HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 03 2008sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 3, 2008
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Valerie Pruitt
J. T. Ferstl
Troy Laha
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
William Rector
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: Lucas Hargraves
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the November 8, 2007 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JANUARY 3, 2008
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. S-1528-A Kroger Fuel Center Subdivision Site Plan Review, located
at 8415 West Markham Street.
B. S-1595 Alexander Square Preliminary Plat, located North of
Alexander Road and East of Natchez Lane.
C. Z-3652-B Kroger-Beechwood Revised Short-form PCD, located at
614 Beechwood Street.
D. Z-5152-A Jameson Suites Revised Long-form PCD, located at 10920
Chenal Parkway.
E. Z-7720-A Denison Bailey Creative Arts Center Revised Short-form
PCD, located at 1517 – 1611 Wright Avenue.
F. A-310 Shoemaker Annexation, 218± Acres South of Lawson Road
between Crystal Valley Road and Duvall in Sections 20, 29,
30, T-1-N, R-13-W.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. S-878-C Lots 1 – 5 Replat of Tracts 8 & 9 Hopson and Sach’s
Addition, located South of Kanis Road and West of Michael
Drive.
2. S-1600 Howe Preliminary Plat, located at 17725 Raines Road.
3. S-1601 Deer Woods Preliminary Plat, located on the Southeast
corner of Yarberry Lane and Chicot Road.
4. S-1602 Burkett Addition Preliminary Plat, located North of
Roosevelt Road, West of Bond Avenue and East of Bolton
Street.
Agenda, Page Two
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
5. Z-2959-G Alltel Paramount Building Zoning Site Plan Review, located
at 11025 Anderson Drive.
6. Z-4336-EE Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review, located on the
Northeast corner of 10th and Battery Streets.
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
7. Z-3371-T Glenn Ridge Crossings Lot 6 Long-form PCD, located near
the intersection of Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive and Bowman
Plaza Drive.
8. Z-4213-I Lot 1 Bowen Plaza Revised Long-form POD, located on the
Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman
Road.
9. Z-4524-F GCC Addition Lots 3A and 3B Short-form PCD, located at
12814 Cantrell Road.
10. Z-5924-A The Residences at Sherrill Heights Short-form PD-R,
located West of Rebsamen Park Road and South of Sherrill
Heights Road.
11. Z-6345-B Mulkey Short-form PD-R, located at 208 Rose Street.
12. LU08-01-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain
Planning District from Single Family and Transition to
Commercial north of Highway 10 at Taylor Loop.
12.1. Z-7500-D Pinnacle Village Long-form PCD, located North of Cantrell
Road, West of Pinnacle Valley Road and North of the
Taylor Loop Road/Cantrell Road Intersection.
13. Z-7603-D PDC Companies and 14910 Cantrell Road Long-form PCD,
located North of Cantrell Road and West of Taylor Loop
Road.
Agenda, Page Three
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
14. Z-8292 The House of Vision Short-form POD, located at 1921
Wright Avenue and 1853 Summit Avenue.
15. Z-8294 Oak Glen Short-form PD-R, located in the 1900 Block of
Watt Street.
16. Z-8295 Velvatex Beauty College Short-form PCD, located at 1520
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
IV. Other Business:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
17. A-312 Porocel-Green Annexation and Zoning Classification to I-3
Heavy Industrial (Z-8287), located along the West side of Arch
Street Pike just North of Dixon Road, in the NW ¼ SW ¼
Section 4 & NE ¼ SE ¼ section 5, T-1-S, R-12-W.
18. G-23-394 Country Club Lane Right of Way Abandonment, located
adjacent to 2422 Country Club Lane.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1528-A
NAME: Kroger Fuel Center Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 8415 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Kroger Limited Partnership I
Steve Sheridan
800 Rodgelake Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38120
ENGINEER:
Pickering, Inc
Cara Martin
6775 Lenox Center Court, Suite 300
Memphis, TN 38115
AREA: 4.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 21.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The Kroger Limited Partnership I, is requesting a subdivision site plan review to
allow the placement of a fueling center within the parking lot of the existing
Kroger Grocery located at 8415 West Markham Street. The fuel center is
proposed with four pump islands and a kiosk containing 112 square feet. The
existing Kroger store contains 54,963 square feet of gross floor area. Presently
there are 197 parking spaces located on the site. With the placement of the fuel
center 46 parking spaces will be removed resulting in a total of 151 parking
spaces to serve the grocery and fueling center.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
2
The canopy is proposed with a maximum height of 22-feet. The signage is
proposed with a maximum sign area per canopy of 45.5 square feet. The
lettering is proposed with 3-feet 6-inches by 13-feet. The applicant is proposing
to replace the existing sign with a new monument style sign. The sign is
proposed with a maximum height of fifteen feet and a maximum width of eleven
feet three inches. The sign will contain the store name along with pricing
information for the fuel.
The fueling center will maintain outdoor display items typical of a fueling center
such as automobile related products, soft drinks, ice and snacks.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a number of uses including a restaurant and the Kroger store.
On an out-parcel of this site there is a drive-through restaurant. To the north,
east and west there a number of commercial businesses and office uses fronting
West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road. South of the Kroger store is a
single-family subdivision and to the north of the site across West Markham Street
are single-family homes and office uses.
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
along with the Sunny Meade Neighborhood Association and the Penbrook/Clover
Hill Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. New curb and gutter and additional pavement should be installed across the
frontage of the property to the front of the existing power poles and tie into the
new curb and gutter recently installed by the City near Rodney Parham Road.
2. The back of the 5 foot sidewalk should be installed at the right-of-way line.
3. Remove existing striping and install new striping to allow for five – 11 foot
traffic lanes.
4. All private improvements in the right-of-way must be franchised.
5. Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with
special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline
will be required. Due to the arterial-arterial intersection at Markham Street
and Rodney Parham, an additional 10 feet of right-of-way measured from the
centerline of the right-of-way should be dedicated for the right turn lane. The
additional right-of-way shall be 250 feet in length measured from the
intersecting right-of-way.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
3
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
8. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to the property.
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 Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding the size and location of the water meter. 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).
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 CATA Bus Route #5 – the West Markham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
4
2. The painted traffic islands need to be changed to planter islands, by doing so,
the site will meet the perimeter landscape requirement while also helping with
traffic circulation.
3. The street buffer requirement is an average thirty-six foot (36) wide and in no
case less than half, or eighteen foot (18) wide. Currently, the site plan is not
meeting this minimum requirement. After right-of-way dedication the area is
not averaging the thirty-six foot. The minimum landscape perimeter
requirement of nine foot (9) wide is not being met around the sites entirety. It
will be necessary to provide landscape upgrade towards compliance with the
ordinances based on the percentage of building expansion.
4. A small amount of building landscaping will be required in conjunction with
this development.
5. All fencing, landscaping, striping, etc. must be in good condition or be
repaired/replaced in conjunction with this development.
6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on the site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 6, 2007)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if signage was
proposed for all sides of the canopy and requested the applicant provide the
location for the proposed signage. Staff also questioned if there would be areas
of outdoor display of product around the fuel center. Staff stated lighting must be
low level and directional, directed downward and into the site. Staff also
requested the hours of operation of the fuel center.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated new curb, gutter and
sidewalk should be installed across the frontage of the property to the front of the
existing power poles and tie into the new curb and gutter recently installed by the
City near Rodney Parham Road. Staff also stated the striping should be
removed to allow for five 11-foot lanes.
Landscaping comment were addressed. Staff stated an upgrade would be
required in association with the building permit. Staff suggested the painted
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
5
traffic islands be changed to planter islands to assist in meeting the upgrade
requirement.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 most of the issues
raised at the September 6, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated signage, areas of outdoor display and included a note concerning
the site lighting. The applicant has also provided the hours of operation for the
fuel center. The applicant has indicated the area is not available for the
placement of five lanes as requested by Public Works staff and will work with
staff to install the street improvements.
The hours of operation for the fuel center are proposed from 6:00 am to
11:00 pm seven days per week. The site will utilize the dumpster facilities
presently located on the site.
The canopy is proposed with a maximum height of 22-feet. The signage is
proposed with a maximum sign area per canopy of 45.5 square feet. The
lettering is proposed with 3-feet 6-inches by 13-feet. The applicant has not
sought a variance to allow signage on the fuel canopy to face into the parking lot
area. The signage for the fuel canopy will only be allowed on the street side,
facing West Markham Street.
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing sign with a new monument
style sign. The sign is proposed with a maximum height of fifteen feet and a
maximum width of eleven feet three inches. The sign will contain the store name
along with pricing information for the fuel center.
The fuel center is proposed with four pump islands and a kiosk containing
112 square feet. The fueling center will maintain outdoor display items typical of
a fueling center such as automobile related products, soft drinks, ice and snacks.
The location of these products will not impede the flow of traffic around and
through the site.
The existing Kroger store contains 54,963 square feet of gross floor area. The
applicant has indicated an 80/20 split of retail and warehousing. Based on the
typical parking required for a grocery store a total of 150 parking spaces would
be required. Presently there are 197 parking spaces located on the site. With
the placement of the fuel center 46 parking spaces will be removed resulting in a
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
6
total of 151 parking spaces to serve the grocery and fueling center. Based on
parking typically required to serve a food store, supermarket or convenience-type
grocery store, the parking is adequate to serve the development.
The site plan has been revised to allow the painted traffic islands nearest the
fueling center to be planter islands. By allowing this change the site comes
nearer meeting the perimeter landscape requirement while also assisting with
traffic circulation.
The street buffer requirement for the site is an average thirty-six foot (36) wide
and should in no case be less than half, or eighteen foot (18) wide. The site plan
indicates the placement of a nine foot landscape strip along West Markham
Street as typically required by minimum ordinance standards. Also the ordinance
would typically require a minimum landscape perimeter planting of nine feet (9)
around the site’s entirety which is not being met. The proposal is the
redevelopment of an existing site. The applicant has indicated with the
placement of the nine foot landscape strip within the front yard area and the
placement of landscaped islands within the parking lot these upgrades allow the
site to come more in compliance with the typical ordinance requirements, based
on the percentage of building expansion proposed.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is seeking approval of a
subdivision site plan review to allow the placement of additional buildings on the
site to serve as a fueling center. The site plan as proposed meets the typical
setback for C-3, General Commercial District zoned property and the site plan
has been designed to allow for proper circulation within the site. The
landscaping as proposed allows for an upgrade to an existing site which has little
to no landscaping. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining technical issues
associated with the request remaining outstanding. Staff does not feel the
placement of the fuel center as proposed will have a significant impact on the
site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 landscaping as proposed by the applicant
allowing the site to come more into compliance with the existing ordinance
standards.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommends 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 landscaping as proposed
by the applicant allowing the site to come more into compliance with the existing
ordinance standards.
Mr. Steve Sheridan addressed the Commission as a representative of Kroger. He stated
Kroger had worked with City staff and the adjoining property owners to produce a plan
which would compliment the site and allow for access and circulation. He stated based
on the current site plan Kroger would be adding additional landscaping to a site which
contained no landscaping thus adding value to the site.
Ms. Mollie Irving addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She provided
the Commission with photo’s of the area indicating traffic concerns, stacking concerns
and safety concerns. She stated a number of the shoppers at the Kroger store were
elderly and she felt the placement of the additional activity on the site would generate
traffic safety concerns for the shoppers. She stated the site was not like the Kroger
sites on Shackleford or Asher which were conducive to the placement of pumps within
the front yard area. She stated based on traffic it was difficult to exit the site and make
a left turn and right turns were also difficult unless someone let you out. She stated the
drives along West Markham Street were located so close together a number of
customers of Kroger mistakenly turned into the adjoining parking lot for the liquor store
and were forced to reenter West Markham to enter the Kroger drive. She stated with
the addition of the gas pumps this would potentially increase crime in the area. She
stated during holiday season the parking lot was full and could not afford to lose any
spaces for the placement of the fuel center. She stated the lives of the area residents
and the shoppers was worth more than Kroger being able to sell gas and make a few
bucks.
Mr. Robert Clay addressed Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he had
lived in the neighborhood for a number of years and was a frequent shopper of Kroger.
He stated he first because aware of the issue on the day Ms. Irving was taking the
pictures presented to the Commission. He questioned her and she told him of the
proposal. He stated he did not support the placement of the fuel pumps in the parking
lot. He stated the site was congested and felt the addition of the pumps would only
increase the congesting.
Mr. Oley Rooker addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he did not live in
the neighborhood but his mother did and she was a shopper of the Kroger store. He
stated a number of the patrons of the store were elderly and did not need the addition of
the pumps within the parking lot area. He stated the site was not like the Asher location
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
8
which did allow a drive island and a traffic light to exit the site. He requested the
Commission deny the request.
Mr. Sheridan stated a great deal of time was spent developing the site plan for the
fueling center. He stated safety of the customers was a concern of Kroger. He stated
with the addition of the landscape islands traffic flow on the site would be improved. He
stated West Markham would be widened with the proposed development to facilitate
traffic in the area.
The Commission questioned if the drives on the Kroger site would be increased.
Mr. Sheridan stated he was not willing to commit to the widening without reviewing the
survey to determine the location of the existing power poles. He stated if the drives
could be widened without a great expense he would be willing to increase the drive from
the present 30-feet to 36-feet.
Commissioner Allen questioned if the developer had met with the neighborhood.
Mr. Sheridan stated he was not aware of the concerns of the neighborhood until today.
Commissioner Allen questioned Mr. Sheridan if he was willing to accept a deferral of the
item to allow time to meet with the neighborhood to see if any of the issue raised could
be resolved. Mr. Sheridan stated he was willing to accept a deferral of the item to allow
him to meet with the neighborhood association.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to defer the
item to the November 8, 2007, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
1 no, 2 absent and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to support the site plan review for the placement of the fuel center within
the parking lot area along West Markham Street as proposed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested a deferral of the item to the
January 3, 2008, 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 of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
9
STAFF UPDATE: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to support the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the item had previously been
deferred to allow the developer and the neighborhood to meet. Staff stated the meeting
had occurred and the neighborhood was still opposed to the development.
Mr. Steve Sheridan addressed the Commission as a representative of Kroger. He
stated the meeting with the neighborhood had been held and various items were
discussed. He stated the fuel center was designed with the aid of staff to provide
proper access and circulation within the site. He stated the addition of the fuel center
would provide a benefit to Kroger but also to the customers of Kroger. He stated the
addition of fuel would benefit the customers by providing an additional service.
Ms. Molly Irvin addressed the Commission in opposition. She presented the
Commission with photos of the shopping center parking lot on the day before
Thanksgiving, the day before Christmas and on a normal shopping day. She stated the
existing drive was not adequate to allow for proper turning. She stated the drive
allowed for one-way in and one-way out. She stated the site was different than the
Shackleford and Colonel Glenn locations since the site did not have access to a traffic
light. She stated the development could not utilize the parking from Red Lobster since
this parking lot was also always very crowded. Ms. Irving stated she had police reports
for the area and the incidents of crime in the area were extremely high. She stated the
addition of a fuel center would only increase crime in the area. She stated the area was
too congested and the fuel center would only add to this congestion.
Commissioner Adcock questioned Ms. Irving as to the number of fuel centers in the
area. Ms. Irving stated a station was located on the corner of West Markham and John
Barrow Road. She stated in the past the corner held three stations with the last station
being removed and the Burger King being constructed.
Mr. Robert Clay, Jr. addressed the Commission. He stated he had attended the
previous meeting and addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated he had
viewed accidents at the site. He stated safety was his primary concern. He stated the
location was not a typical Kroger store. He stated the site did not contain enough
parking to serve the present needs and to remove any parking spaces and add
congestion to the site was not in the best interest of the shoppers and neighborhood.
He requested the Commission protect the safety and tranquility of the area residents.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
10
Ms. Ruth Turner addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she had lived in
the area 38 years and shopped at the Kroger store. She stated she had been a victim
of crime, a victim of an accident and a victim of panhandling at the store. She stated
she did use Kroger for fuel at the Shackleford location and appreciated the price break
given to customers. She stated there was no need for fuel at the West Markham
location since the Shackleford location was so near. She stated with the current access
and congestion of the site the site did not need to add a fuel center. She requested the
Commission deny the request.
Commissioner Laha questioned Ms. Turner as to the nature of the accident. She stated
a customer backed into her automobile. She stated the accident was due to
congestion.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated she was
representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County and there were concerns
with the development as proposed. She stated the bottom line was the site was a tight
site, there were a number of curb cuts along West Markham Street in the area and the
intersection of Rodney Parham Road and West Markham Street was a very busy
intersection. She stated a right turn from the western drive was near impossible. She
stated the area was very congested. She stated the addition of a fuel center would only
add to the congestion of the area.
There was a general discussion of the Commissioners and staff concerning the drive
location and the potential for the addition of a traffic signal at the drive. Staff stated the
intersection was a very busy intersection with the number of cars approaching 20,000 to
23,000 vehicles per day. Staff stated the drive was located to near the existing light for
the addition of a light at the western drive. Staff stated the intersection was studied by
State Farm Insurance Company to improve safety and a number of the
recommendations from the study were recently implemented thru the bond project
monies. Staff stated they were unsure of the level of service of the intersection but the
service was poor. Staff stated no detailed traffic study had been prepared and they
were unsure of the number of additional customers the fuel center would attract. Staff
stated with the development Kroger would add width to the existing lanes which were
presented constructed substandard. Staff noted a full lane could not be added due to
the location of the existing utility poles.
The Commission questioned the width of the proposed drive and the width necessary to
allow for two lanes out and one lane in. Staff stated to allow this configuration the drive
should be 36-feet in width. Staff noted the site plan indicated the drive width of 30-feet
which was not adequate to allow two exit lanes and one entrance. Staff stated with the
new development the curb radius of the parking lot would be improved to allow for a
more smooth transition from the street to the parking area. Staff stated the eastern
drive was modified with the reconstruction of the intersection of West Markham and
Rodney Parham Roads. The Commission asked Mr. Sheridan if he was willing to
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1528-A
11
amend his application to increase the drive width. He requested the Commission
amend his application to increase the western drive to 36-feet and allow two exit lanes
and one entrance.
The Commission questioned if the loss of parking for basket collection concerned staff.
Staff stated the site plan indicated 151 parking spaces and they did not feel the loss of a
few spaces for basket collection would significantly impact the site.
