowed
but if the site met the development criteria of the ordinance. He stated the developers
were complying with ordinance standards with the exception of the height variance. He
stated under the current zoning a maximum of 36-units per acre were allowed. He
stated the developers were proposing a little over 19-units per acre which was allowed
under the current zoning.
There was a motion to approve the applicant’s request for a variance from the City’s
Land Alteration Ordinance. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent
and 2 open positions. A motion was made to approve the site plan review and the
associated building height variance. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes,
0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
NAME: Coulson Oil Company Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 19500 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
New Vista LLC
1434 Pike Avenue
North Little Rock, AR 72114
ENGINEER:
Development Consultants, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 1.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Convenience store with gas pumps, carwash and express lube
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Add light automotive repair as an allowable use for the lube
building
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 1998, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 17,740 rezoning the
property from C-2, Shopping Center District to PCD. The approved PCD allowed a
convenience store with gas pumps, an automated carwash and a self-serve carwash,
with a branch bank and two (2) fast food restaurants within the convenience store
building. The Board of Directors also approved a deferral of the street improvements to
Cantrell Road as part of the development plan.
Ordinance No. 18,162 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 20,
1999, allowed a revision to the approved PCD to replace the three-bay self-serve
carwash, which was to be located within the northern portion of the property with a
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
2
two-bay express lube facility. The express lube facility would be a one-story structure
with approximately 1,196 square feet of space. There were no other changes proposed
or approved from the previous site plan.
On September 3, 2008, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved an revision to
the PCD. The revision allowed Tornado Shelter Systems to place a showroom within
the former express lube building. The request also included the right to use the former
Lube Center building for a general or professional office, a showroom and a warehouse
(interior display and storage only). The revision was approved by the Board of Directors
on October 6, 2009, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 20173.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting to add light automotive repair as an allowable use for
the site. The current approval for the lube building allows for oil changes with
limited automobile replacement parts such as air filters and windshield wipers.
The applicant is requesting to be allowed the use of the building for automobile
repair to include, A/C & Heating; Battery & Electrical; Belts & Hoses; Brake repair
or maintenance; Cooling system repair or maintenance; Engine diagnostic
service, Tune ups; Filter replacements; Fluid leaking evaluation and repair; Fuel
system service, Head gasket replacement; Inspection and repair to emission
system; Oil changes; Scheduled maintenance service; Preventative maintenance
service; Shocks & struts replacement; Steering and suspension repair and
maintenance; Timing belt; Timing chair; Tire patching; Tire balancing and/or tire
replacement; CV boot or CV axle replacement; Transmission fluid replacement;
Differential fluid replacement.
The applicant has indicated there will be no working of cars outside the building
and no cars, waste tire or barrels will be left outside or in the parking lot while the
business is closed. The exterior of the building, parking lot and landscaping will
be kept up and maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
The property is not located within a recorded subdivision therefore there is not a
Bill of Assurance for this site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has developed with a convenience store, gas pumps, automated
carwash and express lube. Currently there is an express lube operating from the
building. Chenal Parkway is constructed with curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent
to the site. Cantrell Road does not currently have curb and gutter in place.
There is a property located across Chenal Parkway zoned PCD which was
approved for development of a Walgreen’s which has not occurred. East of the
site is property zoned C-3, General Commercial District with a CUP which was
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
3
approved to allow the existing mini-warehouse development. To the west is
vacant property zoned PCD which was approved for a four (4) lot development
containing restaurant uses. Other uses in the area include a large retailer,
vacant commercially zoned property and an Entergy substation.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, the Aberdeen Court Property
Owners Association, the Duqesne Place Property Owners Association, the
Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association and the Coalition of West Little Rock
Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. With future development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Ordinance #19,883 was
approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 4, 2007 for a
5 year deferral of boundary street improvements adjacent to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 regarding the size and location of the water
meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
4
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied
for a rezoning for a revised Planned Commercial Development. The request
does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. This area is not covered by a
Neighborhood Action Plan.
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. Chenal Parkway 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 Chenal Parkway since it is a Minor Arterial.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown along Cantrell Road. A Class II
bikeway is located on the street as either a five foot (5’) shoulder or six foot (6’)
marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Any dead or diseased landscaping must be replaced.
3. Some additional landscaping may be required with the proposed new
construction.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Eddie Martin and Mr. Jeff Spector were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were few outstanding
technical issues associated with the site plan in need of addressing prior to the
Commission acting on the request. Staff stated there was to be no outdoor
storage of materials or vehicles. Staff stated there was to be no repair of
vehicles outdoors. Staff questioned if ground signage was proposed. Staff also
questioned the days and hours of operation.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the previous deferral
would expire in December 2012. Staff stated at that time one-half street
improvements would be required adjacent to the site on Cantrell Road and
Chenal Parkway.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any dead or diseased
landscaping was to be replaced regardless of the approval of this request.
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:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need
of addressing via a revised site plan raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of
operation from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has
indicated no ground signage is proposed. Building signage will be as allowed in
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and the Zoning and Sign Ordinance. The
maximum building signage allowed is ten percent (10%) of the façade area
abutting a public street.
The request is to amend the existing PCD to add allowable uses for the
automotive lube building located near the rear of the site. The request includes
the addition of light automotive repair as an allowable use. The applicant is
specifically requesting to be allowed the use of the building for automobile repair
to include, A/C & Heating; Battery & Electrical; Belts & Hoses; Brake repair or
maintenance; Cooling system repair or maintenance; Engine diagnostic service,
Tune ups; Filter replacements; Fluid leaking evaluation and repair; Fuel system
service, Head gasket replacement; Inspection and repair to emission system; Oil
changes; Scheduled maintenance service; Preventative maintenance service;
Shocks & struts replacement; Steering and suspension repair and maintenance;
Timing belt; Timing chair; Tire patching; Tire balancing and/or tire replacement;
CV boot or CV axle replacement; Transmission fluid replacement; Differential
fluid replacement. There will be no working on automobiles outside the building
and no automobiles, waste tire or barrels will be left outside or in the parking lot.
Staff is supportive of the request. The uses indicated by the applicant are uses
which are typical of minor automotive repair. These uses typically do not require
automobiles to be kept overnight thus eliminating the need for automobiles to be
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6476-C
6
left in a state of disrepair on the site for a number of days. In addition these uses
typically do not generate the waste of automobile parts which typically cause
sites to become unsightly. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff feels the revision to the
PCD as proposed is appropriate.
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 the following conditions be attached to the ordinance
approving the amendment request:
1. There is to be no storage of vehicles in disrepair outside the building at any
time.
2. There is to be no working on vehicles outside the building at any time.
3. There is to be no storage of waste materials or vehicle parts outside the
building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present representing the request. 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 that additional conditions would be placed in the ordinance to not allow
the storage of vehicles in disrepair outside the building at any time, there was to be no
working on vehicles outside the building at any time and no storage of waste materials
or vehicle parts outside the building.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
NAME: Bailey Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1723 North University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Mary Jane Bailey
2112 County Club Lane
Little Rock, AR 72207
SURVEYOR:
Ollen Dee Wilson
P.O. Box 604
North Little Rock, AR 72115
AREA: 0.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Bailey Real Estate and Insurance Office, Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: A Professional Office User, Single-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,014, adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 18, 1999,
rezoned this site from R-2, Single-family to POD for the applicant’s use of the
single-family residential structure as a real estate office and insurance office and
single-family as an alternative use. The office use of the property could not be
transferred to a future office user without approval of an ordinance revising the POD.
The hours of operation were approved from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through
Friday, with some weekend activity.