The Commission questioned Mr. Sheridan if the store was planning an expansion. He
stated there was no where to go. He stated the store was planning a renovation in 2008
of approximately $4 million dollars. He stated an expansion of this store was an option.
The Commission questioned Ms. Molly if any of the item presented changed her mind.
She stated she was still opposed.
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as amended to include two
lanes out and one lane in along the western driveway. The motion failed by a vote of
2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1595
NAME: Alexander Square Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located North of Alexander Road and East of Natchez Lane
DEVELOPER:
Joe Clay and Charles Tankersley
10227 HWY 70
North Little Rock, AR 72117
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Company
5318 JFK Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 28.34 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 112 FT. NEW STREET: 4,769 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth adjacent to a railroad track, Lots 22 - 41.
2. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio, Lots 51 and 52.
3. A variance to allow a reduced lot depth, Lot 15 and 16.
4. A variance to allow a reduced lot area, Lot 15.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request is to allow the subdivision of this 28.34 acre site into 112 single-
family lots. The subdivision will be served by the extension of a new street from
Alexander Road and by the extension of Natchez Lane from its current terminus.
There are variances from the typical minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow a reduced lot depth for the lots abutting a main railroad line, a
reduced lot depth, a reduced lot area and an increased lot depth to width ratio.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site bounded by Alexander Road to the south, Natchez
Lane to the west and the Railroad Track to the north. The area to the east is
also a wooded site appearing to be the rear yards of the homes located along
Alexander Road and Pam Drive. There are single-family homes located along
Alexander Road and Natchez Lane. Both Alexander Road and Natchez Lane
are unimproved streets with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property abutting the proposed site along with the
Alexander Road Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Alexander 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. If a round-a-bout is installed at the intersection of Natchez, Thebes, and
Conquest Cove, then one street name should be used on the street to
Alexander Road. If round-a-bout is not installed, Natchez Lane street name
should continue to Alexander Road.
3. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to these streets
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
4. Construction traffic during subdivision and home construction shall take
access directly from Alexander Road and not from Natchez Lane.
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).
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. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. Grading is only allowed to occur in the right-of-way
and drainage easements.
7. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
3
8. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
Provide calculations showing capacity of drainage structure under railroad
and proposed storm water flow from subdivision. If not sufficient capacity,
provide proposed method to mitigate insufficiency with supporting
calculations.
9. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
11. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
12. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least one (1) foot above the base
flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans for lots in
the floodplain.
13. City code requires streets to be constructed with a minimum 150 foot radius.
Provide redesign of curves C1, C3, C6, C5 and any other insufficient
radiuses. All curvatures should be superelevated per AASHTO standards.
14. Provide a minimum 150 foot radius at Viceroy Lane and Chariot Drive with a
bulb out and on Corinth Way with a bulb out. All curvatures should be
superelevated per AASHTO standards.
15. Streets should meet at 90 degree angles and not be offset. Realign or
construct a round-a-bout at the intersection of Natchez Lane, Conquest
Cove, and Thebes Lane.
16. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage
speeding. Traffic circles or round-abouts are suggested at regular intervals
and at main intersections such as the intersection of Thebes Lane, Viceroy
Lane, and Corinth Lane or install speed humps along Thebes Lane and
Viceroy Lane for traffic calming. Contact Travis Herbner, Traffic
Engineering at 379-1805 for additional information.
17. 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.
18. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
19. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
4
20. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersection of Chariot Drive and Alexander Road comply
with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
21. Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street for all streets less than
26 feet wide.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
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. Water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. 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.
Fire Department: Install and place 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.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 18, 2007)
Mr. David Jones of Marlar Engineering Company was present representing the
owners. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating there
were a number of variances associated with the request. Mr. Jones stated he
had revised the plat based on comments provided by staff prior to the meeting.
Mr. Jones stated the number of lots needing variances for the lot depths, for the
lot widths and the lot depth to width ratio had been reduced. He stated the
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
5
variances to allow a reduced lot depth adjacent to a railroad track was still being
requested.
Commissioner Laha questioned if buffers would be retained along the railroad.
He also suggested the owner perform a hazardous waste and materials survey
on the site next to the track. He stated over the years there had been a number
of spills which may have contaminated the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated per City code streets were
to be constructed with a minimum 150 foot radius. Staff requested the applicant
provide a redesign of curves C1, C3, C6, C5 and any other insufficient radiuses.
Staff stated all curvatures should be superelevated per AASHTO standards.
Staff requested the applicant provide a minimum 150 foot radius at Viceroy Lane
and Chariot Drive with a bulb out and on Corinth Way with a bulb out. Mr. Jones
stated he had conversations with the District Engineer of the Arkansas State
Highway Department and his feeling was the streets would not drain if
constructed as requested by staff. Staff suggested the applicant contact the
Traffic Engineer to discuss these comments.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 preliminary plat to staff addressing a number
of the issues raised at the October 18, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has revised the plan to eliminate a number of the indicated
variances but three variances remain on the proposed plat. The plat indicates a
variance to allow a reduced lot depth for proposed Lot 15 and 16, a variance
from the depth to width ratio requirement for Lots 51 and 52 and a variance to
allow a reduced lot depth adjacent to a main railroad line for Lots 22 - 41. The
proposed plat indicates a common tract for recreation containing approximately
4,500 square feet.
The Subdivision Ordinance typically requires lots abutting a freeway, expressway
or occupied mainline railroad right of way to have a depth of not less than
175 feet in order to ensure proper separation of residences from adjacent
thoroughfare or railroad line. Lots 22 – 41 abut a main railroad line and are
indicated with an average lot depth of 117-feet.
The Subdivision Ordinance states no residential lot shall be more than three
times as deep as it is wide, except lots abutting an expressway or occupied
mainline railroad right of way. Lots shall be measured at the building line except
in the case of a lot abutting a cul de sac where the average width of the lot shall
be used. The applicant has not provided the average width of the indicated lots
therefore staff cannot determine if a variance is required.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
6
The Subdivision Ordinance states no lot shall be less than 60-feet in width and
100 feet in depth and have a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. Lot 15 is
indicated with a lot depth of 92.99 feet. In addition, Lots 15 and 16 do not appear
to meet the 7,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement.
According to the applicant a 15-foot conservation easement will be included for
the lots abutting the railroad line. No easement has been indicated on the plat.
A number of Public Works comments have been addressed. The applicant has
not provided staff with the requested grading and drainage plan, the drainage
calculations for the subdivision and the certification of site distance at the
intersection of Alexander and Chariot Roads. The applicant has not provided the
floodplain designation of the lots abutting the railroad tract as indicated on the
FIRM.
Staff is not supportive of the development as proposed. Staff has concerns with
the lot depth for the lots abutting the main railroad line and feels these lot depths
should be increased to allow for adequate separation of the homes and the
railroad traffic. Staff feels with the additional lot depth adequate buffering could
be left to increase the livability of these homes. Staff also cannot support the
application with the outstanding issues associated with the request as indicated
above.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant had today requested a deferral of the item. Staff stated
the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to
the late deferral request.
A motion was made to waive the By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent. A motion was made to approve
the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant submitted a request dated November 26, 2007, requesting withdrawal of
this item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1595
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant has submitted a request dated November 26,
2007, 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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 8, 2008
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
NAME: Kroger-Beechwood Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 614 Beechwood Street
DEVELOPER:
Kroger Corporation
Attn. Steve Sheridan
800 Ridgelake Boulevard
Memphis, TN 38119
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
ATCHITECT:
RPPY, Architects
Attn. David Perry
713 West 2nd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Roberts and Williams
Attn. Barry Williams
1501 N. University Avenue, Suite 430
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Grocery store
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Grocery store
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
2
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 14,021 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 7, 1981,
established Safeway Planned Commercial Development to allow a grocery store to
locate on this site. Ordinance No. 15,800 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors
on January 16, 1990, revised the previously approved PCD to allow the existing off-
street parking provided by the PCD to be permitted as shared parking with an adjacent
property so as to provide loading, driveway and parking for the US Postal Service.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing an amendment to the existing PCD to allow a new
building expansion. The developers are proposing to enclose the two current
covered porch areas and extend the building to the west by 21-feet. Along with
the expansion, Kroger will repave and make repairs to the existing parking lot. In
addition to the lot repairs, Kroger will replant their current landscape areas and
install an irrigation system to improve plant health and longevity. The parking lot,
however, will not be changing in configuration or number of spaces. The current
lot is used by many of the areas businesses including the Post Office.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Kroger and associated parking encompass much of the block with two additional
buildings containing retail and a postal facility located along Kavanaugh
Boulevard. The structures to the east along Beechwood Street appear to be
office and commercial uses. The structures to the west along North Palm Street
appear to be single-family homes. There is a traffic light at the intersection of
Beechwood Street and Kavanaugh Boulevard. Street parking is allowed along
the east side of North Palm Street and along both sides of Beechwood Street.
Street parking is also allowed along the south side of Woodlawn Drive.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from
area residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed
site along with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and 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. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
3
2. Appropriate handicap ramps are required along Beechwood Street in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
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. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersections of
Woodlawn Avenue and Palm Street and Beechwood Street and Woodlawn
Avenue.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants may be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #1 – Pulaski Heights Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revised Short form PCD.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Beechwood Street is shown as a Local Street and
Kavanaugh Boulevard is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a
Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. 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
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
4
zoning than duplexes, are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets
have a design standard the same as a Collector.
Bicycle Plan: Class III bike routes are shown on Kavanaugh Boulevard and
Beechwood Street. 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.
Neighborhood Action Plan: The Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan covers this
area. The Crime and Safety goal states: “Increase lighting and visibility around
houses and businesses.” The Zoning and Land Use goal states: “Encourage and
improve the walkability of the neighborhood, specifically the intersection of
Kavanaugh and Beechwood.”
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. All existing required landscaping should be replaced and in good botanical
condition.
3. All existing fencing/dumpster enclosures, etc. should also be in good repair or
replaced in conjunction with this request.
4. Special consideration should be given to the residential area along the east.
5. Street trees are required. A franchise agreement will be required in
conjunction with the requirement.
6. This proposal/request eliminates any/all building landscaping. One option
might be to turn a few of the parking spaces next to the building into
landscape islands. Otherwise, a variance must be obtained from the City
Beautiful Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 18, 2007)
Mr. Barry Williams was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the site was located in
the Hillcrest Design Overlay District and requested the applicant provide building
elevations and the method proposed to break the massing of the western wall.
Staff stated landscaping was located within the area proposed for the expansion
and questioned the applicant if any of the landscaping would remain.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated plans for work in the right
of way would require permitting prior to construction. Staff also stated a 20-foot
radial dedication would be required at the intersections of the abutting streets.
Mr. Williams stated a dedication would not be an issue at the Beechwood
intersection but at the North Palm intersection. Since the developers were
proposing a zero setback along North Palm Street and there was presently a
zero setback along Woodlawn Drive, the dedication would interfere with the
proposed building construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all existing landscaping
should be in good condition and any dead or diseased landscaping should be
replaced. Staff also stated building landscaping would be required adjacent to
the parking area. Staff stated the front striped landscape islands could be
redesigned and planted to provide the required building landscaping.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 most of the issues
raised at the October 18, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has provided the landscaping to remain within the proposed expansion area,
provided elevations of the proposed facades and provided a 20-foot radial
dedication at the intersection of Beechwood and Woodlawn Streets. The request
includes a waiver of the radial dedication required at the intersection of
Woodlawn and Palm Streets. According to the applicant, if the radial dedication
is provided, the new dedication of right of way would place the corner of the
building within the right of way.
The site is located in the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. The ordinance states
non-residential district regulations shall apply to any office and commercial zoned
land within the District. New and renovated buildings (more than 50% - exterior
surface area altered) shall be compatible with existing scale, setbacks and
massing of the buildings in the immediate area. Ground level facades shall
reflect the same building materials as existing commercial buildings in the one
block area adjacent to and across from the location. Façade materials may be
any standard material, except, corrugated or ribbed materials. According to the
Overlay, setbacks from streets and alleys shall meet current code requirements,
except setbacks may align with surrounding structures. Wall projections or
recesses a minimum of three feet depth and a minimum of 20 contiguous feet not
to extend over twenty (20) percent of the façade shall be required. Arcades,
display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least sixty percent of
the façade. Buildings shall maintain a distinction between upper and lower
levels; any elevation greater than eighteen feet in height shall contain an
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
6
architectural treatment, which visually divides the structure into ‘stories’. New
construction wider than 100 linear feet shall be massed so as to visually break
the structure at intervals not less than 100 feet. Rooflines shall be varied with a
change in height every one hundred linear feet in building length. Parapets,
mansard roofs, gable roofs, high roofs shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof
top equipment. Predominate exterior building materials shall not be smooth-
faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels.
Parking requirements within the district shall be 50% of that required by Article
VIII of the zoning ordinance. The maximum parking allowed shall be the
minimum standard established. Surface parking shall be limited to the side and
rear of structures and no parking shall be allowed in the front-yard setback.
Surface parking is to be located behind or adjacent to a structure, never between
the building and any abutting street.
Permitted signs shall be as in Section 36-553 signs permitted in institutional and
office zones. On the street level, the maximum area of signage may be doubled
if at least 50% of the street-level office and retail space has direct access to the
street. The highest point on any commercial sign attached to the building shall
not exceed the corresponding building height. Free standing commercial signs
may not exceed 18-feet in height. Neon lit signs greater than 30 square feet are
prohibited. Off-premise signs are prohibited.
Lighting shall be designed to prevent light from commercial developments from
excessively illuminating the property in question, other properties or night sky.
Only light fixtures that are categorized as full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights is permitted but not encouraged. Down
lighting is preferred. A lighting plan shall be submitted for staff review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The elevation provided indicates the building will be constructed vertically of five
different materials and horizontally columns will be added along the façade at
critical points to break the long horizontal plane. The western wall will also
include architectural elements to mimic a false front or entrance to also assist in
breaking the massing. The western façade is presently 164-feet long and a 16.4-
foot addition to the front is proposed for a total building length of 180.4 feet. The
site plan as proposed does appear to break the massing along the western
façade as typically required by the Hillcrest Design Overlay District.
The front of the existing building is 204 feet and a 21-foot expansion is proposed.
The building would have an overall length of 246 feet. The front vertical plane of
the building is proposed with five different construction materials and the massing
of the horizontal plane will be broken with the placement of columns and
architectural features at the entrances of the building.
Signage for the development has not been designed. The applicant has
indicated signage will comply with the Design Overlay District requirements with
a maximum height of eighteen feet.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
7
Parking on the site is consistent with typical ordinance standards. The site
contains 131 parking spaces. The Design Overlay District states the parking
required within the District shall be 50 percent of that required by Article VIII of
the zoning ordinance and the maximum parking shall be the minimum standard
established in Article VIII. Based on the typical ordinance standards, 122 parking
spaces would be the maximum with 61 spaces being the parking required.
The site plan has indicated the building setback of the wall to three (3) feet from
the west property line. The original submission included a zero building setback.
With the reduction of the expansion area, additional planting space will be added
between the building and sidewalk along the western side. The existing trees
have been indicated on the revised site plan and it appears that the older oak
trees will remain. The trees located within the new building footprint are newer
plantings of Bradford Pear and Leyland Cypress. With the new construction, the
drip line of a number of the trees to be retained will be disturbed. Staff
recommends if the trees are damaged during the construction process and must
be removed, the replacement trees must be substantial trees of a minimum of
four inch caliper or the maximum caliper allowed to be planted with a root ball.
Staff is supportive of the development. Staff feels the developer has done an
adequate job in addressing the key elements of the Hillcrest Design Overlay
District. Staff also feels the developer is sensitive to the residences located
along the western façade by allowing a combination of construction materials and
including architectural features to break the massing of the western wall. To
staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the
request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 if any trees are damaged during the construction process and
must be removed, the replacement trees must be substantial trees of a minimum
of four-inch caliper or the maximum caliper allowed to be planted with a root ball.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 24, 2007,
requesting a deferral of this item to the January 3, 2008, public hearing.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3652-B
8
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the item to the February 14,
2008, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-5152-A
NAME: Jameson Suites Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 10920 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Lloyd Graves
1824 Berry Boulevard
Louisville, KY 40241
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 2.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Hotel
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Hotel – revise previously approved signage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 3, 2008, public hearing to allow
additional time for the property owners to reach an agreement concerning the proposed
signage, design and location.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item requesting a deferral of the item to the January 3, 2008, public
hearing to allow additional time for the property owners to reach an agreement
concerning the proposed signage, design and location.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5152-A
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
There has been no contact by the applicant since the previous public hearing. Staff
recommends the item be withdrawn and refiled once the applicant has resolved
concerns of the adjoining property owner with regard to signage placement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of withdrawal. Staff stated there had been
no contact by the applicant since the previous public hearing. Staff stated the
application could be refiled once the applicant had resolved concerns of the adjoining
property owner with regard to the sign placement.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7720-A
NAME: Denison Bailey Creative Arts Center Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 1517 – 1611 Wright Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Denison-Bailey Land Company, LLC
9 Covewood Circle
Little Rock, AR 72204-5928
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.98 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C
ALLOWED USES: Creative Arts Studio and Loft Apartments
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Creative Arts Studio and Loft Apartments; add
underground parking
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 3, 2008, public hearing. The
applicant has not contacted staff addressing the issues raised at the October 18, 2007,
Subdivision Committee meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 8, 2007)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item requesting a deferral of the
item to the January 3, 2008, public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had not contacted
them and addressed the issues raised at the October 18, 2007, Subdivision Committee
meeting.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7720-A
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant submitted a request dated November 15, 2007, requesting withdrawal of
this item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated November 15,
2007, 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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: 310
NAME: Shoemaker Annexation
REQUEST: Accept 216 acres plus or minus to the City
LOCATION: South of Lawson Road, between Crystal Valley and Duvall, within
Sections 20, 29 and 30, Township 1 North, Range 13 West
SOURCE: Andrew Francis, PA, representative for Emprise LLC,
Property Owner
GENERAL INFORMATION:
• The County Judge held a hearing and signed the Annexation Order on
July 24, 2007.
• The area requested for consideration is currently undeveloped.
• There is one owner, the Emprise LLC.
• The site is contiguous to the City of Little Rock on a portion of two sides.
• The annexation request is to obtain sewer service and other City Services.