The Board of Directors also approved a deferral of the right of way dedication for
Cantrell Road and University Avenue and the required street improvements until the
property was redeveloped. The deferral included a deferral of the improvements of the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
2
corner radius and a five (5) foot sidewalk on University Avenue. (Ordinance No. 18,015
adopted May 18, 1999)
On July 23, 2009, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a withdrawal request
for a revision to the POD. The specific request was to allow the site to be marketed to
general and professional office users and to allow single-family as an allowable
alternative use for the property. There were no exterior changes proposed for the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the POD to allow a specific office user
to locate within the existing building. The occupant is proposed as
Clientqsolutions, a computer service business. The applicant has indicated there
are two (2) current employees of the business and one (1) additional employee
will be added in the near future. The previously approved days and hours of
operation will not change.
Clientqsolutions is a company which provides technology support and consulting
services to small and medium size businesses and the medical community. The
business was established in 2000. The objective is to help these small to
medium size businesses better utilize their technology resources. In the process
the business enables organizations to increase productivity and find better
methods to conduct business and help those organizations strengthen their
overall business model. The primary client is small business (1 to 50 employees)
with a focus on the healthcare industry. The company provides network
services, disaster recovery, antivirus and security, remote administration and
computer repair service.
The property is not located within a recorded subdivision therefore there is not a
Bill of Assurance for this site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a 1,294 square foot structure most recently occupied by Bailey
Real Estate Company. Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing
20 foot alley which is located along the east property line. Three (3) parking
spaces have been constructed within the rear yard area and a screening fence
has been located along the southern property line. There are single-family
residences located immediately south of the site, across the alley to the east and
across University Avenue to the west and northwest. Office and commercial
uses are located across Cantrell Road to the north.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, the Forest Park Neighborhood
Association, the Heights Neighborhood Association, the Normandy Shannon
Property Owners Association and the South Normandy Property Owners
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 regarding the size and location of the water meter.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants maybe required. 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.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for Revised Short-form POD. The request does not
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
4
change the structures and maintains the office use with the possibility of
returning to single-family use, no Land Use Plan amendment is required. This
area is covered by the Heights Neighborhood Plan. The Zoning Goal states:
“Require all non-residential development to submit a PZD for zoning changes.
We do not support any zoning changes that are in conflict with the Future Land
Use Plan. Any change must be consistent with the character of the
neighborhood.”
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road and University Avenue are both Principal
Arterials. 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 both of these streets since they are Principal 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 are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Any dead or diseased landscaping must be replaced.
3. Some additional landscaping may be required with the proposed new
construction.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical
issues associated with the site plan in need of addressing prior to the
Commission acting on the request. Staff stated the applicant had previously filed
an application to allow a revision to the site without a specific user. Staff stated
the applicant now had a user for the site and was now requesting to amend the
POD for this user.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee
meeting that required an amendment to the applicant’s site plan. The request is
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
5
to amend the existing POD to allow a specific office user to locate within the
existing building. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. All
parking will remain as was previously constructed. No new signage is proposed
for this occupant. Any signage will be limited to a single ground sign to comply
with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and
sixty-four (64) square feet in area.
The occupant proposed to lease the building is Clientqsolutions, which operates
a computer service business. The applicant has indicated there are two (2)
current employees of the business and one (1) additional employee will be added
in the near future. The previously approved days and hours of operation 8:00 am
to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday with some weekend activity will not change.
The request includes the allowance of single-family as an allowable alternative
uses for the property.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant has indicated there are very few
customer visits to the site since most of the activity takes place at the client’s
office or can be handled remotely. The number of employees has not
significantly increased from the original approval and the days and hours of
operation will remain the same as with the original approval. Staff feels the
request to amend the POD for this user will not have a significant impact on the
area. The original approval allowed for the conversion of this structure to an
office use for a real estate company. As with this user the previous user was a
low-key office use which it does not appear has impacted the residential uses in
the area. Staff feels the request for the reuse of this building by this office user
with only three (3) employees is appropriate.
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: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Ms. Mary Jane Bailey was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the requesting stating the user of the building was not the one identified in
the staff write-up. Staff stated in the agenda package the user was identified as
Clientqsolutions, a computer service business. Staff stated this user did not follow
through and the applicant had since been contacted by a different office user to use the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6640-B
6
building. Staff stated the current user was Superior Senior Care. Staff stated they
would use of the building as the Little Rock administrative office. Staff stated there were
three full time employees that report to the office on a daily basis and one full time
contract employee that was in the office but not on a daily basis. Staff stated there was
also a part time person that worked a maximum of 28 hours per week. Staff stated
there was little to no customer traffic since the patients were assessed at their home,
nursing homes or area hospitals. Staff stated the hours of operation would remain as
with the original approval and not exceed Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to
5:30 pm. Staff stated the faces of the existing signs would be changed on the
monument sign located within the front yard area as well as on the front façade of the
building. Staff stated the sign face on the rear of the building would remain as Bailey
Real Estate. Staff stated Ms. Bailey would continue to receive mail at this address but
would not be an office tenant at this address.
Ms. Mary Jane Bailey addressed the Commission stating the user was a low key office
user. She stated the traffic to the site would be limited since clients were not served
from this location.
Ms. Donna Kelso addressed the Commission on the specifics of the business. She
stated the office use would be administrative. She stated this office would be
responsible for a number of Counties within the Central Arkansas area. She stated the
office space would be used for billing and scheduling.
There was a general discussion by the Commission as to the activities to take place on
the site. Ms. Kelso stated there were very few customers that actually came to the site
since the contacts were made at the clients home, nursing home or hospital. She
stated the clients served were for the most part nursing home eligible but with the
services her company provided clients were able to stay in their own homes.
A motion was made to approve the request to allow the use of the building by Superior
Senior Care. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open
positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
NAME: Downtown Dog’z Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 918 East 7th Street and 625 Byrd Street
DEVELOPER:
Downtown Dog’z
Ms. Stephanie Rogers
505 Rector Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
SURVEYOR:
Steven Beadle Surveying Co. Inc.
312 West Justice Road
Cabot, AR 72023
AREA: 0.96 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: UU with a CUP for I-2 uses
ALLOWED USES: Residential, Commercial, Office and Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Add outdoor play for animals as an allowable activity for this site –
Retaining UU and I-2 uses
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,227 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on March 7, 2000,
rezoned a larger area including this site from various zoning classifications to UU,
Urban Use District. A CUP for this site was also approved with I-2, Light Industrial
District uses as allowable uses for this block.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicants are currently located at 505 Rector Street and are proposing to
relocate their business to this site located on the corner of 6th and Byrd Streets.
The warehouse building located on this corner contains approximately
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
2
11,500 square feet of space. The applicant is proposing to occupy only a portion
of the warehouse building, 6,000 square feet, while the existing tenant will
continue to occupy the remainder of the building. There is also an adjacent
standalone building located at the corner of Collins and East 7th Streets which will
be occupied by a different tenant. Downtown Dog’z will also lease approximately
5, 000 square feet of yard area.
According to the applicant they have been at the Rector Street location for three
(3) years and have built a large customer base for the business. The applicant
states the customers enjoy the business not only for the care given to their pets
but also for the convenient location to the Downtown/River Market area.
The business is a doggy daycare, boarding, grooming and training facility. The
business houses pets for many of the downtown hotels which do not allow pets
to stay. The current facility can accommodate up to 90 dogs on a daily basis with
both boarding and daycare. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday
from 7 am to 7 pm, Saturday from 8 am to 5 pm and Sunday pickup and drop-off
service by appointment only. Overnight boarders are checked on constantly.
Outside areas are kept waste free, insect free and disinfected regularly with
modern methods. The existing site contains a six (6) foot wood fence around the
play area to assist with noise control. The new location will also include a six (6)
foot wood fence.
The applicants have indicated the new site located at Byrd and 7th Streets is a
better location because of the spacious outside area for dogs and there are a
number of large mature trees located on the site which will aid in keeping the
pets cool. The new location is also further from the interstate but still away from
homes so noise will not be a concern. The outside area will have privacy panels
so the outdoor play areas will not be visible from the street.