• The area in question is along the south side of Lawson Road between
Crystal Valley Road and Duvall. It is continuous to the City along its
southwestern boundaries, connecting to an area currently developing as
Sienna Lake Subdivision.
• Currently the property is zoned Single Family (R-2).
• The property owner has indicated they intend to develop this land into
some 160 lots for single-family homes.
Staff Recommendation:
In order to more fully review the issues related to this annexation Staff has
requested the item be deferred for six weeks to the October 11, 2007 hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 30, 2007)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 11, 2007
agenda. The consent agenda was passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent
and 1 open position.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
2
STAFF UPDATE:
AGENCY COMMENTS:
Public Safety:
Fire: The Fire Department has concerns about service to the area. The closest
station is almost 4 miles from the area. While this should not affect the ISO
rating at this time, unless additional station(s) are constructed in the next decade
or so problems could arise. Due to the distance, the Department suggests that
all structures be sprinkled should be implemented. Alternatively, the requester
could purchase the site for the future station and provide it to the city (site
location as designated by the Little Rock Fire Department).
Additionally there is only one access. Arkansas state law says that for a
development of this size, there should be at least two access points. Therefore
the proposed second access point along the southern parameter of this area
should be opened prior to the thirtieth residential unit being constructed. (Prior to
the final plat approval of the creation of more than 29 lots there should be a
second access point made available).
The Crystal Fire Protection District has expressed concerns that this annexation
could cause with response to fires for both the Little Rock and Crystal Valley
Departments. With an area that protrudes in to the county and is surrounded on
three sides by un-incorporated areas confusion is possible. In addition, though
contiguous, this connection is not by way of street. A person would have to drive
great distance outside the city limits to access this site. (NOTE: This is the Fire
Department that currently services the area requesting annexation and will
continue to service areas both to the east and west of the site.)
The closest Fire Station is on Colonel Glenn Road a little over three and three-
quarters of a mile to the east of the annexation area.
Police: The Little Rock Police Department has indicated there are some
concerns. While there should not be immediate impacts beside longer than
desirable response times to this area, there are longer-term concerns. The
potential link to the Sienna Lake development could be problematic to the police.
In addition, the future call loading for this area is an unknown.
The closest police patrol would have to drive almost one-mile to get to this area
adding additional time to an already large patrol district.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
3
Infrastructure and Community Facilities:
Central Arkansas Transit: No Comment Received.
The closest regular bus service is at Colonel Glenn Road and Shackleford Road,
approximately two and a third miles away to the east.
Parks and Recreation: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department
indicates there are essentially no services available in this vicinity and that they
continue to fall behind with acquisition of property and provision of facilities.
The proposed ‘Take it to the Extreme’ Trail (shown in the Little Rock Parks and
Recreation Master Plan) would go through or near this annexation area. Some
sort of open space recreational area should be included within or near the
annexation area.
Public Works: The Public Works Department has indicated while there could be
issues in the future with waste collections and maintenance of Lawson Road. At
this time they do not recommend against the annexation of this land.
Lawson Road is shown as an Arterial but is currently a two-lane road with open
ditches. Right of way for this widening was included in the approved preliminary
plat ‘Ventana Ridge’ for this area. In addition as part of the subdivision process a
collector was required through the development. At the time of development the
property owner – developer, will make these street improvements. Currently the
City would have the additional maintenance of approximately 400 linear feet of
Lawson Road.
Utilities:
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water indicates additional water
facilities and fire protection shall be required at the developer expense. A Capital
Investment Charge based on meter size will also apply to this area.
There is an existing 12-inch line in Lawson Road.
Entergy: No Comment Received.
Reliant-Energy: No Comment Received.
Wastewater Utility: The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has indicated there is no
sewer service in this area. Sewer Mains will have to be extended at the cost of
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
4
the developer and sized as required by the Wastewater Utility. Additionally in
order to service this area a trunk-line may have to be constructed outside the
current city limits to service this area requesting annexation.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment Received.
Schools:
Little Rock: No Comment Received.
The annexation is not within the Little Rock School District.
Pulaski County Special: No Comment Received.
The annexation area is with in the Pulaski Special School District and the
Lawson Elementary attendance zone.
ANALYSIS:
This site is within the City of Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction. The site is
primarily wooded and undeveloped. A single house has been located on this
site. There are two ridgelines that cross the area in a northwest to southeast
direction. The result is topographic change of 180 feet from around 360 feet to
500 feet. McHenry Creek flows by the property at Lawson Road. This is the low
point of the property.
The property is within the City Planning Jurisdiction and was zoned in October
1991 to ‘R-2’ Single Family. This zoning allows for a minimum lot size of 7000
square feet. In October 2006 the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a
preliminary plat, Ventana Ridge Subdivision, for over 160 single-family lots
ranging in size from a third of an acre to 1.3 acres. Ventana Ridge Subdivision
was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission conditioned on
annexation. (Note: Staff noted that the recommendation and approval did not
indicate that the City would be supportive of annexation.)
The petition for annexation was made and properly filed before the County. The
County Judge found that the annexation was proper, however at the hearing
concern was raised about confusion this could cause for public safety providers.
In addition the single access was noted. While the Judge did find that the
concerns might be valid, they were beyond the scope of his review. He
encouraged the City to carefully review and address these concerns in its review.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
5
The area to the southeast of the annexation request has recently started
development. The Sienna Lake Subdivision is the 360 acres annexed in early
2004 as the ‘Dyke Annexation’. Only the initial phase, some 78 lots and 40 acres
have been final platted. These lots are approximately a mile to the southeast of
the annexation area. To the southwest of the annexation area are the Plantation
Acres and Chicopee Subdivisions with lots generally two to five acres in size.
These subdivisions along with other tracks fill the area to the southwest to
Crystal Valley Road. Generally this area is developed with homes and a few
businesses. The area along Lawson to the west remains in larger tracts and is
wooded. To the east, between the City limits and proposed annexation, the area
is developed along Lawson Road with homes and a few businesses, including
the Rolling Meadows Subdivision adjacent to the City Limits at Lawson and
David O Dodd Roads. Several large undeveloped wooded tracts remain
(approximately a quarter of a mile south of Lawson) in this area as well.
The only current access to this land is on Lawson Road, approximately nine
tenths of a mile from the current City Limits. The land along Lawson Road is
within the McHenry Creek floodplain. The creek itself is along the north side of
Lawson Road in this location and crosses back to the south just west of the
western boundary of the annexation. Flood control may well have an impact on
the design of access to any major development of the site as well as the design
of the widening of Lawson Road to Arterial standard.
The two ridgelines that cross the annexation area have steep slopes. The first
ridge rises over the McHenry floodplain some one hundred and fifty feet.
Between the two ridges the land falls over one hundred and twenty feet before
rising one hundred and thirty feet to the second ridge.
The City’s Land Use Plan shows this area for single-family development and the
current zoning is ‘R-2’ Single-family. Based on the current zoning and
development pattern for non-annexed developed area, without annexation it
would be likely to see 50 to 100 home sites on this land. If the annexation is
approved the density is likely to be higher with 160 to 200 homes on the same
land.
With the issues expressed by the Parks Department some provisions for
recreational activities should be included on this land. Even with the rugged
topography, there should be some opportunities for the provision of recreational
space within this acreage. This can be achieved with a Property Owners,
private, park or by working with the City Parks and Recreation Department to
provide land, which they might develop. In addition the Master Parks Plan shows
the proposed ‘Take it to the Extreme’ Trail on or near this site. The owners could
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
6
work with the Parks Department to develop a segment of the trail along with large
‘active recreational area(s).
The public safety concerns raised by both the police and fire departments
(including the volunteer department which currently services this area) should be
addressed. From a fire protection standpoint, due to the concern about the great
distance to the closest fire station, the Little Rock Fire Department has
recommended any structures be sprinkled. Second, there must be more than
one access point in place and useable by the fire department that is servicing this
development. Both of these issues are life safety issues and the second access
point is a requirement of state law. At a later date in the future, the City’s ISO
rating could suffer when the proposed area is 50% developed an no additional
fire stations are built within the immediate area to serve the subdivision.
Due to the distance from the existing patrol areas, the police feel that as long as
the development functions as an isolated area with a single access crime will be
low. The concern arises when a second access is provided. The concern here
is that the criminals will become more aware of the development at this point and
begin to target it. With the police so far it would be hard to respond and control
this. The response times are projected to be higher than those for the Otter
Creek area.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of this annexation request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 11, 2007)
The applicant requested the item be differed. The item was placed on consent
agenda for deferral to the December 6, 2007 hearing. By a vote of 7 for,
0 against, 3 absent and one open position the item was deferred to December 6,
2007.
STAFF UPDATE:
At the request of the applicant, Staff met with the applicants to discuss the issues
related to parks (recreation area) and fire protection. The applicants indicated
that there would be one or more private parks as part of the development.
These would be Property Owner Association (POA) parks and would include
some recreation facilities but not athletic fields. They also indicated a willingness
to work with the City on trails in and through the development including the
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 310
7
possibility that a section to the ‘Take it to the Extreme’ trail could go through their
property (with compensation for the owners). The City indicated this would help
but there would still be a need for active recreation areas, which included athletic
fields. It was agreed that within the ownership of this application, the need could
not be met.
At the meeting on Fire Department concerns, there was discussion about the
maximum number of lots and the second access point. Also pros and cons of
sprinklering the structure and possible future requirement for this was shared
by the Fire Department. The lack of fire stations to serve the western and
southwestern areas of the City was discussed and how the ISO reviews this.
It was agreed that solely within the ownership of this application the solution to
the issue of additional fire facilities was not likely to be addressable.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 6, 2007)
The applicant requested the item be deferred to January 3, 2008. The item was
placed on consent agenda for deferral. By a vote of 11 for, 0 against the consent
agenda was approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director indicated that the applicant was not present
and recommended that the item be deferred to the January 17, 2008 hearing.
There was some discussion about this being the last deferral and about who
requested the item be deferred to this hearing. By a vote of 8 for, 2 against and
one absent the item was deferred.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-878-C
NAME: Lots 1 – 5 Replat of Tracts 8 & 9 Hopson and Sach’s Addition
LOCATION: Located South of Kanis Road and West of Michael Drive
DEVELOPER:
Pam Brown Courtney
P.O. Box 55145
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick
10 Otter Creek Circle, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 7.85 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased lot
depth to width ratio. (Section 31-284(b))
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a replat of Tracts 8 and 9 Hopson and Sach’s
Subdivision containing 7.85 acres into five (5) commercially zoned lots.
The owner plans to develop five office/commercial lots. There will be no
new street construction as a result of the subdivision. Access will be
provided from Kanis Road. The lots will share driveway accesses to limit
the number of curb cuts from Kanis Road.
The average lot size proposed is 120-feet by 515-feet. The lots range in
size from 1.39 acres to 2.01 acres. All easements are to be used for utility
and/or drainage. All easements on common lot lines are ten (10) feet in
width, with five (5) feet on either side of the lot line unless otherwise noted.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-C
2
The request includes a variance request from the typical minimum
standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is seeking a
variance from Section 31-284(b) to allow an increased lot depth to width
ratio for proposed Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is wooded sloping downward from front to back (north to south).
The general area contains a mixture of office and commercial uses
located within the C-3, General Commercial District zoned property across
Kanis Road to the north. Undeveloped O-3, General Office District zoned
property is located to the south, with an apartment complex to the
southeast. There is a narrow undeveloped C-3, General Commercial
District immediately west, with a mixture of commercial uses further west
along Barrow Road. Undeveloped C-3, General Commercial District
zoned property is located to the east of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received an informational phone call from the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association. The John Barrow Neighborhood
Association, the Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association and all
abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. The
applicant met with the John Barrow Neighborhood Association at their
December 12, 2007, Neighborhood Association meeting.
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 the site development, provide the design of the street conforming
to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to
the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to
the start of construction.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-C
3
5. Streetlights are required per 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 at 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis
Herbner).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Contact
Little Rock Wastewater for additional information.
Entergy: Easements required around the sites perimeter. Contact
Entergy for additional information.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in
effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding requirements prior to development of
this property.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #3, the Baptist Medical
Center Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Parks and Recreation: If Kanis Road is considered for expansion,
please allow for a separated bikeway along Kanis Road.
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-C
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the owner. Staff presented
an overview of the proposed replat stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick
request a variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio or revise
the plat to eliminate the variance request. Staff also stated the plat
indicated the placement of a 35-foot platted building line adjacent to Kanis
Road and the Subdivision Ordinance required the placement of a 25-foot
platted building line.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Kanis Road was
indicated on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and a dedication of
right of way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff stated street
improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk would be required per
the Boundary Street Ordinance. Staff stated streetlights were required
prior to final platting or certificate of occupancy.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional
information and 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 plat to staff addressing the issues
raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the variance request, reduced the front setback to
25-feet and provided the source of title of the landowner in the general
notes section of the plat.
The applicant is seeking approval of a replat of two previously platted
tracts into five (5) commercially zoned lots (C-3, General Commercial
District). Access to the lots is proposed from Kanis Road with lots sharing
access along common lot lines. The proposed plat is indicated with lots
ranging in size from 1.39 acres to 2.01 acres. The lots are proposed for
development consistent with the present zoning classification with regard
to building setbacks and lot development criteria.
The replat as proposed includes a variance to allow an increased lot depth
to width ratio for four (4) of the proposed lots. Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 are
indicated with a depth to width ratio of 4.3 to 1. The ordinance states no
lot in an office or commercial subdivision shall have a depth exceeding
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-C
5
three (3) times the width. Staff is supportive of the variance request. Staff
does not feel the variance will significantly impact the development.
Staff is supportive of the replat as proposed. Staff feels the creation of
five (5) commercially zoned lots is appropriate. The creation of the
commercial subdivision as proposed should enhance to viability of each
separate structure and ownership. Otherwise, to staff’s knowledge, there
are no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff is supportive
of the replat as proposed including the variance associated with the
creation of the lots as proposed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the replat as proposed including the
variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for proposed Lots 1,
2, 4 and 5 subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as
outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating on December 19, 2007, the applicant had requested a
deferral of the item to the February 14, 2008, 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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1600
NAME: Howe Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 17725 Raines Road
DEVELOPER:
Sydney and Susan Howe
9 Windborough Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Richardson Surveying, PLLC
P.O. Box 6865
Sherwood, AR 72124-6865
AREA: 5.007 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 – Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased lot depth to
width ratio. (Section 31-232(b))
The applicant was unable to respond to the comments raised at the November 29,
2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends the item be deferred to the
February 14, 2008, public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant was unable to respond to the comments raised
at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferred of the item to the February 14, 2008, public hearing.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1600
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1601
NAME: Deer Woods Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Yarberry Lane and Chicot Road
DEVELOPER:
NuAge Development
P.O. Box 350
Sweet Home, AR
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 4.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 20 FT. NEW STREET: 650 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow the placement of fencing
(6-foot) within the required building setback abutting Chicot Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The project consists of 4.6 acres located on the southeast corner of Yarberry
Lane and Chicot Road. The developer is proposing to develop a single-family
subdivision containing 20 lots. The development will require the construction of
650 LF of new public street. Access to the development will be provided from the
new interior street.
The lots are proposed with an average lot size of 65-feet by 130-feet or 8,450
square feet. The minimum lot size proposed is 65-feet by 124-feet or 8,060
square feet. The development is proposed with the construction of a new
residential street constructed to Master Street Plan standard with a 50-foot right
of way and 26-feet of pavement.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1601
2
The lots abutting Chicot Road are indicated as reverse frontage lots. The
proposed preliminary plat indicates the placement of a 10-foot vehicular
prohibition easement as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-257).
The request includes a variance to allow the placement of a six foot fence within
the required building setback adjacent to Chicot Road (Section 36-516(e)(1)(a)).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is relatively flat with a number trees scatted throughout the property.
Chicot Road is an unimproved street with open ditches for drainage as is
Yarberry Lane. To the northwest of the site is a large manufactured home park
and to the west are non-residential uses including a commercial business and a
manufacturing business. To the south and east are single-family homes
contained within the Deer Meadow Subdivision. A new single-family subdivision
is being developed further east of the site in the Springtree Village Subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Oxford Valley, the Legion Hut and the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Associations,
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and all abutting property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Yarberry Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A
dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required.
3. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Chicot Road
and Yarberry Lane including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
5. 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 at 379-1813
(Steve Philpott) for more information.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1601
3
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Deer Valley Drive
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
8. Provide sidewalk on one (1) side of Deer Meadow Drive.
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. Water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. 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.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. 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: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were a few outstanding
technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff stated
the plat as indicated did not allow the 75-foot minimum lot width requirement for
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1601
4
the lots abutting Yarberry Lane. Staff suggested the applicant increase the lot
width or request a variance to allow the reduced lot width for the two (2) lots.
Staff also stated the minimum building line along Yarberry Lane would be 30-feet
since Yarberry Lane was indicated on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street. Staff stated the plat as proposed did show the restrictive access
easement along Chicot Road as required for reverse frontage lots abutting an
arterial street classification.
Staff questioned if fences would be placed within the rear setback of the lots
abutting Chicot Road. Mr. McGetrick stated he would ask the owner and if
fencing was proposed place a note on the revised plat to be provided to staff on
December 5, 2007.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Chicot Road was
indicated on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial which would require a
dedication of right of way 55-feet from centerline. Staff stated Yarberry Lane was
classified as a collector street, which would require a dedication of right of way
30-feet from centerline. Staff stated streetlights would be required prior to final
platting. Staff stated street improvements to Master Street Plan standards would
be required for the abutting roadways and the proposed new residential street
including curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff stated a sidewalk would be required
along one side of the new residential street.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 has provided a revised preliminary plat addressing most of the
issues raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has increased the lot width of the proposed corner lots, indicated the
required building lines and provided a note concerning future fences located
along Chicot Road. The plat indicates the placement of a six foot fence along the
rear of the lots and along the side property lines for Lots 1 – 10 within the
required building setback (Section 36-516(e)(1)(a)).
The project consists of 4.6 acres with a single-family subdivision containing
20 lots and an overall density of 4.34 units per acre. Access to the development
will be provided from the new interior street. The lots abutting Chicot Road are
indicated as reverse frontage lots. The proposed preliminary plat indicates the
placement of a 10-foot vehicular prohibition easement as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-257) to limit the number of curb cuts from the
arterial street.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1601
5
The lots are proposed with an average lot size of 65-feet by 130-feet or
8,450 square feet. The minimum lot size proposed is 65-feet by 124-feet or
8,060 square feet. The lots as proposed are more than adequate to meet the
typical minimum ordinance standards with regard to lot width, lot depth and lot
area.