The request is to retain UU, Urban use District Uses and I-2, Light Industrial
District uses as allowable uses for the site.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address the request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two warehouse building located along East 7th Street. The site
is fenced with a chain link fence around the perimeters which includes the area
between East 6th and 7th Streets, Collins and Byrd Streets. There are a number
of large mature trees located within the site. To the south of the site is a
transportation company and a siding company. To the east of the site is vacant
property. North of the site are office/warehouse developments including an
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
3
electrical supply business and a paint distribution business. West of the site is a
truck wash and southwest is a hotel.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the Hanger Hill
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. East 6th 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.
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
Byrd Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies that
East 7th Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial street
standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersections of
East 6th Street/Byrd Street and Byrd Street/East 7th Street.
5. With future development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to these streets
including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
7. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
4
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 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: Install fire hydrants per code. 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.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-30 Planning District. The Land
Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has applied
for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development to allow a ‘doggie daycare.’
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. This area is not
covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Master Street Plan: East 7th Street and Byrd Street are both Local Streets on the
Master Street Plan. 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.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
5
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Additional landscaping may be required in conjunction with any new parking
areas.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process.
Staff stated the site was located within the Presidential Park Design Overlay
District. Staff requested details of the proposed signage including ground and
building signage. Staff also requested the applicant provide a full size scaleable
drawing of the site plan. Staff stated street trees and street furniture would be
required if the renovation to the existing building exceeded fifty percent (50%) of
the buildings current replacement cost. Staff stated any trees located within the
public right of way could count for credit of this requirement.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedications
would be required along the abutting streets 30-feet from centerline. Staff stated
radial dedications would be required at the intersections of the abutting streets.
Staff stated a franchise agreement from public works would be required for the
private improvements within the public right of way.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated additional landscaping
would be required with the addition of any paved areas on the site.
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 survey resolving a number of the issues raised
at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
clarified the entire site will not be leased by Downtown Dog’z; only a portion of
the existing warehouse building and a portion of the yard area. The applicant
has indicated a six (6) foot screening fence will be placed along Byrd Street and
a portion of East 6th Street to limit the visibility of the animals from the abutting
streets. The signage proposed will comply with signage allowed in the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
6
Presidential Park Design Overlay District and the UU Zoning District or a
maximum of six (6) feet in height and sixty-four (64) square feet in area.
The site is located within the Presidential Park Design Overlay District and the
base zoning of the site is UU, Urban Use District. The reason for the rezoning
request to PCD is to allow the outdoor play aspect of the business. The UU
Zoning District allows for the use of the site but requires all activities to take place
indoors with the exception of outdoor dining. Both the Overlay and the Zoning
District require the placement of street trees within the public right of way if any
new development or redevelopment of existing buildings exceeds fifty percent
(50%) of the buildings current replacement value or there is an expansion of an
existing development. The design guidelines are to be implemented when a
permit is requested for exterior improvements on buildings or in the public right of
way. Routine repairs, maintenance and interior alterations do not require
compliance with the DOD requirements.
There are no new paved areas proposed with the reuse of this building. Only
cosmetic repairs will be completed to the building including interior painting.
There is an existing chain link fence located around the perimeter of the site. A
six (6) foot wood fence will be added along a portion of East 6th Street and Byrd
Street. A six (6) foot wood fence will also be added on the interior of the yard
area to separate this user from the user of the remainder of the building.
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from UU to PCD to allow the use of a portion
of this building and site as a doggie daycare with an outdoor play area. The
property is currently zoned UU with a CUP to allow I-2, Light Industrial uses as
allowable uses. Within the I-2 Zoning District an animal pound or kennel is
allowed. The Zoning Ordinance defines an animal pound or clinic as a public or
private facility including outside runs for enclosure or animals, especially stray or
unlicensed pets or for pets being boarded for short periods of time. Since the UU
Zoning District specifically states all uses are to be inside or enclosed the
rezoning is necessary.
The request is to retain UU, Urban use District Uses and I-2, Light Industrial
District uses as allowable uses for the site.
Staff is supportive of the request. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel the
reuse of this site as proposed will have a significant impact on the area.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6732-E
7
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: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present representing the request. 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.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6883-B
NAME: Duce Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 5212 I Street
DEVELOPER:
John Duce
4920 I Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.19 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PRD
ALLOWED USES: Single-family – two units
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – one unit
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated October 14, 2010, requesting withdrawal of
this item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 14,
2010, requesting withdrawal of the item without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the withdrawal request.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6883-B
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
NAME: Oak Glenn Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located in the 1900 Block of Watt Street
DEVELOPER:
The Brown Company Remodelers Inc.
5119 West 33rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
Garner Engineering
9300 Professor Drive
Little Rock, AR 72227
AREA: 2.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 350 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from Section 36-460(h)(1), the minimum requirement for common usable
open space.
2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-232(d).
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,918 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5,
2008, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the development of
2.39 acres with a new single-family subdivision. The development included a new
public street named Oak Glen Lane. The subdivision was to contain eleven (11) lots.
The existing home would be maintained and platted on one (1) of the eleven (11) lots.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
2
The ten (10) new lots were proposed for development with single-family residences in a
patio home style. Four (4) of the eleven (11) lots in Oak Glen Subdivision would meet
the typical City lot size standard of 7,000 square feet. The five (5) smallest lots
contained 5,486 square feet with a 50-foot lot width and 109.72 foot lot depth. The
homes contained a minimum of 1,400 square feet of heated and cooled space, with the
more common size estimated to be closer to 1,700 square feet. The subdivision was to
have restrictions stated in the Bill of Assurance and the homes would be built with a
combination of materials, including low maintenance exteriors such as rock, brick or
siding. A condition of the approval was there would be no streetlights installed within
the subdivision. The subdivision would also be enclosed with an eight (8) foot fence at
the time of final platting of the subdivision.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved PD-R to modify
the phasing plan. The applicant is proposing, in the first phase, the sale of the
existing home located on Lot 9 and the final platting of Lot 8 for construction of a
new home. The applicant is also requesting to begin construction of a model
home on proposed Lot 11 prior to final platting of the subdivision. Proposed Lot
9 contains an existing single-family structure with driveway access and utility
service from Watt Street. The applicant is requesting to final plat Lot 9 upon
approval of the revision to the PD-R. In addition the applicant is requesting to
final plat Lot 8 upon approval of the PD-R request. Access and utilities to Lot 8
can be obtained from Watt Street. The applicant also requesting the
construction a model home within the area identified on the site plan as Lot 11
prior to the construction of Oak Glen Lane and the final platting of the remaining
lots within the subdivision.
No other changes are proposed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family home with a number of trees located
on the site. The area is characterized primarily by single-family detached
residences. There are developments in the area, which contain attached single-
family units; the Glen Abbey Court Development, the Chimney Cove Town
homes and Sheraton Court Condominiums. There are two schools in the area,
the Anthony School and Ms. Selma’s Montessori School. There are two (2)
churches located to the south of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site, the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
3
Merriwether Neighborhood Association along with all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The City street section design detail requires 7” of base course and 3 inches
of asphalt.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. 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.
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
5. With the present design, residential waste cannot be collected from Lot 7. A
proposed location that considers the City’s collection vehicle capabilities
should be provided. Residential waste from Lot 8 must be picked up on Watt
Street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
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. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. Additional fire hydrant(s) will
be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
4
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrant will be required at Watt Street and Oak
Glen Lane. Contact Little Rock Fire Department for more information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development Residential to revise a previously approved
plan to modify phasing. The request does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan. This area is covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The
Housing Goal states: “To maintain and enhance overall quality and value of
housing.” The addition of new single family homes could be seen as enhancing
the quality of the area.
Master Street Plan: Watt Street is shown as 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. 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. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. No comments on this detached single family use.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were no outstanding technical
issues in need of addressing related to the site plan. Staff stated the request
was to amend the previously approved PD-R to allow for a phasing plan. Staff
stated the developers were requesting to final plat Lots 8 and 9 with the first
phase. The second phase would include the construction of Oak Glenn Lane
and the final platting of the remainder of the lots.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
5
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues associated with the request raised at the
Subdivision Committee meeting that required addressing via a revised site plan.
The request is to amend the previously approved PD-R to modify the phasing
plan for the subdivision. In the original approval the final platting of the
subdivision was to occur in a single phase. With the current request the
subdivision would be final platted in two (2) phases with Lots 8 and 9 final platted
in the first phase and the remaining lots final platted upon installation of the new
street and utilities to serve the new lots.
There is an existing home located on Lot 9 which has utilities and access from
Watt Street. Proposed Lot 8 is located just north of Lot 9 and can be provided
access and utilities from Watt Street. This lot is proposed for sale to an individual
for construction of a new home. Only these two (2) lots will be final platted upon
approval of the PD-R request. The applicant’s have also indicated they desire to
begin a model home on proposed Lot 11 prior to final platting of the subdivision.
Access and utilities to the home can be provided from Watt Street.
The applicant is not proposing any other modifications to the previously approved
plan. According to the original approval an eight (8) foot would be installed along
the southern perimeter. The remaining fencing was to be a combination of wood,
brick or a metal and masonry combination. Interior fences were allowed on
individual lots not to exceed eight feet in height constructed of similar materials.
A subdivision identification sign was approved not to exceed six (6) feet in height
and thirty-two (32) square feet in area. The sign was proposed on Watt Street at
the entrance to the subdivision.
The new home construction is to range from 1,400 to 1,800 square feet for single
level homes and 1,500 to 2,400 square feet for two level homes. The maximum
building height allowed is 35-feet. The structures are to be constructed of wood
frame construction with low maintenance exteriors including fiber cement or vinyl
siding, brick, real or simulated rock or brick or a combination of these materials.
Accessory structures such as swimming pools, detached garages and other
outbuildings are allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district.
The front setback was approved at 15-feet and a 20-foot rear yard setback was
approved. The side yard setback was approved at five (5) feet. The request
allowed for accessory structures to be constructed within the rear yard area as
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
6
allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district. The approval allowed a
variance from the minimum lot size requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance.
The lots sizes range from 5,486 square feet to 7,000 square feet. The proposed
density of the development is 4.6 units per acre.
A variance was approved from Section 36-460(h)(1), the minimum requirement
for common usable open space. The area south of Oak Glen Lane and east of
Lot 1 would be designated as common open space as indicated on the approved
site plan. As a single-family detached residential development, each lot would
include open space in the front, rear and side yards sufficient to meet the needs
of the residences. A minimum of 500 square feet of usable private open space
per lot was indicated. There are also public parks in the area including Reservoir
Park and biking trails are available in close proximity of the development.
Staff is supportive of the request to revise the phasing plan for the subdivision.
All other aspects of the development will remain as with the original approval.
Staff does not feel the revision to allow the final platting of the subdivision in two
(2) phases and the construction of a model home prior to final platting of the
remainder of the subdivision will significantly impact the 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 continues to recommend approval of the variance request from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the placement of two (2) of the lots (Lots 8 and 9)
as double frontage lots.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from Section 36-460(h)(1),
the minimum requirement for common usable open space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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 stated they continued to recommend approval of the
variance request from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the placement of two (2)
of the lots (Lots 8 and 9) as double frontage lots and the variance request from
Section 36-460(h)(1), the minimum requirement for common usable open space.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294-A
7
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
NAME: Johnson Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 4314 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Gemini Club, LLC
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 275
Alpharetta, GA 30009
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.335 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-4, Open Display District
ALLOWED USES: Commercial – Open Display
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Bar/grill, lounge or tavern
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 20,164 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 6,
2009, rezoned the site from the C-4, Open Display Zoning District to PD-C to allow the
site to be redeveloped with a bar/grill/private club. The site was vacant and was
proposed with the construction of a two (2) story 4,500 square foot building. The site
plan indicated the placement of 31 on-site parking spaces and indicated agreements to
allow additional off site parking spaces at the adjacent funeral home. The hours of
operation were approved from 9:00 pm to 2:00 am Thursday through Saturday.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the request to allow the construction of
a smaller building and rearrange the parking layout on the site. The use of the
building will remain as a bar/grill/private club. The building is proposed as a
single story building containing 3,536 square feet and 19 on-site parking spaces.
The applicant has indicated an agreement from an adjacent property owner to
allow for 16 additional parking spaces. The hours of operation will remain as
were previously approved (9:00 pm to 2:00 am, Thursday through Saturday). A
single ground sign is proposed on Asher Avenue as well as building signage on
the front façade along Asher Avenue.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address the proposed request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant parcel located on the north side of Asher Avenue. This area
contains a number of uses including auto repair, auto towing, bars, churches, a
gas station, a funeral home, a hair salon, a mortgage company office and auto
financing. This area of Asher Avenue also contains a number of vacant buildings
and large paved areas. Further north of the site are single-family homes.
This area of Asher Avenue does not have curb and gutter in place. There is an
existing sidewalk which is in various states of disrepair. The alley located to the
north of the site is a very narrow alley and is signed as one-way.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, the Love Neighborhood
Association and the Mid-way Neighborhood Association were notified of the
public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial
with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from
centerline will be required. The centerline of the right-of-way is not provided
on site plan.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
3
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets with the
planned development. The new back of curb should be located 29.5 feet
from the painted centerline. Plans must be approved by AHTD prior to
construction.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted to Little Rock Public Works
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).
5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
6. The driveway on Asher Avenue should be one-way entrance only.
7. The alley is one-way west bound. The dumpster location should be adjusted
for access from the east side of the property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objections. 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. 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
4
thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
Fire Department: Fire sprinklers may be required. Install fire hydrants per code.
Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14 – the Rosedale Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied
for a revised Planned Development Commercial to allow an increase in the total
building square footage and change the parking lot configuration. The request
does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. This area is covered by the Oak
Forest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Economic Development Goal states:
“Promote Asher Avenue and West 12th Street as viable commercial and service
oriented locations/corridors.”
Master Street Plan: Asher Avenue 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 Asher
Avenue 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 in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The landscape ordinance requires a nine-foot wide (9’) perimeter strip around
the sites entirety. This site is located within the Mature Area of the City of
Little Rock; therefore, this minimal amount can be reduced to six foot, nine
inches (6’-9”). A variance must be obtained from the City Beautiful
Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
5
3. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8 % of the paved areas be
landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 square
feet in area.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the requesting stating the applicant was
proposing to amend the previously approved site plan to allow the construction of
a single story building with less square footage than the original approval. Staff
requested Mr. White provide the percentage of building coverage, the percentage
of landscape area and the percentage of paved area in the general notes section
of the site plan. Staff also requested details of the proposed signage including
ground and building signage.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of
way 45 feet from centerline was required with the site development. Staff also
stated one-half street improvements to the street was required with the new
development. Staff stated the drive on Asher Avenue should be a one-way drive.
Staff stated the alley located to the rear of the site was a one-way alley,
westbound.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
the Designated Mature Area of the City which allowed for the landscape strip to
be reduced to six feet nine inches (6’9”). Staff stated there were paved areas
indicated on the site plan which encroached into this minimum landscape strip.
Staff also stated a small amount of building landscaping would be required with
the new development.
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 October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plan
indicates the required landscape strip along the eastern perimeter adjacent to the
parking area, redesigned the drive from Asher Avenue to a one-way driveway
and provided details of the proposed signage.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
6
The applicant is proposing the construction of a one-story building containing
3,536 square feet of space to be used as a bar/grill/private club. The site plan
indicates the placement 19 on-site parking spaces and 16 off-site parking spaces
for a total of 35 spaces. The use of the building as a bar/grill would typically
require the placement of one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square
feet of gross lease space. Based on this parking requirement a total of
35 spaces is required to serve the use. The applicant has indicated he has an
agreement with an adjacent property owner to the north to allow the use of
nineteen (19) spaces during the applicant’s operational hours. The applicant has
not provided staff with a copy of the written agreement. The zoning ordinance
allows for parking to be located off-site (Section 36-507) but requires the parking
to be located within 300 feet of the building and does not allow for the required
parking located off-site to exceed twenty-five (25) percent. The current request is
to allow forty-two (42) percent of the required parking to be located off-site. The
original approval allowed for a similar parking variation from the zoning
ordinance. The original approval allowed thirty-eight (38) percent of the required
parking to be located off-site.