The development is proposed with the construction of a new residential street
constructed to Master Street Plan standard with a 50-foot right of way and
26-feet of pavement. A sidewalk will be placed along one side of Deer Valley
Drive as required by the Master Street Plan.
Staff is supportive of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff does not feel the
variance associated with the proposed preliminary plat to allow an increased
fence height along Chicot Road will significantly impact the development or the
area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. Staff feels the creation of the subdivision and the development of new
homes in the area should provide a positive impact on the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 from Section 36-516(e)(1)(a))
to allow an increased fence height within the required building setback for Lots 1
– 10 abutting Chicot Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 request from Section 36-516(e)(1)(a) to allow an increased fence height within
the required building setback for Lots 1 – 10 abutting Chicot Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1602
NAME: Burkett Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located North of Roosevelt Road, West of Bond Avenue and East of
Bolton Street
DEVELOPER:
James Bradley Burkett
2601 Bond Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 13.85 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 950 LF
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 7 – I-30
CENSUS TRACT: 2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow advanced grading of the site with the installation of the basic infrastructure.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for the creation of 5 industrially
zoned lots on this 13.85 acre tract. The developer will construct 950 LF of new
public street constructed to commercial street standard extending from Roosevelt
Road to the site. The lots are proposed with an average lot size of 300-feet by
350-feet ranging in size from 1.51 acres to 4.01 acres. A 50-foot platted building
line has been indicated on the proposed preliminary plat as typically required per
the Subdivision Ordinance.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1602
2
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to
allow advanced grading of the site. The request is to allow grading of the entire
site with the construction of the roads and basic infrastructure.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is wooded located north of Roosevelt Road, West of Bond Street and
East of Bolton Street. There is a railroad spur located along the eastern
boundary of Bolton Street and a large drainage ditch. On the western boundary
of the site along Bond Street is a railroad spur and a large drainage ditch. The
area is primarily industrial uses on I-2 and I-3 zoned property.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Hanger Hill Neighborhood Association and all abutting property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plans specifies
that the proposed street for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 60 feet.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of the proposed street and Roosevelt Road.
3. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to the proposed street
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
4. 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. Site
grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance
at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
8. A drainage problem exists along Bolton Street.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1602
3
9. The two driveways accessing the property to the east of the proposed street
are within 300 feet of the proposed street. These two existing driveways
should be removed and access to this property should be taken from the
proposed 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 Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system. Water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. 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.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #20, the College Station Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed subdivision stating there were a few outstanding
technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff
questioned if the new access would be a public or private street. Mr. McGetrick
stated the new street was proposed as a new commercial public street
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1602
4
constructed to City standard per the Master Street Plan. Staff also stated the
street was located on an adjacent property and requested the applicant provide
written permission from the adjoining property to include the access as proposed.
Staff also requested the applicant label the street paving width and proposed
right of way.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
the sidewalk exclusion zone per Section 36-175(4)(b); therefore sidewalks would
not be required. Staff requested the applicant provide a letter certifying the sight
distance at the intersections to comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards. Staff stated the two driveways accessing the property to the east of
the proposed new street were within 300 feet of the new proposed street. Staff
stated the two existing drives should be removed and access to the property
should be taken from the proposed new street.
Staff questioned Mr. McGetrick if advanced grading of the site would be sought.
Mr. McGetrick stated a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance would be
required to allow for the installation of the streets and basic infrastructure and
allow for the placement of the required detention. He stated since the site was
flat it would be difficult to develop the property and not grade the entire site with
the initial phase of construction.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 provided a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided an agreement from the adjoining property owner
concerning the proposed access to the subdivision. The applicant has also
indicated the proposed street paving width and proposed right of way for the
preliminary plat.
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to allow the creation of five lots
from this 13.85 acre tract. The lots are proposed to take access from a new
commercial street extending from Roosevelt Road. The lots are proposed
ranging in size from 1.51 acres to 4.01 acres. The lot sizes as indicated are
more than adequate to meet the typical minimum ordinance requirements for the
I-2, Light Industrial District zoning classification.
The proposed plat indicates the placement of a 50-foot front building setback. All
other setbacks (sides and rear) will comply with the typical ordinance standards
per the zoning ordinance for the I-2, Light Industrial District.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1602
5
The applicant has indicated the existing driveways located along Roosevelt Road
will be removed and access to the property taken from the new street. The
applicant has provided staff with the requested certification for sight distance at
the intersection to comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book Standards.
The request includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
grading of the entire site with the construction of the first phase. According to the
applicant since the site is relatively flat it will be difficult to develop the site and
install the required detention without grading the entire site with the initial
construction. Staff supports a variance for advanced grading of the entire
property but per City code, street construction of a commercial subdivision and
grading on the lots cannot begin until construction is imminent on one of the lots.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat. To staff’s knowledge there
are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff
feels the creation of the subdivision as proposed should have minimal impact on
the area and the proposed development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 from the Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the entire property as allowed per City
code which allows street construction of a commercial subdivision and grading
on the lots when construction is imminent on one of the lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 request from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the
entire property as allowed per City code which allows street construction of a
commercial subdivision and grading on the lots when construction is imminent on one of
the lots.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-2959-G
NAME: Alltel Paramount Building Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 11025 Anderson Drive
DEVELOPER:
Alltel Corporation
One Allied Drive
Little Rock, AR 72203
ENGINEER:
Development Consultants, Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 2.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 – Rodney Parham
CENSUS TRACT: 22.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On January 13, 1981, the Commission approved a site plan for the phased
development of a 30± acre office campus at this site. The development was to contain
5 buildings with a total of 320,000 square feet and 1,216 surface parking spaces.
Additional property was subsequently added, expanding the area to 45.8± acres. On
September 19, 1989, the Commission approved a revised site plan, which incorporated
the expanded area and modified the previous approval. The approved plan contained 8,
4-story buildings of 100,000 square foot each; 2 parking decks, one 900 space deck
and one 2,577 space deck; 284 surface parking spaces; one 3-story building of
60,000 square feet; a day care building and a guesthouse.
On June 30, 1992, the Commission approved a revision to the approved site plan. The
approved site plan showed the omission of the previously approved 3-story
60,000 square foot building and the addition of a 7-story 181,000 square foot building.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2959-G
2
Also omitted was the day care building. The Commission also approved an intervening
phase to allow use of 1,449 surface parking spaces. To date, 3 of the 4-story 100,000
buildings, the 7-story 181,000 square foot building, the guesthouse and 1,446 surface
parking spaces have been constructed.
On April 13, 2006, the Commission approved a zoning site plan review for further
modification to the site plan for Building #3 which is located south of Anderson Drive in
the form of an intervening phase to allow the addition of 435 surface parking spaces.
90 spaces were shown west of the existing buildings, 290 spaces were shown adjacent
to and southeast of the main parking lot and 55 spaces were shown behind Building #3.
An additional phase indicated future expansion of each of the first two parking areas.
Also included in the plan was the addition of an emergency generator adjacent to
Building #3. The June 30, 1992, site plan was proposed to remain as the approved site
plan for ultimate development of the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved site plan for
the Alltel Building located on the campus. The building is located near the
intersection of Anderson Drive and Pleasant Valley Farm Road. The amendment
will allow for two (2) single story expansions at the rear of the existing building for
additional mechanical and electrical system equipment. The platted rear yard
building setback will require amendment by replat, following site plan review and
approval.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property has been developed as an office park containing three (3), 4-story
office buildings, a 7-story office building, a guesthouse and 1,446 surface parking
spaces. The property proposed for modification under the current application
request is the Alltel Building located near Anderson Drive and Pleasant Valley
Farm Road. There is a multistory office building located between this building
and the adjacent single-family neighborhood located further south and east of the
overall office campus. Additional office buildings and undeveloped, O-2, Office
and Institutional zoned property are located to the west and south. Office
buildings and a large church are located across Rodney Parham to the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association and all owners of property located
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2959-G
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10
Express Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. No comment on this small addition.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Edwin Hankins were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating there were no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing.
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 raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2959-G
4
The request is a zoning site plan review to allow two (2) single story additions to
the rear of an existing building for mechanical and electrical system equipment.
There is an existing 50-foot platted building line located in the area proposed for
expansion, which will require replatting following the site plan review and
approval. Staff is supportive of the request. The property is presently zoned
O-2, Office and Institutional District, which would typically require a 25-foot
building setback. The site plan as proposed allows a 25-foot building setback.
The area proposed for expansion is located adjacent to a multi-story office
building. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request. Staff does not feel approval of the site plan review
to allow a rear yard setback of 25-feet will have a significant impact on the
adjoining property.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
NAME: Children’s Hospital Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of 10th and Battery Streets
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Attn: Mr. Scott Gordon, COO
800 Marshal Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects and Engineers
Attn: Kent Taylor
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 8.26 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 –Central City
CENSUS TRACT: 10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from Section 36-280(d) to allow an increased building height.
2. A variance from Section 36-280(e) to allow a reduced building setback.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The application includes the approval of a zoning site plan review for the South
Wing of Arkansas Children’s Hospital. The site is located at the northeast corner
of the intersection of West 10th and Battery Streets. The South Wing will include
a new Emergency Department, Clinics and Inpatient Areas. The construction will
be an expansion to the southwest corner of the main hospital building and west
of the Sturgis Building. New landscaping and a new paved parking area will be
provided in addition to ambulance bays. A pedestrian and mechanical tunnel
from the northwest corner of the new construction going west across Battery
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
2
Street is proposed. The tunnel will be constructed with this project, but will be
blocked with a temporary wall for future use.
The proposed development includes construction of a five story (plus mechanical
penthouse) addition to the main hospital building. The proposed building will be
on the south side of the existing main hospital and to the west of the existing
Sturgis Building and will include the demolition of site structures and amenities in
the immediate area of the new construction. The proposed new addition will be
approximately 70-feet tall from the lowest grade. The proposed setback along
Battery Street will match the existing building.
The underground tunnel is proposed for future connection to parking and/or
building located across Battery Street. The tunnel is proposed to go west from
the addition, under Battery Street, and be closed off for future use. The initial
phase of construction is proposed to be included with the South Wing addition.
Utilities in the immediate area of construction will be relocated with the new
construction.
A new parking lot is proposed at the south side of the new addition. There will be
four (4) ambulance drop-off bays, landscaping and a covered drop-off at the
emergency department.
Parking for the proposed building will be provided from existing parking located
two blocks across Marshall Street, an existing ½ block parking lot located to the
south, and another parking lot located to the west.
The development also includes the addition of a fifth floor to the existing Sturgis
Building. The fifth floor will be added to the center portion of the building either in
this project or in a future project, directly east of the proposed South Wing Project
and directly south of the existing Main Hospital Building. The addition will
increase the building height of the Sturgis Building to approximately 70-feet from
the lowest point of grade.
The applicant is requesting two variances from various ordinance development
standards. The variances include a variance from Section 36-280(d) to allow an
increased building height and a variance from Section 36-280(e) to allow a
reduced building setback.
A temporary parking, staging and construction office plan has been included for
consideration to allow construction of the new South Wing Building. Staging will
be provided south of the expansion area on the corner of West 10th and Battery
Streets, North and South of the intersection of Schiller and West 11th Streets and
mid-block of Wolfe between West 10th and 11th Streets. Temporary parking will
be provided on the Southwest corner of West 13th and Wolfe Streets, the
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
3
Northwest corner of West 11th and Summit Streets, the Northwest corner of West
10th and Summit Streets and the Northwest corner of West 9th and Schiller
Streets. A construction office will be placed on the southwest corner of West 11th
and Battery Streets.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located adjacent to the existing main hospital building at the northeast
corner of West 10th and Battery Streets. Currently the site contains a grass area
and a parking lot accessed from West 10th Street. Wolfe Street has been closed
and is a service drive to the Sturgis Building. South of the area proposed for
development is a multi-story residential tower owned by the Little Rock Housing
Authority. Northwest of the site is a new office building and parking deck and
west of the site are office uses all owned by Arkansas Children’s Hospital.
Southeast of the site along West 13th and Marshall Street is the former West Side
School which has been converted into residential units.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Central High Neighborhood Association and all property owners located within
200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Battery Street and West 10th Street.
2. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
3. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
4
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water is working with the developer
to coordinate the needed changes in water service to this facility.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #3, the Baptist Medical
Center Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Street trees are needed along West 10th Street and Battery Street.
3. Otherwise, areas appear to be set aside to meet the City’s minimum
landscape ordinance requirements.
4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
6. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on tree covered sites. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Kent Taylor and Mr. Thomas Moore were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating there were a
few issues in need of addressing to clarify the proposed development. Staff
noted the proposed building height exceed the typical minimum ordinance
standard. Staff stated the building height as proposed was 70-feet and the
maximum height typically allowed was 45-feet without proper setbacks per the
O-2, Office and Institutional zoning district. Staff requested the applicant provide
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
5
the total building coverage and indicate the proposed building setbacks from
property lines.
Staff requested the applicant provide details of the proposed signage. Mr. Taylor
stated the signage would match the signage plan approved by the Commission
at their January 2007, public hearing.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
was required at the intersection of West 10th and Battery Streets. Staff also
stated all driveways were required as concrete aprons per City code.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated street trees were needed
along West 10th Street. Staff also stated irrigation and a landscape plan would be
required at the time of development.
Mr. Taylor questioned the required approvals for the proposed tunnel. Staff
stated an ordinance adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors for a franchise
would be required. Commissioner Laha suggested the applicant contact the FAA
concerning the proposed building height.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 most of the issues
raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided the total building coverage, the proposed setbacks and
indicated a 20 foot radial dedication at the intersection of West 10th and Battery
Streets. The maximum building coverage proposed is within the 40 percent
building coverage typically allowed per the O-2, Office and Institutional zoning
district. The maximum building coverage proposed is 39.7 percent of the site
area.
The application includes the approval of a zoning site plan review for the South
Wing of Arkansas Children’s Hospital. The South Wing will include a new
Emergency Department, Clinics and Inpatient Areas. The construction will be an
expansion to the southwest corner of the main hospital building and west of the
Sturgis Building. New landscaping and a new paved parking area will be
provided in addition to ambulance bays. A pedestrian and mechanical tunnel
from the northwest corner of the new construction going west across Battery
Street is proposed. The tunnel will be constructed with this project, but will be
blocked with a temporary wall for future use. The tunnel construction will require
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
6
a franchise agreement with the City. The Board of Directors through an
Ordinance will execute the agreement.
There are variances associated with the new construction being sought. The
building is proposed as a five story building with a maximum building height of
70-feet. The property is zoned O-2, Office and Institutional District, which
typically allows a maximum building height of 45-feet. The building will be
constructed with a setback to match the existing main hospital building setback
along Battery Street, which has been constructed at 17.7 feet from the property
line. The O-2, Office and Institutional Zoning District typically requires the
placement of a 25-foot building setback.
The development also includes the addition of a fifth floor to the existing Sturgis
Building. The fifth floor will be added to the center portion of the building either in
this project or in a future project, directly east of the proposed South Wing Project
and directly south of the existing Main Hospital Building. The addition will
increase the building height of the Sturgis Building to approximately 70-feet from
the lowest point of grade. A variance to allow an increased building height for
this new construction is also being requested.
The Commission in January 2007 approved a signage plan for the Children’s
Hospital Campus. Any signage associated with the development will adhere to
the previously approved plan.
Staff is supportive of the request. The development is proposed a zoning site
plan review for the development of additional hospital space for the applicant.
Although there are variances associated with the request, staff does not feel the
variances will negatively impact the development or the area. The applicant
owns a large portion of the property around the proposed expansion area and the
adjoining property owner to the south is a high-rise multi-family building owned
by the Little Rock Housing Authority. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 from Section 36-280(d) to
allow an increased building height and from Section 36-280(e) to allow a reduced
building setback.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4336-EE
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 request from Section 36-280(d) to allow an increased building height and from
Section 36-280(e) to allow a reduced building setback.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-3371-T
NAME: Glenn Ridge Crossings Lot 6 Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located near the intersection of Colonel Glenn Plaza Drive and Bowman
Plaza Drive
DEVELOPER:
PDC Companies
1501 N. University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 12.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General retail
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Automobile sales and Automobile auction
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request on November 29, 2007, requesting a deferral of this
item to the February 14, 2008, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request on November 29, 2007, requesting a deferral of the item to the February 14,
2008, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-T
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
NAME: Lot 1 Bowen Plaza Revised Long-form POD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman
Roads
DEVELOPER:
Bowman Plaza Phase I, LLC
400 West Capitol, Suite 1200
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 16.366 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD and O-3, General Office District uses
ALLOWED USES: Mixed use development containing Commercial, Office,
Warehouse and Showroom and Parking
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD and O-3, General Office District uses
PROPOSED USE: Mixed use development containing Commercial, Office,
Warehouse and Showroom and Parking
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On March 4, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat (4 lots) and a
POD (Lots 1 and 2) for this property at the northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and
Bowman Road. On April 6, 1999, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,974
approving a POD for Lots 1 and 2.
The approved POD included the construction of two (2) office/showroom/warehouse
buildings (one per lot) and associated parking areas. The following site specifics were
approved:
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
2
1. Lot 1 - 63,575 square foot building and 79 parking spaces.
2. Lot 2 – 111,000 square foot building and 202 parking spaces.
3. Driveway from Bowman Road to serve Lot 1 and a shared driveway from Colonel
Glenn Road (with access easement) to serve Lots 1 and 2.
4. A 50-foot undisturbed buffer along the north property line.
5. An in-lieu contribution for the future traffic signal at the intersection of Bowman
and Colonel Glenn Roads.
6. Hours of operation – 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday – Friday.
On June 22, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a revised POD application for a
modified site plan design for Lot 2 only. The applicant subsequently decided to not
pursue the revision to the POD and it was not taken to the Board of Directors.
In December of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Revision to the POD to
incorporate Lot 3 into the POD. The area of Lot 3 was used for additional parking to
serve the development. The applicant was also granted a 5-year deferral of street
improvements to Colonel Glenn Road along the frontage of Lot 3.
The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 4 (zoned O-3,
General Office District) to serve as overflow parking for Lots 2 and 3. The applicant
proposed two parking lots with a total of 200 parking spaces. The future plan for Lot 4
included the addition of an office building.
On May 9, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for
approval a request to revise the previously approved POD to allow additional uses to be
considered as allowable uses for Lot 2. The applicant proposed to revise the allowable
uses for Lot 2 to include specific C-3, General Commercial type uses as well as the
previously approved uses of office, showroom and warehouse activities. The proposed
C-3, General Commercial uses to be considered allowable for the Planned
Development were as follows: Animal clinic; Antique shop (with repair); Auto parts and
accessories; Bank or savings and loan office; Cabinet and woodwork shop; Camera
shop; Catering, commercial; Church; Clinic (medical, dental or optical); Clothing store;
College, university or seminary; Custom sewing and millinery; Duplication shop;
Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization; Furniture store;
Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork; Hardware or sporting goods store;
Hobby shop; Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting; Laundry, domestic
cleaning; Lawn and garden center, enclosed; Library, art gallery, museum or similar
public use; Lodge or fraternal organization; Medical appliance fittings and sales; Office
(general and profession); Office, showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,
enclosed); Office equipment sales and service; Optical shop; Paint and wallpaper store;
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
3
Photography studio; Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education;
Recycling facility, automated; Retail uses not listed (enclosed); School (business);
School (commercial, trade or craft); School (public or denominational); Studio (art,
music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors); Studio broadcasting and
recording; Tailor; Taxidermist; Travel bureau; Auto parts, sales with limited motor
vehicle parts installation; Home Center; Landscape service; Mini-warehouse; Office
warehouse; Swimming pool sales and supply. The applicant also proposed to revise
the percent mix of the development and the hours of operation. The applicant
proposed the hours of operation to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday. The
applicant proposed the use mix to be 30% Commercial, 30% Warehouse, 20% Office
and 20% Showroom. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.
18,694 on June 4, 2002, establishing the revision to the Bowman Plaza Revised Long-
form POD.
On January 20, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for a
revision to the previously approved POD to allow for a use mix change to Lot 2. The
request allowed the use mix to contain 30 percent commercial uses as previously
identified and to allow 70 percent office, office / showroom / warehouse or
office/warehouse. The previous approval allowed 30 percent commercial, 20 percent
office, 30 percent showroom and 20 percent warehouse.
The site plan included 364 parking spaces and 111,000 square feet of leaseable space.
The approval would result in the site being allowed 33,300 square feet of retail and the
remainder (77,700 square feet) as any combination of office,
office/showroom/warehouse or office/warehouse. The hours of operation were
approved from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The Little Rock Board of
Directors approved this request by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,280 on February
15, 2005.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a revision to the previously approved POD to add
additional allowable uses to Lot 1 or Phase I of the development. The uses
proposed as allowable uses for this lot are the same as were approved for Lot 2
or Bowman Plaza Phase II on June 4, 2002. No new construction is proposed
with the approval.
The request also includes the removal of any restriction on the hours of
operation.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There are buildings located on Lots 1 and 2, which appears to be fully occupied.
The parking areas for the development including Lot 4 have been constructed.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
4
The general area has a mixture of uses, including a mobile home park to the
north and a few residential structures on large tracts to the west. There is a
convenience food store and a contractor’s office and storage yard located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. To the
east is the Baptist School of Nursing and further east there are two car lots
fronting Colonel Glenn Road on the south side. There is a large amount of
vacant property in the general area zoned C-3, General Commercial District and
O-3, General Office District.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within
300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were
notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No comment.
Entergy: No comment.
Center-Point Energy: No comment.
AT & T: No comment.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: No comment.
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 Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial. The applicant has applied
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
5
for a revised Planned Office Development to add additional allowable uses to
Lot 1.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Colonel Glenn Road 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
Colonel Glenn Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Bowman Road is shown as a
Minor Arterial with Reduced Standards. 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. 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 I route is shown along Colonel Glenn Road on the Master
Street Plan’s Bicycle Section. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or
alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. A Class II
is shown on Bowman Road. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either
a 5 foot shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way
may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City recognized
Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape:
1. No comment on this use issue.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposal stating there were no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request in need of addressing. 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 in need of
addressing raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant is proposing an amendment to the previously approved POD for
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
6
Lot 1 to add allowable uses for this lot to match the allowable uses for Lot 2. The
approval for Lot 2 on June 4, 2002, allowed specific C-3, General Commercial
type uses and office, showroom and warehouse activities. The proposed C-3,
General Commercial uses are as follows: Animal clinic; Antique shop (with
repair); Auto parts and accessories; Bank or savings and loan office; Cabinet and
woodwork shop; Camera shop; Catering, commercial; Church; Clinic (medical,
dental or optical); Clothing store; College, university or seminary; Custom sewing
and millinery; Duplication shop; Establishment of a religious, charitable or
philanthropic organization; Furniture store; Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or
similar artwork; Hardware or sporting goods store; Hobby shop; Job printing,
lithographer, printing or blueprinting; Laundry, domestic cleaning; Lawn and
garden center, enclosed; Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use;
Lodge or fraternal organization; Medical appliance fittings and sales; Office
(general and profession); Office, showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,
enclosed); Office equipment sales and service; Optical shop; Paint and wallpaper
store; Photography studio; Private school, kindergarten or institution for special
education; Recycling facility, automated; Retail uses not listed (enclosed); School
(business); School (commercial, trade or craft); School (public or
denominational); Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic
endeavors); Studio broadcasting and recording; Tailor; Taxidermist; Travel
bureau; Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation; Home
Center; Landscape service; Mini-warehouse; Office warehouse; Swimming pool
sales and supply.
The request includes the removal of any restriction of hours of operation for the
development. The hours of operation for the development were previously
approved from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday and the hours of
operation for Lot 2 were revised on January 20, 2005, extending the hours of
operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The hours for Lot 1
remained from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request both to remove the restriction on the
hours of operation and to add additional uses as allowable uses for the site. The
convenience store located to the south of the site is a 24-hour business. The
residential uses located in the area are not immediately adjacent to the site.
Staff recommends the approval of additional retail uses be limited to the
percentages as were approved for Lot 2 of the Bowman Plaza Phase II or
30 percent commercial with 70 percent office or office, showroom and warehouse
uses. In addition, staff recommends the allowable uses of the building not
generate a parking demand greater than the parking available on the site.
The building contains 63,575 square feet of leasable area. If developed with the
30 percent commercial activity 19,072 square feet would be used as commercial
space requiring 63 parking spaces with the remainder of the site requiring
111 parking spaces if developed wholly as office uses. There are 79 parking
spaces located on the site. Staff is supportive of allowing additional uses to
locate on the site; however, staff feels the uses of the development should not
exceed the available parking. Otherwise, to staff’s knowledge there are no
remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-I
7
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends the percent use mix be limited to a maximum of 30 percent
commercial uses as identified in paragraphs H of the agenda staff report and a
minimum of 70 percent office and office, showroom and warehouse.
Staff recommends the use mix not generate a parking demand greater than the
parking available on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 stated there was to be no restriction on the hours of
operation for Lot 1. Staff presented a recommendation the percent use mix be limited
to a maximum of 30 percent commercial uses as identified in paragraph H of the
agenda staff report and a minimum of 70 percent office and office, showroom and
warehouse. Staff presented a recommendation the use mix not generate a parking
demand greater than the parking available on the site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
NAME: GCC Addition Lots 3A and 3B Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 12814 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
S & B Corporation, LLC
12814 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.95 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional District
ALLOWED USES: Office and Institutional Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: O-2, Office and Institutional Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A waiver of the requirement for sidewalk
placement along the access and utility easement.
BACKGROUND:
The site was rezoned from MF-12, Multi-family District to O-2, Office and Institutional
District on June 1, 1993, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 16,429. A zoning site plan
review for the development of three office buildings was approved by the Commission
on July 13, 1993. The approval allowed for construction of two (2) office buildings in the
first phase connected by a breezeway one containing 4,612 square feet and the second
containing 7,486 square feet. A third building was approved for the Phase II portion of
the development. The building was proposed containing 9,480 square feet. Each
phase would provide an adequate number of parking spaces.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
2
On August 7, 1997, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to rezone
the site to Planned Office Development to allow a replat of this lot into two parcels. The
lots would contain 1.30 acres and 1.65 acres. The previously approved site plan was to
serve as the POD site plan. The only reason for the PZD application was to create the
substandard size lots per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property contains 2.95 acres and is currently zoned O-2, Office and
Institutional District. The developer is proposing to subdivide the property into
two (2) lots. American Abstract and Title Company currently leases the existing
building. The developer wishes to construct a second building on proposed
Lot 3B directly north of the existing building. The request includes a variation
from the Highway 10 Design Overlay District to allow a reduced building setback
along the eastern and northern property lines against the existing cemetery and
adjacent to the church parcel and to allow lots less than two (2) acres in size.
The site plan for proposed Lot 3A will not change.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along the
access and utility easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The project is located at the intersection of Sam Peck Road and Cantrell Road.
Grace Community Church borders the property to the north and Rocky Mountain
Cemetery is directly to the east. The site contains an office building accessed
from a common access and utility easement serving this office building, a church
located to the north and an office building located to the west. The parking
located along Cantrell Road has been constructed. The area proposed for
platting and future development was cleared in the initial construction.
There are a number of non-residential uses in the area. The area to the south is
a strip center containing a mixture of office and commercial uses. There is also a
bank and a multi-story office building located along the western perimeter of the
southern site. To the southeast across Sam Peck Road is a POD zoned parcel
and a second parcel zoned PDO presently developed as a bank and a mortgage
company.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site
along with the Pankey Community Improvement District, the Piedmont
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
3
Neighborhood Association, and 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. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be placed along
the access and utility easement in accordance with Section 31-210 of the
Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
2. 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. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
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 property.
Entergy: Easements required around the sites perimeter. Contact Entergy for
additional information.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Existing waterline fronting
Lot 3B is private. A public water main is required to serve this property. Either a
portion of the existing private line will need to be converted to public, or a new
water main will need to be installed. Either way, an easement will be required.
On-site private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
4
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for more information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10
Express Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Office. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from O-2, Office and Institutional to Planned Office Development to
allow the subdivision of an existing 2.95 acre tract into two lots.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road 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
Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the
site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not address office developments
specifically, but the Residential Development goal does state, “enforce the
construction of sidewalks with all types of development.”
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. This development is located within the Arkansas Highway 10 Overlay
District; therefore, must comply with the standards put forth in addition to the
landscape and buffer ordinance requirements.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
5
3. Berming is encouraged along Arkansas Highway 10.
4. The elimination of two (2) parking spaces is needed along the western
property line. Parking must not be located within the twenty-five (25’) foot
wide landscape strip required by the Highway 10 Overlay.
5. Interior islands must be a minimum of one hundred and fifty (150) square
foot in area to qualify towards the minimum landscape ordinance
requirements.
6. An additional interior island is needed along AR Highway 10 to meet the
minimum landscape ordinance requirement of being evenly distributed.
7. The area along the eastern property line is zoned residential; therefore, a
land use buffer of eighteen foot (18’) is required. Seventy (70%) percent of
this area is to remain undisturbed.
8. The property to the east is zoned residential, therefore, 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 eastern perimeter
of the site.
9. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
11. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on tree covered sites. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch
caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Johnny Kincade were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the proposed request stating there were
additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff informed the
Committee members of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements
and the areas the site plan was and was not meeting the typical requirements.
Staff stated the building setback for the northern building along the eastern and
northern perimeters encroached into the typical required building setbacks. Staff
also stated the Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically allowed the
development of a single building per two acre parcel.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated sidewalks would be
required along the access and utility easement. Staff also stated a grading
permit would be required prior to construction.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
6
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated two of the parking spaces
located on the western side should be removed and the landscape islands along
Cantrell Road should be increased to breaking up the parking and evenly
distribute the landscaping on the site. Mr. Kincade stated the parking lot was
existing and no changes were proposed to this portion of the site plan. Staff
questioned the addition of the second building on the front lot. Mr. Kincade
stated the building was a part of the original site plan approval. He stated the
only change was to allow the creation of the second lot. He stated the building
proposed for the second lot (Lot 3B) was less square footage than the original
approval.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 most of the issues
raised at the November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
development is proposed along Cantrell Road within the area of the Highway 10
Design Overlay District. The site plan complies with a number of the Highway 10
Overlay District requirements but for a few of the requirements, the applicant is
seeking a variation from the typical development standards.
The overlay typically requires a minimum landscape strip of 25-feet along the
side and rear perimeters and a 40-foot front landscape strip along the front. The
site plan as presented complies with this typical minimum requirement.
The Highway 10 Design Overlay District requires a minimum side yard building
setback of 30-feet and a minimum rear yard setback of 40-feet. A corner of the
building proposed for Lot 3B (the rear lot) is located within the typically required
setback along the northern and eastern perimeters. The building constructed on
the front lot was constructed with a 100-foot front building setback and a 30 foot
side yard setback as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District.
The dumpsters located along the eastern perimeter are located within the 25-foot
landscape strip. A note concerning the required screening has been indicated on
the site plan and the hours of dumpster serviced have been limited to daylight
hours. Staff is supportive of the dumpsters as proposed. The area is located
adjacent to a cemetery which should not be impacted by the dumpster
placement.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
7
The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the development of a
single building per two acre tract. The development is proposed containing three
(3) buildings located on two (2) lots. The development is proposed with lots
containing 1.65 acres and 1.30 acres. The building located on Lot 3A has been
indicated as was approved on the site plan dated August 7, 1997. No changes to
the previously approve plan are proposed for this area.
The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically allows a single development
sign not to exceed ten feet in height and 100 square feet in area. Building
signage is typically allowed as allowed in office zones or a maximum of ten
percent of the façade area along abutting streets. The building proposed for
Lot 3B is not adjacent to a street. Building signage has been indicated along the
front façade of the building located on Lot 3B. A single development sign will be
utilized along Highway 10 consistent with typical ordinance standards. Building
signage on Lot 3A will comply with building signage allowed in office zones.
The building proposed for Lot 3B is proposed containing 8,880 square feet. The
site plan indicates the placement of 39 parking spaces. Based on the typical
parking demand for an office use, 22 parking spaces would typically be required.
The existing building located on Lot 3A contains 7,254 square feet and the site
plan indicates an expansion area of 4,650 square feet. (11,904 square feet total)
Based on the typical minimum parking required for an office development,
29 parking spaces would be required. The parking exists on the site and there
are 52 parking spaces.
A note has been indicated on the site plan concerning site lighting. Per the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District, parking lot lighting shall be designed and
located in such a manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance preserved
in the corridor. Lighting should be directed to the parking areas and not reflected
into the adjacent neighborhoods. The note indicates site lighting will comply with
typical ordinance standards for the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The uses of the development will be limited to O-2 permitted uses and the
allowable ten (10) percent accessory uses. The accessory uses will be limited to
ten percent of each building. Staff will not support combining the allowable
square footage into a single building.
Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site plan does not fully comply
with the typical Highway 10 Design Overlay District standards, staff does not feel
the areas of non-compliance will significantly impact the development or the
corridor. Previously, staff did not support the reduced lot sizes but did support
the placement of three buildings on the site. The ordinance states the maximum
number of buildings per commercial development shall be measured both by the
minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows: One building every
two acres. The development is proposed to create two lots containing 1.6 and
1.3 acres, which are both less than the typical minimum standard. With the lots
as proposed, the larger lot will be located along the corridor. The front lot has
been developed with an office building and has an approved site plan for the
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4524-F
8
indicated expansion area. Staff also does not feel the reduction in the building
setback for the building proposed on Lot 3B will significantly impact the
development. Only a corner of the building is located within the setback with the
remainder of the building located outside the required setback.
The request includes a waiver of the sidewalk placement along the access and
utility easement. Staff is not supportive of this request. Per Section
31-210(h)(10) of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, sidewalks shall be required
on both sides of the service easements and they shall be separated vertically to
curb height and horizontal separation a minimum of four (4) feet from the back of
curb. There is a large church located to the north of the site, which could
potentially generate pedestrian traffic to their site. Staff recommends the
sidewalk be placed per typical ordinance standard.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant was no longer requesting a waiver of the required sidewalk placement
along the access easement. Staff then 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 noted there were
variances from the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and staff stated they were
supportive of the site plan as proposed.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
NAME: The Residences at Sherrill Heights Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located West of Rebsamen Park Road and South of Sherrill
Heights Road
DEVELOPER:
Matt Bell
13007 Stacy Lane
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.19 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family (0.71 acres) and R-6, High Rise
Multi-family (1.17 acres)
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Multi-family up to 72 units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Condominium - 4.1 units per acre
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A deferral of the required Master Street Plan street improvements to Sherrill Road.
2. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the
entire site with the development of the first building or phase.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The development is proposed as a private gated nine (9) unit condominium
project. Each unit will be three (3) stories with a two (2) car garage and
approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet of living space. Guest and visitor
parking will be provided on the site. A dumpster will be located in the center of
the development to serve all the units. A park area is located in the southeast
portion of the site and will be available to the residents.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
2
The developer is requesting a deferral of the street improvements to Sherrill
Road. The request also includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow grading of the site with the construction of the first phase.
Each unit will have views of the river and downtown Little Rock. The units are
proposed with a maximum building height of 30-feet. The height of the units will
not block the view of the existing homes to the west. The developer feels the use
transitions well between the apartments to the east and the single-family homes
to the west.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is wooded and has a relatively steep slope falling from west to east.
There are single-family homes located to the west and property owned by the
Little Rock Country Club. To the east and south are apartments and to the north
is vacant wooded property presently zoned R-5. Sherrill Road has been
constructed with open ditches for drainage and there are no sidewalks in place
along the roadway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a large number of informational phone calls
from area residents. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the
proposed site along with all residents, who could be identified, located within
300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. There is not a registered
neighborhood associated located in the immediate area. The developer did
have a neighborhood meeting with the residents on December 4th at the Pulaski
Bank Community Room located on R Street.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Sherrill Road
including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
3. 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. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. A variance must be obtained to advance grade the
entire site.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
3
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
5. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance
at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
6. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
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. On-site private 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). The facilities on-site
will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall
be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications
and an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas, will inspect
installation. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement 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.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. 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 Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi Family. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from R-2, Single-family and R-6, High Rise Multi-family to Planned
Residential Development to allow the construction of nine (9) condominiums.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
4
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Rebsamen Park Road is shown as a Collector. The primary
function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to
Arterials. Sherrill Road 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. 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 I bike route is shown along Rebsamen Park Road. A
Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and
right of way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City recognized
Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Land use buffer varies substantially on this site; however, by taking the
smallest distance and calculating the six percent (6%) equates to twelve feet.