The site plan indicates the placement of building signage along the façade
abutting Asher Avenue. The signage will comply with signage allowed in
commercial zones or a maximum of ten (10) percent of the façade area. The site
plan indicates the placement of a single pole sign located along Asher Avenue.
The sign is proposed with a maximum height of thirty-six (36) feet and a
maximum sign area of one hundred sixty (160) square feet in area. The
proposed signage complies with signage allowed in commercial zones.
The site plan indicates the placement of a six foot nine inch (6’9”) foot landscape
strip along the eastern and western perimeters where adjacent to the parking
areas. The site plan also indicates the placement of interior islands per the
minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. The site plan indicates the
placement of a dumpster along the alley to the north. A note on the site plan
indicates the dumpster will be screened as required by the zoning ordinance.
The dumpster service hours will be limited to daylight hours.
Staff is supportive of the request. The request is to allow the construction of a
single story building as opposed to a two-story building and the construction of
less building square footage than originally approved. Although there are a
number of similar uses in the area staff does not feel the addition of this
bar/grill/private club will negatively impact the area. Staff also does not feel the
off-site parking will negatively impact the area since the parking is located
adjacent to this site. Staff’s support however, is conditioned upon on the
applicant securing an agreement for the adjacent property owner allowing for the
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-A
7
use of the adjacent parking. Should this agreement not be reached staff is not
supportive of the request due to insufficient parking to serve the development.
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.
The applicant must provide staff with a written agreement from the adjacent
property owner allowing the use of the adjacent parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
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
stated the applicant was to provide staff with a written agreement from the adjacent
property owner allowing the use of the adjacent parking area.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-8603
NAME: West Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 2406 West 13th Street
DEVELOPER:
Ms. Ruthie West
2907 Summit Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Butler Surveying Group
P.O. Box 13087
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential – Central High DOD, Allow the front porch
to remain enclosed
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property is located at 2406 West 13th Street and is located within the Central
High Design Overlay District boundaries. The property is currently under
enforcement. The owner has enclosed the front porch of this home, which is not
allowed per the Central High Design Overlay District. The DOD states the
primary entrance to the structure shall be consistent with that of other structures
on the developed block face. The ordinance also states all residential structures
must have a front porch that is a passageway from the street to the front door of
the unit on new residential construction and additions/modifications to the front
façade of existing residential structures.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8603
2
The applicant’s cover letter indicates she is primarily responsible for her 83-year
old father who lives in the home and suffers from Alzheimer’s, heart disease and
has a number of other medical concerns. She states the front porch was
enclosed to allow her father to sit outside without concern for him.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address this specific request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The home is located one block north of Central High School and is the second
house from the corner of Rice Street located on West 13th Street. The lot
immediately to the west of this home is vacant. The home to the east is an
occupied single-family residence. The uses in this immediate area along West
12th and 13th Streets are single-family and two-family residences. There is an
area of commercial located along West 12th Street to the northeast and northwest
at the intersections of West 12th and Park, Dennison and Jones Streets.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the Central High
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. The Central High
Neighborhood Association has submitted a letter indicating opposition to the
request.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8603
3
Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Development Residential to allow
a variance from the Central High DOD. The request does not require a change
to the Land Use Plan.
This area is not covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Master Street Plan: West 13th Street 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.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Ms. West was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of
the request stating the applicant had enclosed the front porch of her home
located on West 13th Street which was in violation of the Central High Design
Overlay District. Staff stated the violation was under enforcement and the
applicant was requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow the enclosed porch to
remain as presently constructed. Ms. West stated the new construction made
the home look better and was done to allow her father to stay outdoors and not
be concerned for his safety or him wandering away due to his health condition.
Staff noted there were few comments from the other reporting departments and
agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8603
4
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no issues raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee
meeting requiring a revised site plan. The applicant is requesting to be allowed
to maintain the enclosed front porch which is in violation of the Central High
Design Overlay District. The construction was done without review by the
Planning Department prior to construction and the applicant did not purchase a
permit for the improvements.
The DOD states in order to ensure compatibility with the historic nature of the
neighborhood all new construction and addition are to be reviewed by the
Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The department is to review the plans for consistency with the detailed
requirements of the DOD to determine consistency with the ordinance. The
ordinance states primary entrances are to be consistent with that of other
structures on the developed block face. The ordinance also states residential
structures must have a front porch that is a passageway from the street to the
front door of the unit on new residential construction and additions/modifications
to the front façade of an existing residential structure.
Based on the requirements of the DOD staff cannot support the request. The
enclosure is out of character with the remainder of the homes on the block. All
other houses on the block have front porches as did this home before it was
enclosed. The DOD was approved on October 20, 2009. Staff does not feel the
enclosure of the front porch meets the intent of the Central High Design Overlay
District.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant was seeking a deferral of the item to the December 16,
2010, public hearing. The applicant approached the Commission stating additional time
was needed to gather information to present to staff.
The Chair entertained a motion for a By-law waiver for the late deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The Chair
entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request to the December 16, 2010,
public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open
positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-8604
NAME: Talbert Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 18601 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Heike Talbert
1 Etrier Court
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.192 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: Beauty Salon, Art Studio and Gallery, Antique Shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD
to allow the reuse of this existing structure as a beauty salon, art gallery with the
potential of an antique shop. The applicant has also indicated in the future the
existing 28’ x 28’ shed could be converted to a studio to allow the owner to
provide art lessons. Additional parking would be required to serve the proposed
uses of the building. The applicant has indicated the additional parking could be
added to the rear of the structure allowing the existing structure to screen the
parking from Kanis Road.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address this specific request.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure and a number of outbuildings
and sheds. The house is set back from Kanis Road and there is a single lane
drive extending from Kanis Road to the home. The property to the east was
recently approved with an amendment to the POD zoning to allow the
construction of a two (2) story office building along the western portion of the site.
There is an existing office building located along the eastern portion of the
adjacent site. The property to the west is overgrown and abandoned. There is a
church located further west along with a commercial business located on C-3,
General Commercial District zoned property nearer the intersection of Kanis and
Stewart Roads. North of the site is property zoned C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial which is currently being used as a hair salon. Other uses in the area
include single-family residences located on large lots or acreage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the Coalition of West Little
Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis 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 future development beyond this application, provide the design of street
conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street
improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development.
3. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide approval from the Arkansas
Department of Health concerning the proposed addition of a commercial
business within the existing structure and the capacity of the septic system to
handle the additional flow.
Entergy: No comment received.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
3
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: The site is located outside the service boundaries of the Little
Rock Fire Department. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department
indicating their knowledge of the proposed project and their ability to serve the
use.
County Planning: Approved as submitted.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to Planned
Commercial Development to allow a beauty salon and an art studio. The
proposed uses are not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. This area is
not covered by a Neighborhood Plan.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road 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
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
4
limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Kanis Road
since it is a Minor Arterial. 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 III bike route is shown along Kanis Road. A Class III
bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or
right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The zoning buffer ordinance requires an eleven-foot wide (11’) land use buffer
along the eastern and western perimeters of the site next to the residentially
zoned properties. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain
undisturbed.
3. A six-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is required along this
western and eastern property lines next to the residentially zoned property.
Existing on site vegetation that screens the property may suffice for screening
purposes.
4. Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new parking on the site.
5. A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
6. 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.