The land use buffer should not drop below this minimum amount and the
current submittal does in one location only. A minor revision is needed.
Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed.
3. The City of Little Rock and the City Beautiful Commission would love to see
the triangular piece of property platted as a tree preservation area, if
undevelopable otherwise.
4. The property to the west is zoned residential, therefore, 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 western perimeter of
the site.
5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
5
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: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. White provide
the total acreage of R-2, Single-family zoned property and the total acreage of
R-6, High Rise Multi-family zoned property. Staff also questioned if the
development would be constructed in a single phase or multiple phases. Staff
stated if the development was proposed in phases and the developer intended to
clear areas located within the future construction zones, a variance from the
Land Alteration Ordinance would be required. Staff also requested the developer
provide the dimensions of all property lines and proposed building setbacks.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated one-half street
construction would be required with the proposed development to include curb,
gutter and sidewalk. Staff also requested the applicant provide a letter certifying
the sight distance at the intersections to comply with 2004 ASHTO Green Book
standards.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a twelve foot buffer was
required around the perimeters of the site. Staff noted in one area the site plan
did not comply with the minimum buffer standard. Staff also requested the
applicant provide the triangular piece adjacent to Sherrill Road as a tree
conservation and preservation easement since the area did not appear to be
developable. Staff noted screening would be required along the western
perimeter adjacent to the R-2, Single-family zoned property. Staff also stated an
automatic irrigation system would be required to water landscape areas and prior
to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a
registered landscape architect would be required.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the November 29, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has proposed an undisturbed open space area along Sherrill Road,
provided the dimensions for all property boundaries and indicated the
development with lots and blocks. The developer has amended the request to
include a deferral of the required street improvements to Sherrill Road until the
development of a future phase. Staff is supportive of a deferral request of the
required street improvements until Phase 3 of the development.
The development is proposed in three phases with Building #3 being constructed
in the first phase. The developer is requesting a variance from the Land
Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site with the construction
of the first phase. The areas proposed for grading are the drives, common
parking areas and building pads.
The site contains two areas for storm water detention. The developer has
indicated detention will be placed with the first phase of construction to limit
run-off from the site.
The site plan indicates the designation of the triangular piece along Sherrill Road
as an undisturbed open space. The developer has indicated this area will be
maintained as open space and additional landscaping will be installed to further
screen the residences from the abutting roadway. The development is proposed
with adequate common and private recreational and open space.
The development will be serviced by a dumpster located within the proposed
guest parking area. The dumpster service will be limited to daylight hours to
minimize any potential impact on the development and the adjoining single-family
homes.
The development is proposed as a gated development. The call box has been
located with adequate distance from the roadway to allow proper stacking. The
driveway has insufficient turning radius and must be revised to provide a
sufficient radius for an SU-30 vehicle. In addition the driveway is indicated in
excess of the typical maximum driveway width of 36-feet. Staff recommends the
driveway be redesigned to allow proper turning radius and not exceed the
maximum driveway width as typically allowed.
The site is presently zoned R-6, High Rise Apartment District and R-2,
Single-family District. The area zoned R-6, High Rise Apartment District contains
1.17 acres and the remaining 0.71 acres is zoned R-2, Single-family District. The
R-6, High Rise Apartment zoning district allows for the development of 72 units
per acre with a maximum building height of 75 feet. However, one foot of height
may be added to the height of the building of each foot of the building or portion
thereof as setback from the required yard lines. The maximum building height
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
7
allowed is 125-feet. A 25-foot setback is typically required from all abutting
property lines. The setbacks proposed for the development comply with the
typical setbacks per the zoning ordinance.
The units are proposed with a two car garage, two external parking spaces within
the drive of each unit and ten guest parking spaces. The parking as proposed is
more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking requirement for a
development of this type or 13 parking spaces.
The lots are proposed with a minimum width of 30-feet and a minimum depth of
83-feet. The lots are proposed consistent with lot development standards for
Townhouse Lots (Section 31-233). The Subdivision Ordinance typically allows
for Townhouse Lots to be developed with a minimum width of 22 feet and a
minimum depth of 80 feet with a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet. Platted
building lines shall conform to the building location shown in the generalized site
plan. The applicant has provided the proposed lot areas in excess of the typical
minimum ordinance standard and proposed building locations on the site plan.
The site plan indicates a large area of landscaping and areas to be retained in
undisturbed buffers. The site plan also indicates the placement of a common
park area with passive recreational opportunities within the park area. Each of
the units will also have a yard area within the rear yard area of the units.
Fencing is proposed along the eastern and southern boundaries, adjacent to the
existing apartment complexes and along a portion of Sherrill Road. Fencing is
not proposed along the western perimeter where adjacent to the single-family
homes.
The site plan indicates the placement of an identification sign near the entrance
drive to the development. The sign is proposed as the maximum allowed per the
zoning ordinance. The maximum height allowed would be six feet and the
maximum sign area would be thirty-two square feet.
Staff is generally supportive of the development. The development is proposed
as an attached single-family development constructing nine units in three
buildings. The density proposed for the development is 4.1 units per acre. The
building height proposed is significantly less than the ordinance typically allows
for R-6, High Rise Apartment development and less than the height typically
allowed per the R-2, Single-family zoning district or 35-feet. Staff has concerns
with the drive as indicated. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the
entrance to the development to comply with the typical ordinance standards for
driveway construction. To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding
technical issues associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5924-A
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated January 2, 2008,
requesting a deferral of the item to the February 14, 2008, public hearing. Staff stated
the deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to
the deferral request and the request being made less than five (5) days prior to the
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 a By-law
waiver of the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6345-B
NAME: Mulkey Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 208 Rose Street
DEVELOPER:
Lila A. Mulkey
P.O. Box 251206
Little Rock, AR 72225
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 0.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family with a CUP for an Accessory Dwelling
ALLOWED USES: Single-family with an accessory dwelling
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Three residential units
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 7, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a CUP to allow the construction
of a two-story accessory dwelling with a garage on the ground floor and a 336 square
foot accessory dwelling on the second floor. The applicant was going to occupy the
principal dwelling and the accessory dwelling was to be used as a guest quarters only
and was not be not to be rented. The structure was not built and the CUP expired.
On October 21, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a CUP to allow the
construction of a two-story accessory building, with the same 25-foot by 25-foot footprint
as was approved in 1997. The structure was moved closer to the rear property line.
The building did comply with the required setbacks but the coverage proposed was
40 percent, exceeding the 30 percent allowable coverage for an accessory building. In
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-B
2
addition, the approval allowed the utilization of the entire two-story structure as an
accessory dwelling. (The code allows two-story construction of accessory dwellings, if
the ground floor is used for a garage.) These two variances were a part of the approved
site plan. The property owner proposed to live in the accessory dwelling and to rent the
principal dwelling, which was also a condition of the approval.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from R-3, Single-family with a
Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling to PD-R to allow three
residential units on the site without the requirement of one of the units being
owner occupied. The existing house was rehabbed and was converted to a
duplex. A previously approved accessory dwelling has been constructed on the
rear of the lot.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The principal structure is a one-story rock and brick frame duplex residence with
a garage/apartment located in the rear yard area. The back yard has been
concreted to provide parking. The property shares a common drive with the
property located to the south. The area is predominately residential. To the
north and west are single-family and two-family residences. There is an
apartment complex located across Rose Street and the Ronald McDonald House
is located to the south across A Street. Along West Markham Street there are
commercial, office and residential uses. Further south, across West Markham
Street, is the UAMS and VA Campuses.
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
along with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association and 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. No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Location of sewer service unknown for this property. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater for details.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-B
3
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.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route # 5, the West Markham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family. The applicant has applied for
a rezoning to allow three residential units to be located on the site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Rose Street is shown as a Local Street 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. 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.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood
Action Plan. As part of the Zoning and Land Use Goal, they state the need to
“Create specific policy for rental property/garage apartments” and “Allow
residential property to contain no more than eight dwellings per development.”
Landscape:
1. No comment on this residential use.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-B
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Ms. Mulkey was present representing the request. Staff stated there were no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing.
Commissioner Laha stated the survey provided was more than ten years old and
the applicant should consider providing a new survey for the site including all
recent improvements. 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 November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee
meeting in need of addressing. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this
site from R-3, Single-family with a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling to PD-R to allow three residential units on the site without the
requirement of one of the units being owner occupied. The existing principal
structure was recently rehabbed and was converted to a duplex during the rehab
process. Previously, a CUP was approved to allow an accessory dwelling to be
constructed on the rear of the lot, which has been completed. The rear yard area
contains a large parking area with parking available for five to six cars.
Typically a multi-family development requires one and one-half on-site parking
spaces per unit. The typical parking required for three units would be four
spaces. As indicated, the site contains parking for five to six vehicles. The
on-site parking is more than adequate to meet the typical parking demand.
The site is located in the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. There is no new
exterior construction proposed with the rezoning request. Should any future
construction activity occur on the site, the site must conform to the Hillcrest
Design Overlay District standard.
The request is to allow for rental of all the units on the site by not requiring one of
the units to be owner occupied. The applicant is also proposing the allowance of
separate utility meters for each of the units.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The proposed use is not out of
character with the neighborhood, which contains a variety of housing types. The
site is located across from a multi-unit apartment complex and there are a
number of duplexes in the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-B
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: LU08-01-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: North of Cantrell Road, west of Pinnacle Valley Road and north of
Taylor Loop Road
Request: Transition, Mixed Office Commercial and Single Family to
Commercial
Source: John Rees
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the February 14, 2008
agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to February 14, 2008. By a
vote 10 for, 0 against the item was deferred.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 12.1 FILE NO.: Z-7500-D
NAME: Pinnacle Village Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located North of Cantrell Road, West of Pinnacle Valley Road and North
of the Taylor Loop Road/Cantrell Road Intersection
DEVELOPER:
Rees Development Company
12115 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 24.37 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Commercial, Office/Warehouse
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow advanced grading of the site with the development of the first phase.
The applicant submitted a request dated December 5, 2007, requesting a deferral of the
item to the February 14, 2008, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
request. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated
December 5, 2007, requesting a deferral of the item to the February 14, 2008, public
hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7500-D
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
NAME: PDC Companies and 14910 Cantrell Road Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located North of Cantrell Road and West of Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
PDC Companies
1501 N. University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
The Holloway Firm, Inc.
Mr. Bob Holloway
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 7.93 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD and PCD
ALLOWED USES: O-3, General Office District and C-3, General
Commercial District
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Office District and C-3, General
Commercial District
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration ordinance
to allow advanced grading of the site.
BACKGROUND:
A request to rezone a portion of this site from R-2, Single-family to POD was filed and
withdrawn from consideration prior to the June 3, 2004, Planning Commission Public
Hearing. The applicant proposed a development to include office and commercial
activities on 3.6 acres located along the western portion of this site. (Z-7603)
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
2
Ordinance No. 19,314 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on April 19, 2005,
established PDC Company Short-form POD. The request included the development of
a 3.6 acre parcel as a Planned Office Development with a restaurant facility on one of
the proposed lots and an office building on the second lot. Lot 1 would develop with a
restaurant without drive-through service containing 4,500 square feet and Lot 2 would
develop with 29,200 square foot of office space. The overall percent for each use on
the site was eighty-seven percent office and thirteen percent commercial. The approval
established the hours of operation from 6 am to midnight seven days per week. The
development has not been constructed. (Z-7603-A)
On June 22, 2006, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to allow
14910 Cantrell Road and the PDC Company Short-form POD to be rezoned from R-2,
Single-family and POD to PCD to allow a four-lot subdivision with a combination of
sit-down and drive-through restaurants. The lots varied in size from 1.3 acres to
2.5 acres. Restaurant sizes range from 4,100 square feet to 7,200 square feet. A
cul-de-sac would be constructed as a public street from Highway 10 through the middle
of the lots to provide public street frontage for each lot. The developer requested the
flexibility to shift lot area and restaurant size within the development to accommodate a
variety of tenants.
A 40-foot access and utility easement was proposed from the cul-de-sac to a property
located to the east of the site. The site was approved as a PCD to allow the
construction of a strip retail center with no parking or access located along the rear of
the building. According to the applicant access to the site to the east would allow
circulation between developments and limit the need for vehicles to access Cantrell
Road from the development site. Placement of the access easement would allow
vehicles from as far west as Regions Bank to access the existing traffic signal for
protected left turns. (Z-7603-B)
On February 6, 2007, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 19,694
rezoning 14910 Cantrell Road from R-2, Single-family to PCD which allowed the
development of 4.2 acres as a two lot development. The site plan indicated two
buildings would be constructed on the site. A building containing 7,200 square feet and
107 parking spaces was proposed on the lot fronting Cantrell Road and a second
building containing 6,300 square feet and 110 parking spaces was proposed for the rear
lot. A maximum of 13,000 square feet of restaurant space was approved. A selected
list of commercial uses was approved for the site other than a restaurant. The hours of
operation for a restaurant facility were limited to 10:00 am to midnight seven days per
week. The lots were proposed each containing in excess of two acres. Access to the
development was proposed through a 24-foot drive located along the western perimeter
of the site and was to be shared with the property approved for PDC Short-form POD
located to the west proposed for future development with office and commercial uses.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
3
The following uses were approved as allowable uses for the development: Bank or
savings and loan, Book and stationary store, Camera shop, Clinic (medical, dental or
optical), Clothing store, Eating place without drive-in service, Florist shop, Furniture
store, Hardware or sporting goods store, Health studio or spa, Jewelry store, Laundry,
domestic cleaning, Office (general and professional), Optical shop, Photography studio,
Retail uses not listed (enclosed).
A definition of a “sit down restaurant” was also approved. A “sit down restaurant” is a
type of restaurant, which provides tables where one sits down to eat a meal, typically
served by wait staff. Historically called simply restaurants, following the rise of fast food
restaurants, a retronym for the older “standard” restaurant was created. Most
commonly, “sit down restaurant” refers to a casual dining restaurant with table service
rather than a fast food service where one orders food at a counter. Sit down
restaurants are often further categorized as “family style” or “formal”. (Z-7603-C)
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved combining
them into a single four (4) lot development for PDC Companies Short-form POD
and 14910 Cantrell Road Short-form PCD now titled Cantrell Falls Long-form
PCD. The developer is requesting the allowance of a 3,400 square foot
drive-through restaurant on Lot 1, a 29,180 square foot office building on Lot 2,
including a banking facility with drive-through service, a 6,560 square foot
restaurant on Lot 3 and a 4,000 square foot restaurant, a 11,617 square foot
retail center and a 2,000 square foot bank on Lot 4. The hours of operation for
the development are proposed from 6 am to midnight seven days per week.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an occupied single-family home on the eastern portion of the
property and the homes on the western portion of the property have been
removed. To the east of the site is the Wal-Greens development, a strip retail
center and Catfish City is located further east. The area to the north is vacant
and undeveloped; currently zoned R-2, Single-family. To the west of the site is a
branch bank adjacent to Cantrell Road and a dentist office and medical office are
located in the rear of the site on separate lots. To the south of the site are vacant
properties zoned R-2, Single-family.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed development. All residents who could be
identified located within 300-feet of the site, the Westchester/Heatherbrae, the
Secluded Hills, the Westbury and the Pinnacle Valley Neighborhood
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
4
Associations, the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods and all owners of
property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan along
Cantrell Road and both sides of the public access easement.
2. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section
31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets. A minimum access easement width of sixty (60) feet is required
and street width of thirty-six (36) feet from back of curb to back of curb.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4. 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. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. A variance is required to be obtained for grading of
lots without imminent construction.
5. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
6. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
7. 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).
8. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersection complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
9. In accordance with Section 31-210 (h)(12), access driveways running
parallel to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within
seventy-five (75) feet of the future curb line of the street.
10. Provide a right turn lane on Cantrell Road into the development with
150 feet stacking space and 100 foot taper. If you have any questions,
please contact Traffic Engineering, Bill Henry, at 371-1816.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
5
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: Easements required around the sites perimeter. Contact Entergy for
additional information.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of 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. A water main extension will be required in order to
provide service to this property. On-site private 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.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10 Express
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use. The applicant has applied for a
revised long form PCD to revise the plan layout, add a drive through restaurant
and add a drive through bank.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road 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
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
6
Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the
site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. This development is located within the Arkansas Highway 10 Overlay
District; therefore, must comply with the standards put forth in addition to the
landscape and buffer ordinance requirements.
3. This project was reviewed as a unitary development.
4. Berming is encouraged along Arkansas Highway 10.
5. The AR Highway 10 Overlay requires a twenty-five foot (25’) wide
landscape strip around the sites entirety; minus adjoining properties of the
same ownership. In this instance the minimum amount shall be nine foot
(9’) on EACH lot or parcel. Currently, this site plan is not meeting this
minimum requirement.
6. Interior islands must be a minimum of three hundred (300) square foot in
area to qualify towards the minimum landscape ordinance requirements.
7. The area along the northern property line is zoned residential; therefore, a
land use buffer of thirty-eight foot (38’) is required. Seventy (70%) percent
of this area is to remain undisturbed.
8. The property to the north is zoned residential, therefore, 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 perimeter
of the site.
9. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
11. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
7
Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of
six (6) inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant
dimension all building setbacks and areas indicated for landscaping. Staff also
stated the site plan as presented did not comply with several of the typical
standards of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District but staff stated the site plan
was being presented with the same setbacks and landscape strips as the
previously approved site plan. Staff noted the landscape strip and building
setbacks along the eastern, northern and western perimeters did not meet the
typical overlay standard. Staff requested the applicant provide the days and
hours of operation for the site, the order screening board and the location of
dumpster facilities.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the private access
easement should be constructed to the same standard as a public street. Staff
also stated a minimum access easement of 60-feet with 36-feet of paving would
be required. Staff stated four way intersections were not allowed within 75-feet
of the future curb line of the street.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan did not
comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to landscape
strips along the eastern and western perimeters. Staff also stated a minimum of
nine feet of landscaping was required along lot lines of common ownership.
Mr. Holloway stated the landscape strips were proposed as were previously
approved.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 November 29, 2007, public hearing. The applicant has
dimensioned all building setbacks and areas indicated for landscaping and
provided the location of the dumpster facilities. A note indicates dumpster
facilities will be screened per typical ordinance standard. The hours of operation
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
8
for the development are proposed from 6 am to midnight seven days per week.
The hours of dumpster service have not been indicated. The proposed uses are
the same uses as were previously approved and listed as follows: The uses for
Lot 1 are indicated as a drive-through restaurant, Lot 2 office space, Lot 3 a
restaurant and Lot 4 a Bank or savings and loan, Book and stationary store,
Camera shop, Clinic (medical, dental or optical), Clothing store, Eating place
without drive-in service, Florist shop, Furniture store, Hardware or sporting goods
store, Health studio or spa, Jewelry store, Laundry, domestic cleaning, Office
(general and professional), Optical shop, Photography studio, Retail uses not
listed (enclosed). The maximum building height proposed is 35-feet.
The site plan as presented does not comply with several of the typical standards
of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District but are being proposed similar to the
previously approved site plans. The landscape strip and building setbacks along
the eastern, northern and western perimeters are indicated less than the typical
overlay standard. The eastern landscape strip is indicated at 20-feet. The
western landscape strip is indicated at 9-feet increasing to 26.1 feet adjacent to
the rear building located on Lot 2. The northern landscape strip on Lot 2 is
indicated at the typically required landscape strip of 25-feet but the proposed
drive-through lane of the bank encroaches into the landscape strip reducing to
the typical nine foot minimum. The northern landscape strip on Lot 3 fully
complies with the typical minimum ordinance standards of 25 feet.
The buildings are proposed with a minimum of 100-foot building setback along
Highway 10 as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The buildings on Lots 3 and 4 fully comply with the typical setbacks for the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to the side yard setback for Lot 4
(30 feet) and the rear yard setback for Lot 3 (40 feet). The building proposed for
Lot 2 is not indicated as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District. The building setback proposed along the western perimeter is 26.1 feet.
The overlay typically requires a 30 foot side yard setback. The rear yard setback
is indicated at 25-feet and not the 40 foot setback as typically required. Each of
these setbacks was approved as currently proposed on the previously approved
site plan.
The site plan indicates three locations with drive-through facilities in addition to a
drive-through restaurant located on Lot 1. The three locations proposed are two
bank locations and one restaurant location with a drive-through pick-up window
without an order board. The site plan does not allow stacking as typically
required by the ordinance for these three locations. The ordinance typically
requires the placement of stacking space for three vehicles for each service
window outside the drive isle. The drive through restaurant located on Lot 1
appears to allow adequate stacking for vehicles.
The site plan indicates the development of the site with three restaurant facilities,
one each located on Lots 1, 3 and 4. The original approval for Lots 1 and 2
allow for development of a 4,500 square foot restaurant and a 29,200 square foot
office building. The building proposed for Lot 1 is less than the originally
approved square footage. The building is proposed containing 3,400 square
feet. Typical parking required for the restaurant located on Lot 1 would be
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
9
34 parking spaces. The site plan indicates the placement of 34 parking spaces
on Lot 1 to serve the restaurant use. The office building located on Lot 2 would
typically require the placement of 73 on-site parking spaces. The site plan as
proposed indicates the placement of 90 parking spaces.
The previously approved site plan allowed for the construction of a maximum of
13,000 square feet of restaurant space on Lots 3 and 4 and selected commercial
uses. The current site plan indicates the construction of a 6,560 square foot
restaurant on Lot 3 along with 87 parking spaces. The development of Lot 2 is
proposed containing a 6,000 square foot restaurant, a 2,000 square foot bank
and 10,500 square feet of retail. The parking proposed for Lot 4 is 96 spaces.
Based on the proposed use mix of the site a total of 100 parking spaces would
typically be required.
The applicant has provided a letter indicating the sight distance at the
intersection of the proposed access drive and Cantrell Road is adequate to meet
2004 ASHTO standard. A cross access easement is proposed through out the
site to allow connectivity within the development. The access easement,
north-south driveway, has been shown as recommended by staff, a 60-foot
easement and 36-feet of pavement.
Signage is proposed consistent with signage allowed per the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District. A single development sign is proposed at the entrance to the
development with a maximum height of ten feet and a maximum sign area of
100 square feet. The developer has also indicated a landscaped entrance will be
constructed at the entrance to the development.
The applicant has indicated the right turn lane will be constructed along Cantrell
Road into the development as recommended by staff including 150 feet of
stacking space and 100 foot taper.
Staff is generally supportive of the application. The proposed uses correspond
generally to those previously approved by the Board of Directors for the site.
Although, the landscaped areas do not fully comply with the Highway 10, Design
Overlay District, they do match the prior approved plans. The hours of operation
for Lots 3 and 4 have been modified to correspond to the hours, which were
approved by the Board of Directors for Lots 1 and 2 of the development. Staff
has concerns with the site plan as proposed related to the stacking for the
drive-through facilities. Staff feels the site plan should address all technical
issues prior to the Commission acting on the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had addressed staff’s concerns related to stacking on the site. Staff stated the
pick-up window for the restaurant on Lot 4 had been removed. Staff stated the required
stacking for the bank located on Lot 2 had been revised to allow adequate stacking
outside the drive isle. Staff the presented the item with a recommendation of approval
of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
Mr. Bob Holloway addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He stated it was
important to develop the site under a unified development plan and allow grading of the
entire site with the initial construction. He stated the development was proposed
complying with the previously approved development plans for each of the individual
tracts. He stated the developers were complying with the City ordinances and
standards for development of the site.
Ms. Celia Martin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
she was a resident of the Westchester Neighborhood and lived on Canterbury Court.
She stated a number of the residents of Westchester had submitted letters of opposition
to the development. She stated the concerns were drainage, noise and the increasing
of activity on the site. She stated the order board proposed for Lot 1 was not a part of
the initial approval. She also stated the development of Lot 4 was more intense than
originally expected. She stated with the placement of a drive-through on the site the
neighborhood would hear the noise from the restaurant and the boom boxes waiting for
service on the site. Ms. Martin stated the hours of operation for the eastern lots were
being extended from the original approval. She stated the hours for the restaurants
were approved from 10:00 am to midnight and not the 6:00 am as presently proposed.
She stated Mr. Hockersmith defined the type restaurant he was proposing for
development on the site and the definition did not include a fast-food service restaurant.
She stated the neighborhood was opposed to the development for a number of reasons
but the primary reason was the intensity of the development with three restaurant site,
two bank sites additional commercial and office activities. She stated the traffic the site
would generate and activity planned for the site was not within the perimeter of the
original approval.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was
representing the League of Women Voters and the League was opposed the
development because of the creep. She stated the original plan indicated commercial
at the node and the node had expanded and expanded and with the current site plan
the site was not a mixed use development but a commercial development with a
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-D
11
number of intense commercial activities. She stated the development should step down
from commercial to office uses with ½ the development retail and the other office. She
stated the plan as indicated was an intense commercial development with little
consideration for office activities.
Commissioner Adcock questioned why the application request was before the
Commission if the two plans were previously approved and the site was being
developed in accordance with the previously approved plans. Staff stated there were
differences in the two plans they did not feel they could administratively approve. Staff
stated the order board on Lot 1, the drive-through bank on Lot 2 and the building
footprint on Lot 4 were in their opinion substantially different than the approved plan.
Staff stated the building approved for Lot 4 was a footprint only and it was always
known the plan would return to the Commission at the time of development. Staff
stated the landscape strips and building setbacks were approved by the Board of
Directors and were presently being presented as approved by the Board of Directors.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the
proposed development and the level of intensity proposed for the site. Staff noted the
hours of service for the dumpster facilities had not been indicated by the applicant.
Staff also stated the service hours for suppliers had not been indicated. Mr. Holloway
stated the applicant was willing to amend the request to limit the hours of service and
the dumpster hours to daylight hours. The Commission questioned if there were any
remaining technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff
stated there were not.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as amended to limit the hours of service of the dumpster and the
hours of delivery service to daylight hours. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,
4 noes, 1 abstention (Commissioner Nunnley) and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8292
NAME: The House of Vision Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1921 Wright Avenue and 1853 Summit Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Dr. Emma K. Rhodes
8621 LaBette Drive
Little Rock, AR 72204
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family District
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Two-family residences
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: O-3, General Office District uses and Activity Center
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from R-4, Two-family District to
POD to allow the existing duplex to be renovated for the purpose of serving as an
activity center and private offices. The objective of the developer is to encourage
persons using the House of Vision, an office next door located at 1971 Wright
Avenue, as meeting room space to plan activities, extended business meetings,
private family gatherings and other small community meetings. The House of
Vision allows free office space for job development and placement of ex-felons;
stop the violence program, personal growth and development for targeted
populations and other community services. The desire of the developer is to
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
2
allow this site to generate income to cover the expenses of this structures as well
as the adjoining property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing vacant duplex structure. The structure immediately
to the east is a two-story structure currently being used as an office use. The
area is a node of office and commercial uses located along Wright Avenue.
There is a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Alert Center located nearby. The
area to the east and south of the site is primarily residential in both single-family
and two family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the
Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations and 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. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Wright and Summit Avenues.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
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.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
3
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #16, the UALR Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use. The applicant has applied for a rezoning
to Planned Office Development to allow an existing structure to be converted into
an office use and an activity center.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Wright Avenue is shown as a Minor Arterial with Reduced
Standards. 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 Wright since it is a Minor Arterial. Summit 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. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II bike route is shown along Wright Avenue. A Class II
bikeway is located on the street as either a 5-foot shoulder or six foot marked
bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new onsite parking.
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
southern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
4
be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Dr. Rhodes was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development stating there were a few issues in need of
addressing prior to the public hearing. Staff questioned the proposed assembly
use. Staff stated based on typical parking demands the use could potentially
generate a parking problem by spilling into the neighborhood. Staff also
requested the applicant provide the days and hours of operation for the site.
Staff questioned if there would be multiple office users.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
would be required at the street intersection and any curb, gutter or sidewalk that
was damaged in the right of way would be required to be repaired or replaced.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a screening fence would
be required along the southern perimeter of the site in either a wood fence or
dense evergreen plantings.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 concerns raised at the November
29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided staff with
additional information concerning the proposed use of the property. The
intended use of the property is as office space for office uses as allowed in the
O-3, General Office District designation. The office hours of operation are from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The structure contains three
bedrooms which each could potentially be leased by a small office user or the
entire space by a single office user. The other spaces within the structure will be
used by the House of Vision as meeting room space to plan activities, space to
allow for business meetings of the House of Vision, small wedding receptions
and other small community meetings. The office space will utilize 1,016 square
feet with the remaining area (693 square feet) to be used for meeting space.
The site plan indicates parking will be provided through the existing driveway.
The drive will allow for three (3) vehicles if the automobiles are stacked. Based
on the proposed use of the building staff feels the parking is adequate to serve
the office use. The parking typically required for an office and place of public
assembly would be eight (8) parking spaces. Three (3) vehicles may be parked
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
5
in the drive and the applicant has additional parking available on a nearby site to
allow parking for the community meetings and small functions such as wedding
receptions. According to the applicant, the community meetings will not cause a
parking problem within the neighborhood. The meetings will involve neighbors
within the area, most of whom will not drive to the site.
The site plan has not indicated signage. Staff would recommend signage be
limited to signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
sixty-four square feet in area. Building signage to be allowed with a maximum of
ten percent of the façade area along the street frontages.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the screening requirement along the
southern perimeter. The adjoining property has a six-foot wood fence in place
along the common property line. The applicant is requesting to use the existing
fence as screening and should the adjoining property owner remove the fence,
the applicant will then install the required screening fence. Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is located an existing commercial
node. Staff does not feels the rezoning of the site to POD to allow the use of the
existing structure as an office use and a small meeting facility will significantly
impact the area. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 signage be limited to signage as allowed in office zones.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the screening fence along
the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining fence is removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were 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 that signage be limited to signage as allowed
in office zones. Staff presented a recommendation of approval for a deferral request of
the screening fence along the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining
fence was removed.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
6
Dr. Rhodes addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated the
request was to rezone an existing duplex to POD to allow an office use and a meeting
place. She stated the office space would be rented to generate an income to help off
set the cost of the House of Vision located next door. She stated occasionally meetings
would be held in the duplex to conduct business for the House of Vision. She stated the
primary meeting space would be neighborhood meetings, family meetings and wedding
receptions.
The Commission questioned Dr. Rhodes if the house would offer overnight stay.
Dr. Rhodes stated no overnight stay would be allowed. The Commission questioned if
the house would be used as a half-way house. Dr. Rhodes stated the use was office
and not a half-way house.
Ms. Mattye J. Willis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the House of Vision was a concern to the neighborhood. She stated she had nothing
but the up-most respect for Dr. Rhodes and felt anything she did would enhance the
neighborhood but her concern was with the clientele of the House of Vision. She stated
the neighborhood was coming back and there were a number of families moving into
the area. She stated the neighborhood did not want to do anything to bring the area
down. She stated the neighborhood had a number of concerns and questions
concerning the services to be provided at the House of Vision.
Commissioner Rector stated the application request before the Commission did not
concern the House of Vision. He stated the request was to rezone the duplex property
to allow an office use and meeting facility on the site. He stated the House of Vision
was developed on properly zoned property and did not require approval from the
Planning Commission or Board of Directors.
Ms. Mae Nunn-Isom addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her home
was located across Summit Street and her concerns were with the House of Vision.
She stated the neighborhood was concerns with the background of the persons being
served by the House of Vision. She stated the area had enough commercial and office
uses.
Commissioner Rector stated once again the Commission was not being requested to
act on the House of Vision. He stated the House of Vision was developed on an
appropriately zoned parcel of property.
Ms. Leanna Godley addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated the
concerns were with the House of Vision and the services provided by the House of
Vision. She questioned if the structure would be used as a half-way house. She
questioned what the inmates were be there for.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
7
Dr. Rhodes stated the House of Vision was to provide services to ex-felons such as job
counseling, job placement, health screening and educational opportunities. She stated
the House of Vision would also be used as office space for the Stop the Violence
programs and a number of other non-profit programs being offered in the area. She
stated the duplex structure if rezoned for an office use would hopefully generate enough
income to assist the House of Vision with maintenance, upkeep and utilities.
The Commission questioned the hours of operation for the site. Staff stated the office
hours were from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The Commission
questioned the hours of the activities such as wedding receptions or business meetings.
Dr. Rhodes stated the activities would end by 10:00 pm. She stated the activities would
potentially be held on weekend as well as weekdays.
The Commission questioned if Dr. Rhodes was willing to limit the approval to her
ownership. Dr. Rhodes stated she was willing to limit the use to her ownership.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item limiting the hours of operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm and limiting
the approval to the ownership of Dr. Rhodes. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-8294
NAME: Oak Glen 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).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The developer is proposing the development of a new single-family subdivision,
which will ultimately include a property owners association as a legal entity of the
subdivision. The Oak Glen Subdivision has been planned as an in-fill
development to the City of Little Rock. The development will include a new
public street to be named Oak Glen Lane. The subdivision will contain eleven
(11) lots. The existing home will be maintained and platted on one of the eleven
lots. The area surrounding the tract to be developed contains a variety of
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
2
property types, including single-family residences, both detached and attached.
The nearest detached single-family developments include Powell Addition,
Harvey Addition and Sheraton Park Addition as well as some properties that are
not part of any subdivision, including this parcel of property. The developer is in
possession of title search records that date back to 1867 to confirm that this
parcel is not part of any existing subdivision. Nearby attached single-family
residences include the new Glen Abbey Court Addition, Chimney Cove Town
homes, and Sheraton Court Condominiums. Non-residential property in the
vicinity includes two churches, the Anthony School, Miss Selma’s School,
Mac Donald’s, office buildings and other retail businesses.
Oak Glen Subdivision will be built on 2.39 acres of ground previously part of a
single property commonly know as 1910 Watt Street. The existing dwelling was
built very early in the 1970’s. A detached single family dwelling without a garage,
the house is a one level frame structure including a sunken den with a vaulted
ceiling and a gas fireplace. The home has between 1,700 and 1,750 square feet
and is surrounded by very large oak trees. After completion of the subdivision,
this home may be accessed from a new circular driveway off Watt Street and will
also include a curb cut in the new street. To protect the large oak trees currently
on this property, there is no plan at this time to add a garage to the existing
home, which will be exempt from the requirement in the Bill of Assurance.
There will be ten new lots developed for single-family residences in a
development style often called patio or narrow lot homes. Four of the eleven lots
in Oak Glen will meet the typical City’s standard of 7,000 square foot minimum lot
sizes. The five smallest lots will contain 5,486 square feet or be 50-foot wide by
109.72 feet deep. The style of the new homes will include narrow lot traditional,
craftsman or country style single-family homes with a minimum of 1,400 square
feet of heated and cooled space, but with the more common size estimate to be
closer to 1,700 square feet. The subdivision will have restrictions stated in the
Bill of Assurance and the homes will be built with a combination of materials,
including low maintenance exteriors such as rock, brick or siding.
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. There are a large number of vacant
lots located across Watt Street. The Anthony School has purchased these lots
and removed the structures. The school has indicated they do not have
immediate development plans for the recently acquired property.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
3
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
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. The street base course must compact to 100% modified standard proctor per
Public Works Detail PW-22.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
6. 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
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
4
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.
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 Single Family. The applicant has applied for
a Planned Development Residential to allow the development of 11 single-family
lots.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
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.
Neighborhood Action 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.
Landscape:
1. No comments on this detached single-family use.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Ms. Carol Brown was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were a few outstanding
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
5
technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing. Staff
requested the applicant provide details of any proposed fencing located around
the perimeter of the site or within the yard areas of the homes. Staff also
questioned if accessory buildings or pools would be allowed within the
development. Staff stated a note on the proposed site plan should be included
regarding accessory buildings. Staff suggested the applicant move the
structures closer to the street and increase the proposed rear yard-building
setback. Staff stated they had concerns with the 11-foot building setback as
proposed.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated if the street was to be a
public street the street must comply with typical minimum standards for design
and construction. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply
to the development of the site. Staff also stated as proposed Lot 8 could not be
provided residential waste collection.