7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Ms. Heike Talbert was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the request stating there were few outstanding technical issues
associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff stated if the structure
was to be used as a commercial business the applicant should provide a letter
from the Arkansas Department of Health indicating the ability of the septic
system to handle the additional water flow. Staff also requested the applicant
provide a letter from the area Volunteer Fire Department indicating their
knowledge of the change in use to a commercial business. Staff questioned any
proposed signage including ground and building signage. Staff also stated any
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
5
newly paved areas would require landscaping per the City’s landscape ordinance
requirements.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of
way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated street
construction to Kanis Road would not be required with the current request but
any future development would require street construction to Minor Arterial
standards including curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be
required along the eastern and western perimeters where adjacent to
residentially zoned or used property. Ms. Talbert questioned the screening
requirement since the area to the east was vacant and the area to the west was
abandoned. Staff stated screening could be accomplished by the placement of
vegetation along these perimeters. Staff stated the screening would be required
adjacent to the commercial activities. Ms. Talbert questioned the irrigation
requirement. Staff stated they would review her revised plan to determine the
extent of irrigation requirements.
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 a number of the
issues raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
revised plan indicates the placement of parking and addressed signage. The
applicant provided a letter from the area Volunteer Fire Department indicating
their knowledge of the project.
The applicant is proposing to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD to
allow this existing single-family structure to be converted to a commercial
business. The applicant has indicated the commercial activities will include a
beauty salon, gallery, antique shop and art studio.
The salon is proposed with approximately 900 square feet. The remainder of the
home, approximately 1,300 square feet, will be used as the gallery and antique
shop. The applicant is proposing the use of the structure with three chairs
initially and the addition of a fourth in the future. Employees are proposed as the
beauty operators and one person for staffing of the gallery and antique shop.
This person will also serve as receptionist for the salon.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
6
The parking required for a beauty salon is one space per two hundred gross
square feet. Based on the use of 900 square feet of space for the salon area
four (4) spaces would be required. In reality, a total of twelve (12) spaces would
be required to serve a typical salon use, one space for the operator, one space
for the customer in the chair and one space for the next client to be served. The
remainder of the structure, approximately 1,300 square feet, will be used as a
retail use. The parking typically required for a retail use is one (1) space per
300 square feet or four (4) spaces. This would bring the total parking
requirement for the site to sixteen (16) spaces. The site plan indicates the
placement of nineteen (19) parking spaces. The applicant is requesting to phase
the parking construction. According to the applicant only a portion of the parking
will be constructed in the first phase, 13 spaces and the remainder constructed in
the second phase. The applicant has indicated the Arkansas Department of
Health has stated the existing septic system will only support a three (3) chair
salon. The construction of the parking as proposed would provide the parking for
the structure as typically required by the zoning ordinance.
The site plan indicates the placement of a single ground mounted sign within the
front yard area. The sign is proposed six (6) feet in height and sixty-four (64)
square feet in area. The applicant has not requested the allowance of an
electronic reader board. No electronic signage will be allowed. Building signage
is proposed as allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten (10) percent of
the façade area. The building will also have two (2) awning signs fronting on
Kanis Road, one sign to advertise the gallery and one to advertise the salon.
The lettering will not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the awning.
The hours of operation for the salon are proposed from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm
Monday through Saturday. The gallery hours of operation are proposed from
9:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday.
The site plan indicates there is a large amount of existing vegetation along the
eastern and western perimeters adjacent to the residential uses. The applicant is
requesting to not be required the placement of additional screening in these
areas. The property to the west is abandoned and most likely will not redevelop
as a residential use. A portion of the property to the east along Kanis Road is
zoned for an office use and the remainder of the site is currently vacant. The
applicant has indicated should these properties redevelop in the future with
residential uses proper screening will be installed at that time. The applicant is
also requesting a waiver of the requirement for the automatic irrigation system.
The only new landscaping to be installed at this time is related to the parking lot.
The applicant has indicated a water source within 75-feet will be provided to
water these landscaped areas.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8604
7
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is located just outside the intersection
of Kanis and Denny Roads, which is indicated on the City’s Future Land Use
Plan as Neighborhood Commercial. The majority of the parking is indicated in
the rear yard area and will be screened by the structure from Kanis Road. The
property located to the west is non-residential and the property to the west will
most likely redevelop as a use other than residential. The site adjacent to the
western property is a church. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff feels the redevelopment of this site as
proposed is appropriate.
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 the required screening be installed along the eastern and
western perimeters adjacent to the commercial activities should these properties
redevelop as residential uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
The applicant was present representing the request. 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 that the required screening was to be installed along the eastern and
western perimeters adjacent to the commercial activities should these properties
redevelop as residential uses.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8605
NAME: Lot 1 Edwards Subdivision Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 11601 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Pat Malmstrom
11201 Old Arkansas Road
Roland, AR 72135
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 3.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Singe-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Professional Office Uses (Daycare)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property located at 11601 Kanis Road was originally constructed as a
single-family residence but was later converted to an office uses prior to the area
annexation to the City. With the conversion, the entire front yard was paved for
parking. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from the current R-2,
Single-family to POD to allow the immediate reuse of the site as a daycare
facility. The applicant is requesting to utilize O-3, General and Professional
Office uses as allowable alternative uses for the site.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation as 6:00 am to
7:00 pm seven days per week. A single ground sign will be located within the
front yard area along Kanis Road with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
2
maximum sign area of sixty-four (64) square feet. Building signage is proposed
on the front façade of the building as allowed in office zones.
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address this specific request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The building was previously a single-family residence but appears to most
recently have been occupied by an office use. The front yard area has been
paved from what appears to be property line to property line. The back yard area
is open. There is a dumpster located within the front parking area. Other uses in
the area include an office development located to the north at the northwest
corner of Kanis and Autumn Roads. There is a property located on the northeast
corner of Kanis and Autumn Roads that is zoned POD and was approved for an
office/warehouse development. Further north on Autumn Road is a daycare
center. East of the site with frontage on Kanis Road is an office building and a
second office building is located to the south accessed by a driveway/access
easement from Kanis Road. West of the site are three office buildings and
further west is a single-family residences with an upholstery shop located behind
the home.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis 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 future development on the site beyond this application, provide the
design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half
street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned
development. The new back of curb should be located 29.5 feet from
centerline.
3. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements including parking located in the right-of-way.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
3
4. Driveway location do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements
of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The current driveway location will cause
vehicles waiting to make left turns into the site to block the Autumn
Road/Kanis Road intersection. The subject property must share a single
driveway access with the property to the east. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet.
5. 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: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 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
including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of
this 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
(CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: Fire sprinklers may be required. Install fire hydrants per code.
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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
4
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to Planned Office
Development to allow the reuse of an existing structure as a daycare. The
request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. This area is not
covered by a Neighborhood Plan.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road 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 Kanis Road
since it is a Minor Arterial. These streets 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. Any/all parking or landscaping located within the public right-of-way will need
to be franchised.
3. Upon rehabilitation or building addition in the future the parking lot and
associated landscaping will need to be upgraded to meet minimal City
Ordinance requirements.
4. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick Engineering was present representing the
request. Staff presented the item stating there were a few outstanding technical
issues associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission
acting on the request. Staff questioned the number of children, the number of
staff and if the daycare would provide transportation. Staff also questioned any
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
5
signage including ground and building signage proposed. Staff questioned the
days and hours of service and if any new fencing was proposed.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of
way 45-feet from centerline was required. Staff also stated street construction
per the Master Street Plan was required including curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Staff stated a franchise agreement was required to allow the parking as indicated
to be located within the newly dedicated right of way.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all landscaping located
within the public right of way would require franchising. Staff also stated upon
rehabilitation of the building a landscaping upgrade would be required. Staff
stated credit for fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements would be given for
preservation of trees six (6) inches in caliper or larger.
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 October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
provided the days and hours of the proposed daycare, the number of children to
be served and the number of staff persons. The revised plan also indicates the
placement of signage and relocated the driveway to the east.
The request is a rezoning from R-2, Single-family to POD to allow the reuse of
this existing structure as a daycare center. The center will serve a maximum of
thirty-five (35) children. The center is proposed with three (3) staff persons and
the center will have one van for transporting the children. The typical parking
requirement for a daycare center is based on one space per administrator,
teacher and employee on the largest shift plus one space per facility vehicle plus
one space per ten (10) children of licensed capacity. The parking typically
required for a daycare center of this size is seven (7) spaces. The site contains
twenty-two (22) parking spaces. The existing parking is more than adequate to
serve the use. The applicant is also seeking O-3, General Office District Uses as
allowable alternative uses. The building contains 1,775 square feet of space.
Based on the parking requirements for an office development five (5) parking
spaces would typically be required.
The site plan indicates the dedication of right of way to 45 feet from centerline
along Kanis Road. With the dedication of right a way a portion of the parking and
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
6
the landscaped area will be located within the right of way. The applicant will
seek a franchise agreement with the City for these improvements to remain.
The applicant is requesting the placement of a ground mounted sign within the
front yard area along Kanis Road. The sign will also be located within the public
right of way. The applicant will request a franchise agreement with the City to
allow the placement of the sign within the public right of way. Building signage is
proposed consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten
percent of the front façade area. The sign is proposed three feet by twelve feet
with a total sign area of thirty-six square feet. The proposed signage is a total of
6.9% of façade coverage.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation from 6:00 am to
7:00 pm six (6) days per week.
The revised site plan has relocated the dumpster from the front parking area to
the side of the structure. The applicant has not proposed limiting the dumpster
service hours to daylight hours. Staff does not feel the hours of service should
necessarily be limited to daylight hours for this site. There are few residences
located in this immediate area which would be impacted by early morning hour
service.
There are very few improvements required with the proposed reuse of this site.
The applicant is proposing the addition of a six (6) foot chain link fence around
the playground area in the rear yard area. The only other improvements will be
cosmetic. The revised site plan has relocated the driveway along the eastern
perimeter to be a shared drive with the adjacent property owner. Staff feels this
will improve access to this site as well as the adjacent site.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is shown as Mixed Office Commercial
on the City’s Future Land Use Plan which allows for redevelopment of properties
with a mixture of office and commercial uses through the planned development
process. The request to allow redevelopment of the site with a daycare center
and the request to allow O-3, General Office District uses as allowable alternative
uses is consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan. To staff’s knowledge
there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
Staff does not feel the redevelopment of the site as proposed will significantly
impact 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.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8605
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8606
NAME: Watson Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 431 Midland Street
DEVELOPER:
Terry Watson
431 Midland Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
SURVEYOR:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family – Hillcrest Design Overlay District, Allow an addition
to the rear of the structure which encroaches into the rear yard
setback
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property located at 431 Midland Street contains an existing two-story brick
and frame home with a building footprint of approximately 1,275 square feet.
The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing home located within the
rear yard area containing 1,128 square feet. The request would allow the rear of
the addition to be located within five (5) feet of the existing alley located along the
eastern property line. A similar request was approved by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment on June 27, 2005. The applicant did not follow through with the
approval and the approval has since expired.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8606
2
The Bill of Assurance for this site does not address specific request.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This section of Midland Street appears to be single-family detached homes with
front yard setback more than the typical 25-foot average. This home and the
homes on either side appear to have more in the range of a 40-foot front setback.
The home proposed for rezoning is a one and one-half story home. The rear
yard area is open to the alley. The home sits up slightly from the street but has a
larger elevation change within the rear yard area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 regarding the size and location of the water meter.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8606
3
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property.
The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-3, Single-family to Planned
Residential Development to allow an addition within the rear yard area of this
existing home.
The applicant has filed this request because it does not fully comply with the
Hillcrest DOD, but the request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The housing
goal states: “Recommend the creation of an Overlay District that would require
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for reclassification of land use, density, or
other infrastructure improvements.” The Hillcrest Design Overlay has been
implemented. This requires the use of a Planned Unit Development for the
redevelopment of this property.
Master Street Plan: Midland Street 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.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Terry Watson was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the request stating there were additional items necessary to
complete the review process. Staff stated the request was previously approved
by the Zoning Board of Adjustment but the approval had expired and the Hillcrest
Design Overlay District had been adopted which no longer allowed the Zoning
Board of Adjustment to review and approve such requests. Staff stated the
variation was to allow a lesser rear yard setback than typically allowed. Staff
stated all other aspects of the DOD were being complied with.
Staff noted there were few other comments from the other reporting departments
and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8606
4
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no revisions required of the site plan based on comments received at
the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is
requesting a one-story addition to the rear of his existing home located within five
(5) feet of the eastern alley. The addition will extend from the rear of the home
approximately forty-seven (47) feet. The construction is proposed within six (6)
feet of the north property line. The southern face of the new construction will not
extend beyond the face of the existing home.
The site is located within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. The Overlay
regulates floor area ratio, building height and massing as well as setback. The
Overlay states that if for any reason a property cannot be developed per the
existing zoning district the property must be reviewed through the planned zoning
development process. The development is complying the all aspects of the DOD
with the exception of the rear yard setback.
The property is currently zoned R-3, Single-family. Section 36-255(d)(3) of the
City’s zoning ordinance requires a minimum rear setback of 25-feet. The rear
setback is proposed at five (5) feet. The rear setback is the area of
non-compliance with the DOD.
The DOD states the floor area ratio (FAR) is to be calculated based on the
principal building size and the size of the lot. The lot is less than 8,000 square
feet. For residential structures with two floors, the FAR is to be 0.50 percent or
less. The size of the applicant’s lot is 50-feet by 135-feet or 6,750 square feet.
The existing structure contains 1,628 square feet and the addition is proposed
with 1,128 square feet. The floor area ratio is as allowed by the DOD at
40.8 percent.
The DOD states no structure may exceed 35-feet in height. The existing home is
21.7 feet high and the addition is proposed with a similar height as the exiting
home.
The DOD also states the maximum lot coverage for all structures under roof shall
not exceed fifty percent (50%). The lot coverage proposed with the new
construction is thirty-six (36) percent.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to PD-R to allow the rear yard
setback variance. Staff feels the request is reasonable and that the proposed
addition will not be out of character with other single-family lots in this area of
Hillcrest. There are a number of single-family lots in the area with building
massing similar to what this applicant is proposing. Additionally, the main front
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8606
5
portion of the house is set back over 30-feet from the front property line, which
reduces the amount of rear yard space available for building expansion. Staff
believes the proposed addition will have no adverse impact on the adjacent
properties or the general area. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining
outstanding 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-8607
NAME: Angles Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 15005 Cooper Orbit Road
DEVELOPER:
Michael Hendrixson
15005 Cooper Orbit Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 5.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential – Single chair beauty salon with no
signage and no employees
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property located at 15005 Cooper Orbit Road contains a single-family home
on 5.2 acres. The property is located across the street from a non-residential
use, the Oasis Renewal Center property. The applicant is requesting to add a
salon use within his existing home allowing only a single chair. The applicant
has indicated the hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday
through Saturday. The owner would schedule appointments to serve only one
client at a time. There are no employees. The request does not include the
placement of signage and no advertising for this location is proposed.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8607
2
The property is not located within a recorded subdivision therefore there is not a
Bill of Assurance for this site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family residence located on acreage. The property is
located outside the City limits of Little Rock but within the City’s Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction. The property across Cooper Orbit Road is the Oasis
Renewal Retreat Center. The property to the east is single-family homes
accessed from Glisten Lane. West of the property is a vacant lot, also owned by
the applicant. Further to the southwest is a newly developing single-family
subdivision, Governor’s Manor.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet, and the Spring Valley Manor
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Cooper Orbit 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 future site development beyond this application, provide the design of
the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street
improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned
development.
3. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance
at the driveway complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. From
initial inspection, it appears the sight distance is insufficient.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. Provide approval from the Arkansas
Department of Health concerning the proposed addition of a commercial
business within the existing structure and the capacity of the septic system to
handle the additional flow.
Entergy: No comment received.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8607
3
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objections. 12-inch main in Cooper Orbit Road has
a CIC on the Main. The charge is based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply in addition to normal charges for new service or connections. 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. A Capital Investment Area 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 including metered connections off the private fire system.
Due to the nature of this 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 (CAW) requires that upon 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 CAW. The test results must be sent to
CAW'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: The site is located outside the service boundaries of the Little
Rock Fire Department. Provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department
indicating their knowledge of the proposed project and their ability to serve the
use.
County Planning: Approved as submitted.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density for this property. The
applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned Commercial Development to
allow a single chair beauty salon within an existing residence. The primary use
remains residential and the secondary use is similar to a ‘home-occupation’
(though not on the City of Little Rock list of home-occupations). This area is not
covered by a Neighborhood Plan.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8607
4
Master Street Plan: Cooper Orbit Road 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
Cooper Orbit Road since it is a Minor Arterial. These streets 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. Landscaping will be required with any new parking on the site.
3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the request stating the applicant desired
to place a beauty salon with a single chair in his home. Staff stated the applicant
was not proposing any changes to the exterior of the home or any signage. Staff
stated the salon owner currently had a shop on Kanis Road and was proposing
to add the chair to his home as a service to clients. Staff also stated there would
not be any advertising for this location and customers would be by appointment
only and scheduled to not overlap.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the sight distance for
the drive accessing Cooper Orbit Road. Staff stated due to the location of the
curve and the angel the drive intersected with the road there were concerns the
sight distance requirement per AASHTO could not be met. Mr. White stated he
would verify the sight distance and prepare a letter addressed to Public Works
indicating compliance.
Staff noted no additional landscaping would be required with the current request.
Staff stated any newly paved areas would require landscaping per the City’s
landscape ordinance requirements.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8607
5
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:
There were no issues raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee
meeting which required the resubmission of the site plan. The applicant has
provided staff with a letter from a licensed engineer certifying the sight distance
of the drive intersection and Cooper Orbit Road does meet AASHTO standards.
The sight distance required is 200 feet. The sight distance certified is 240 feet.
The request is to allow the placement of a salon in the owner’s house. A single
chair will be located in the home to serve clients on an appointment only basis.
The salon owner has indicated appointments will be scheduled to not overlap to
limit the number of persons on site at a time. The salon owner has indicated
there will be no signage and no advertising for this location. The hours of
operation are proposed from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday. No
dumpster facilities will be located on the site. No additional paving will be added
to the site.
Staff initially raised concerns with the sight distance for the drive intersection with
Cooper Orbit Road. The property owner has since cleared the area and
improved the sight distance allowing the sight distance required meeting the
AASHTO standard. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the
placement of a beauty salon with a single chair within the salon owners home will
significantly impact 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.
This approval is limited to this property owner and operator, Michael Hendrixson.
The approval is not transferable to any other owner, operator or tenant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8607
6
the agenda staff report. Staff also presented a recommendation that the approval was
limited to this property owner and operator, Michael Hendrixson and that the approval
was not transferable to any other owner, operator or tenant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
November 4, 2010
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LA-0033
NAME: French Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: Southside of Baseline Road between Childers Drive and Sibley Hole Road
APPLICANT: Kristopher French
AREA: approximately 20 acres
CURRENT ZONING: Industrial I-1
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Regulations
for issuance of a grading permit to harvest timber on the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations for
staff to issue a grading permit to select cut mature hardwood sawtimber trees on
approximately 20 acres located on the southside of Baseline Road between
Childers Drive and Sibley Hole Road owned by the applicant. The application
states trees with a minimum diameter of 20 inches will be cut. This will result in a
harvest of approximately 30 percent of the trees on the property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 20 acre property is zoned I-1, Industrial Park District is undeveloped with
dense mature trees. The trees are primarily hardwood with a few pine trees.
Based on twenty 1/10 acre sample plots taken throughout the stand,
approximately 60 trees per acre exist on site. Properties to the north across
Baseline Road are zoned R-2, Single-family and PID. One of the properties is
undeveloped and the other sells used auto parts. The property on the east is
zoned OS, Open Space and R-2, Single-family. The floodplain runs along the
eastern property line. A church is located on the R-2, Single-family zoned
property. The properties located on the south are zoned PD-C and O-3, General
Office District. One of the properties is undeveloped and a church is located on
the other property. The properties on the west are zoned R-2, Single-family and
PD-I. A church is located on one of the west properties. The other property has
an industrial packaging company located on it.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0033
2
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any requests for additional information
either by telephone, e-mail or letter. All adjacent property owners including those
across streets or alleys and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress have been
notified of the public hearing.
D. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Harvest activities must comply with State and Federal forestry harvest
techniques and code. Damage to offsite property must be repaired by the
applicant in a timely manner.
2. 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.
3. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater.
An erosion control plan with soil loss calculations should be provided to staff
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
4. Vehicle tracking pad should be constructed per Little Rock Code Section
29-190(12) on Baseline Road.
5. A perimeter buffer strip shall be temporarily maintained around disturbed
areas and shall be six percent (6%) of the lot width and depth with a minimum
width of 25 feet and a maximum width of 40 feet.
6. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of harvest activities.
7. A temporary culvert is proposed to be installed in the ditch along Baseline
Road which is a State Highway. Obtain permits for temporary improvements
within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. The culvert should
be sized based on the expected storm water flows.
8. 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.
9. A minimum undisturbed strip 25 feet wide except for reasonable access shall
be provided along each side of streams having a 10 year storm > 150 cfs.
The undisturbed strip should be measured from the top of the bank.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0033
3
E. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. The land use buffers that are required around the sites entirety cannot be
disturbed. The fifty percent (50%) request for harvesting cannot include trees
located within these land use buffer areas and are to be undisturbed per the
City of Little Rock’s Zoning Buffer Ordinance Requirements. 50 foot land use
buffers are required to not be disturbed along the west, south, and east
property lines.
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (October 14, 2010)
Kristopher French, the applicant, was present at the subdivision committee
meeting. The item was discussed with the Subdivision Committee members.
Staff explained the comments and went into detail pertaining to the required
undisturbed land use buffers.
G. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Kristopher French, the applicant, has agreed to leave a 50 foot undisturbed
buffer around the entire property except for the entrance/exit off Baseline Road
per staff’s comments. The applicant is proposed to remove 15 to 20 trees per
acre or 25% to 30% of the total number of trees on the property excluding those
trees within the undisturbed buffer area. The forestry plan states that
unfortunately by using the most care some smaller trees will be destroyed during
logging activities.
An area about ¼ to ½ acre in size will be cleared and function as a loading zone
for cut trees. Trees to be cut will be clearly marked with paint at eye level and
below stump height to verify that only the intended trees will be cut. Trees will be
topped in the woods or skidded to the loading zone and topped and loaded on
trucks. The logging activities are estimated to be completed within 2 to 3 weeks
once logging begins.
A grading permit is required to be obtained prior to beginning logging activities
following the submittal of an erosion control plan and forestry management plan.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the tree harvest variance request subject to
compliance with conditions and comments stated in paragraphs D and E.
November 4, 2010
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0033
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 4, 2010)
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 conditions and comments stated in paragraphs D
and E of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
placement on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions.
LU
w
W
cn
0
J
IL
M
I
W
z
J
r
c
V
Mks
cu
0
I
G)
CD
W
W
Of
v
►I
I
F-
Z
W
cr)
m
W
4
Z
.th
W
}
9
0
4
{
LLJ
m0<
W
Mmuol-
C7�<
ct�
LJJ
C/)
Q
O
p
=
—i��
�
~
J
W
Z
�
0
<
=�Z[Y�C�Ca
>-
_
"
QY
�
m�
0
wQ�f
�
<
W
U-
>
t;�
a[
Z
—
E15
0
W
CL
Z
0
—
CJ]
0
a_
W
CL
Mks
cu
0
I
G)
CD
W
W
Of
v
►I
I
F-
Z
W
cr)
m
W
4
Z
.th
W
}
November 4, 2010
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
at 6;07 p.m.
i //6-"//
Da