Staff stated there were no landscaping comments concerning the proposed
single-family residential development.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
Bill of Assurance and an easement located on the final plat will allow for the trash
receptacle for Lot 7 to be placed on Lot 6. Lot 8 will be provided garbage
collection from Watt Street. The revised plan indicates the placement of fencing
and accessory buildings per the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. The proposed
square footages for the homes will be between 1,400 and 1,800 square feet for
single level homes, and between 1,500 and 2,400 square feet for multi-level
homes. The maximum building height of the proposed structures will be 35 feet.
The proposed structures will be 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.
A subdivision identification sign is not proposed. The developer is requesting the
ability to place a subdivision identification sign at the entrance on the south side
of the street. The sign will not exceed 32 square feet in area and 6 feet in height
as typically allowed in single-family zones. The sign will be placed on Tract A.
Tract A will be owned and maintained by the Property Owners Association.
The developer requests a variance from Section 36-460(h)(1), the minimum
requirement for common usable open space. The area south of Oak Glen Lane
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
6
and east of Lot 1 will be designated as common open space as indicated on the
site plan. As a single-family detached residential development, each lot will
include open space in front, rear and side yards sufficient to meet the needs of
the residents. There will be a minimum of 500 square feet of usable private open
space per lot. Public parks including Reservoir Park and biking trails are
available within the City as well in close proximity of the development.
Fencing is proposed around the development along the exterior boundary lines
not to exceed 8 feet in height and to be constructed of wood, brick, or a metal
and masonry combination. Interior fences will be allowed by the future
homeowners not to exceed 8 feet in height and of accepted fencing construction
materials as determined by the Property Owners Association Architectural
Review Committee.
Proposed Lots 8 and 9 are indicated as double frontage lots. The lots will be
allowed access from Watt Street at existing and proposed curb cuts. The
allowance of the lots as proposed will require a variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 31-232(d).
Accessory structures will be allowed including swimming pools, detached
garages, and other outbuildings as determined by the POA architectural
committee and the R-2 Single-family zoning district regulations for rear yard
coverage and setbacks.
The site plan includes a front building setback of 15-feet and a rear yard setback
of 20-feet. Accessory structures and pools will be allowed within the rear yard
area of the homes. The side yard setback proposed is five feet. Four of the
eleven lots are proposed as typical per the R-2, Single-family Zoning District or
7,000 square feet. The five smallest lots will contain 5,486 square feet and are
proposed 50 feet wide by 109.72 feet deep. The remaining two lots are
proposed 76.01 feet and 79.57 feet wide and 81.84 feet deep with approximately
6,500 square feet.
Staff is supportive of the development. The proposed density of 4.6 units per
acre is near typical density guidelines for a single-family development. To staff’s
knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
Staff feels the development with a single-family subdivision should have minimal
impact on the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 from Section 36-460(h)(1),
the minimum requirement for common usable open space and from Section
31-232(d) to allow double frontage lots.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were 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 from
Section 36-460(h)(1), the minimum requirement for common usable open space and
from Section 31-232(d) to allow double frontage lots.
Mr. Brown addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated the
development was proposed as an in-fill development. He stated he and his wife had
bought the property, planned to develop the property and live in the development. He
stated he would yield his time to the opposition and be available for rebuttal.
Mr. Brent Williams addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home was
located just south of the development. He stated the lots in the area were developed
with 10,000 to 15,0000 square feet and quite larger than the lots proposed by the
developer. He stated his home was located approximately 10 feet from the property line
and with the new construction the road would be located within feet of his rear wall and
his back yard. He stated presently the site was an open field and with the proposal a
street would be constructed and car headlights would shine into his kitchen and den
area. He requested any fencing installed be a minimum of nine feet.
Ms. Karen Suen addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated her home was
located south of the development and she owned a second home in the area. She
stated the developers were proposing a new road within a few feet of her existing and
neighbors chain link fence. She stated Watt Street had been redesigned with the
construction of Cantrell Road and the neighborhood now functioned and traffic flows
were different. She stated the area had two schools which generated a great deal of
traffic. She questioned the location of the proposed street and there being only one
access to serve the residents. She stated the development would add to the existing
congestion in the area. She stated she did not think an eight foot fence was high
enough to block the car lights from the development. She questioned the development
containing a pool and the location for the pool.
The Commission questioned the square footage of the homes she owned. She stated
the homes were proposed 1400 to 1700 square feet. The Commission noted the
homes were proposed of a similar size. Ms. Suen stated the lot areas were not
comparable. She stated her lot was much larger the lot proposed by the developer.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
8
Ms. Gene Smith addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her home was
west of the site on Biscayne Drive. She stated her concern was drainage. She stated
the area was plagued with water problems which gushed when there was a rain. She
stated she and her husband elected not to put up a fence because of the water. She
stated she was very concerned with the development and the number of homes
proposed. She stated she was told there would be five homes on the property similar to
the development on Ohio Cove.
Mr. Roy Wright addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home was on
Iowa Drive and he and his wife owned 1/3 of an acre. He stated the lots proposed for
development were out of character with the neighborhood. He stated there were a few
rent homes in the area but most were owner occupied. He stated the homes were
proposed as tract homes which would lower property values in the area. He stated
Anthony School owned a number of the homes across the street from the proposed
development and his understanding was the area would be maintained with open
space. He stated on a 5,300 square foot lot it would be difficult to put a house and car
on the lot.
Mr. Brown stated he did not want to be a bad neighbor but the development was
proposed as an in-fill development. He stated the subdivision south of the development
contained 1.9 acres and contained seven homes. He stated he was proposing to place
nine homes in the same area which was not a significant increase in density. He stated
the fence would address the car headlights. He stated the original proposal was to
access the site across from Bonnie Bae but the City would not support the location
since the streets would be off-set. He stated with the northern access this would limit
the number of trees which would have to be removed to develop the road.
Staff stated the street would not align therefore they could not support the street in the
northern location. Commissioner Adcock questioned the alignment. Staff stated the
existing home would remain which did not allow the streets to align.
There was a general discussion by the Commission and staff concerning drainage in
the area and the requirements of the developer. She stated the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the development of the property. The Commission questioned
Mr. Brown if the engineering firm had designed the drainage plan. Mr. Brown stated the
detailed plans had not been developed. He stated preliminary drainage calculations
had been preformed and the development would adhere to the City ordinance
requirements.
There was a general discussion concerning streetlight and the City requirement for
placement of streetlights. Staff stated streetlights were typically required. The
Commission questioned if they could require the lights to meet the dark-sky
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8294
9
requirements. Staff stated the City did not have an agreement with Entergy to meet
dark-sky requirements and if the lights were public then no conditions could be placed
on the lights. The Commission questioned Mr. Brown if he was planning streetlights.
He stated he was not planning on placing lights within the subdivision. Staff questioned
if the utilities would be underground or overhead. Mr. Brown stated underground. Staff
requested Mr. Brown provide a stud-up to allow for future installation. The Commission
stated the approval would include a condition that no streetlights would be installed in
the subdivision. Staff noted should streetlights be desired in the future an amendment
to the PD-R would be required to install the streetlights.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as amended eliminating streetlights from the development. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-8295
NAME: Velvatex Beauty College Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 1520 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive
DEVELOPER:
Barbara Douglas
1520 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive
Little Rock, AR 72202
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.35 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family – Non-conforming Beauty College
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Non-conforming Beauty College
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Beauty College
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Velvatex College has submitted an application for a Planned Commercial
Development for the property located at 1520 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive. The
property is presently zoned R-3, Single-family and is the location of Velvatex
College, which has existed since 1924.
The applicant is proposing a small expansion to the existing structure along the
rear façade. The new addition will be 16-feet by 54-feet and contain
approximately 865 square feet.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains the Beauty College and associated parking. To the west of the
site are residential units including duplex and single-family. South of the site is
Arkansas Baptist College and to the east of the site are office, commercial and
residential uses. Immediately north of the site is a multi-family structure.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the
Central High and Downtown Neighborhood Associations and 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. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of West 16th Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.
2. Provide asphalt pavement to alley.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and Master Street Plan. Provide
access ramps at the alley and at the intersection of Dr. Martin Luther King
Drive and driveway.
5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. Provide driveway
apron on alley.
6. Close curb cut on Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.
7. Obtain a franchise agreement from Public Works (Bennie Nicolo, 371-4818)
for the private improvements located in the right-of-way.
8. Remove driveway on West 16th Street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295
3
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 Carroll
Keatts 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 Route #11, the Martin Luther King Drive
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow an existing business to
add additional square footage.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Dr. Martin Luther King Drive is shown as 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 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive 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 II bike route is shown along Dr. Martin Luther King Drive.
A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a five-foot (5’) shoulder or six
foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295
4
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not currently covered by a City
recognized neighborhood plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. A twenty percent (20%) upgrade is required towards the landscape
ordinance.
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 perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be
given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around
requirement.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Ms. Barbara Douglas was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were a few outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the applicant provide the
total number of students, the days and hours of operation and if there were any
sales from the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a twenty-foot radial
dedication was required at the intersection. Staff also stated all drives would be
required constructed of concrete aprons. Staff stated the existing alley would
require paving with the approval of the request.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a twenty percent upgrade
in landscaping was required with the new construction. Staff also stated
screening would be required along the perimeters where abutting residentially
zoned or used property.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and 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 response addressing the issues raised at the
November 29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated there are 24 students of the college and two classes per day. The
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8295
5
classes are from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm for the first class and from 5:00 pm to
9:00 pm for the second. The school presently operates Wednesday through
Saturday but the request includes the allowance to operate within the hours
approved Monday through Saturday should additional classes be added in the
future. Presently the school does not provide products for sale to the public. The
applicant is requesting the ability to sell salon products in the future.
The applicant is proposing a small expansion to the existing building containing
865 square feet. The addition will be located to the rear of the building. No new
signage is proposed. The applicant has indicated an upgrade in landscaping will
be provided with the new development.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is a non-conforming use, which has
existed in the neighborhood for a number of years and does not appear to have
impacted the area. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues
associated with the request. Staff feels the rezoning to recognize the existing
use and allow a small expansion will not significantly impact the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
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 of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: 312
NAME: Porocel - Green Annexation
REQUEST: Accept 47 acres plus or minus to the City
LOCATION: West of Arch Street Pike just north of Dixon Road
SOURCE: Albert Thomas, representative for Porocel Storage & Warehouse
LLC and AP Green Industries, Property Owners
GENERAL INFORMATION:
• The County Judge held a hearing and signed the Annexation Order on
October 30, 2007.
• The area requested for consideration is currently partially developed.
• There are two owners, Porocel Storage & Warehouse LLC and AP Green
Industries.
• The site is contiguous to the City of Little Rock on one side.
• The annexation request is to obtain sewer service and other City services.
• The area in question is continuous to the City along an existing railroad
right-of-way. The land in question is between the railroad right-of-way
(City Limits) and Arch Street Pike (State Highway 367).
• Currently the property is not zoned.
• The property owners have indicated they intend to develop this land for
uses related to the existing industrial uses to the south.
AGENCY COMMENTS:
Public Safety:
Fire: The Little Rock Fire Department indicates they do have concerns with the
annexation. They state that the annexation would be minimally invasive to the
departments run protocol. Since the annexation area is greater than the ISO
recommended 1.5 miles to an engine station and 2.5 miles from a ladder station.
This could have an impact on the future ISO rating if no additional fire resources
are developed in the vicinity of this annexation.
Police: The Little Rock Police Department has indicated no issues or concerns
with this annexation.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO. 312
2
Police service would require a car to leave the City at Baseline Road and Arch
Street Pike and travel south 0.6 miles to this area. Patrol District 82 is the
closest existing patrol district.
Infrastructure and Community Facilities:
Central Arkansas Transit: No Comment Received.
There is no bus service to this location. The closest route is Route 15 – 65th
Street, which at the closest points is at Arch Street Pike-65th Street and Baseline
Road-Scott Hamilton Road.
Parks and Recreation: No Comment Received.
The 2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan standard is to have a
park or open space within eight blocks. The Plan shows this location to be in a
deficit area.
Public Works: The Public Works Department indicates they have no concerns or
issues with this annexation.
Arch Street Pike is a State highway so maintenance will be by the Arkansas
Highway Department. The uses will be non-residential so solid waste removal
will be done by private services.
Utilities:
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water indicates additional water
facilities will be needed. These additions by the property owner will be from an
existing 12-inch line along Arch Street. There will be a Capital Investment
Charge based on the size of the meter connections applied in this area. There
are other water facilities in existence in or near this annexation area, most
notably a 16-inch line in the northwest portion of the property, which must be
protected.
There is an existing 16-inch water main along the railroad right-of-way (along the
northwestern edge of this annexation) and a 12-inch water main along Arch
Street Pike.
Entergy: No Comment Received.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO. 312
3
Reliant-Energy: No Comment Received.
Wastewater Utility: The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has indicated that an
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit must be obtained from the
Environmental Assessment Division prior to connection. In addition the
connection plans, including pump and force main, must be submitted and
approved prior to any connection being approved.
There is a 4-inch wastewater line along Arch Street Pike. Service however would
need to come from an existing 16-inch line to the north northwest of the
annexation area. Connection to this line would be at the cost of the applicant.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment Received.
Schools:
Little Rock: No Comment Received.
The annexation is not within the Little Rock School District.
Pulaski County Special: No Comment Received.
The annexation area is within the Pulaski Special School District.
ANALYSIS:
The annexation area is low and relatively flat with an elevation change of some
twenty feet. The Fourche Bayou is just to the northwest of this area. The land
rises toward Arch Street with a significant rise east of Arch Street. This general
vicinity is also marked with numerous ponds, ‘barrow’ pits. Much of the land
requesting annexation is undeveloped. But the land surrounding the annexation
area west of Arch Street is generally heavy commercial to industrial in nature.
There is an existing single-family subdivision along the east side of Arch Street
across from the area requesting annexation.
Arch Street Pike is a state highway, Highway 367 and Baseline Road – Dixon
Road is State Highway 338. The road is currently two-lanes, with shoulders in
some locations. The Dixon Road- Arch Street intersection is just southeast of
the annexation. Dixon Road continues to the east and has a full interchange with
Interstate 540. The manufacturing plant for the company that owns the land
requesting annexation is adjacent to the south, at this intersection of Dixon and
Arch Street.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO. 312
4
The owners have indicated that the land would be used for non-residential
purposes. There are both water and wastewater lines in the vicinity of this
annexation. Additional lines would be required to serve the land requesting
annexation and the utilities have indicated that the property owner would have to
make the necessary connections at their cost.
To service this site public safety providers would have to leave the city limits and
travel over half a mile to get to the site. The Police have indicated that they do
not have any problems with the annexation. Since this is a state highway some
of the traffic enforcement will be provided by the State. The Little Rock Fire
Department has expressed some concerns due to the distance this site is from
the current fire resources.
With the only road involved in the annexation, a state highway and the uses non-
residential, the annexation should not increase the demands on the City’s Public
Works department. Maintenance of the road would be done by the State and
solid waste removal would be done by private contract.
This is an area where the City has not initiated zoning. Thus only the subdivision
of land is currently reviewed for this site. The land is not zoned. The City Land
Use Plan shows this site as Industrial. There are several industrial and heavy
commercial uses along Arch Street Pike and between Arch Street and Hilaro
Springs Road, to the west. The northeast quadrant of the Dixon-Arch
intersection is single family (England Acres), but generally the area is more
business oriented.
The applicant has requested the land be zoned to I-1 Industrial Park. Currently
the land is not zoned. The land to the east is not zoned but is used for single-
family homes. The land to the north and south is not zoned. Some of this land is
vacant (undeveloped) and some has businesses. The land to the southeast is
vacant but zoned C-3 General Commercial. This is the northeast corner of the
Dixon – Arch intersection. The land further to the south and east is not zoned
and has a scattering of homes and businesses.
The C-3 zoned area does have an “OS” Open Space strip along its northern
boundary with the single-family neighborhood to its north. This zoning was
originally completed as a condition for providing sewer service to that site. Dixon
and Arch Street are major roads in the area with numerous businesses located
along them. Both are also State Highways.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO. 312
5
There is no question that this area is heavy commercial or industrial and likely to
be such in the future. They City’s Land Use Plan has acknowledged this location
as industrial for many years. With single-family homes across Arch Street from
the site, future industrialization of the land should be reviewed to minimize any
impacts of additional structures or uses on the noise, traffic, smells, light and
other elements that might impact the neighboring properties. The ‘I-1’
designation allows for the continued use of industrial while providing nearby
single-family some protection through the site plan review process.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the annexation. Approval of the zoning to I-1, Industrial Park.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote 10 for, 0 against
the item was approved.
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: G-23-394
Name: Country Club Lane Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location: Adjacent to 2422 Country Club Lane
Owner/Applicant: John Conner
Request: To abandon the 37 foot wide Country Club Lane right-of-way adjacent
to 2422 Country Club Lane (Lots 11 and 12, Block 11, Country Club
Heights Addition).
Purpose: To incorporate the area of abandoned right-of-way into the adjacent
residential property, to control access onto the residential property for
security purposes.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way:
There is no need for this portion of right-of-way, which currently functions as and has
the appearance of a private driveway for 2422 Country Club Lane.
B. Master Street Plan:
There are no Master Street Plan issues as the right-of-way is not classified as a
collector street or higher
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain:
Only a portion of this dead-end right-of-way is paved. The paved area serves as a
driveway to the adjacent residence. Two brick columns are located at the point this
street adjoins the applicant’s property, giving the appearance that the area is a private
driveway.
D. Development Potential:
After abandonment, the area of the right-of-way will be incorporated into the adjoining
property. The applicants propose to install a gate across the former right-of-way,
providing security for the residence.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect:
The street dead-ends at the applicant’s property. The Little Rock Country Club is
located to the north and east. Single-family residences are located to the south.
There will be no effect on the neighborhood.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-394
2
F. Neighborhood Position:
Notice was sent to the Heights Neighborhood Association. The abutting property
owners, the Little Rock Country Club and Barbara Barnett, were notified of the request
and have submitted letters of support.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
Fire Department: Maintain appropriate gate opening for Fire Department access.
Coordinate with Fire Marshall’s office.
Public Works: No objection to abandonment.
AT&T: No objection to abandonment.
CenterPoint Energy: No objection to abandonment.
Wastewater: No objection to abandonment.
Entergy: No objection to abandonment.
Water: No objection to abandonment. Central Arkansas Water does have a 2-inch
water main on the westerly side of the right-of-way. The entire right-of-way is to be
retained as a utility easement.
H. Reversionary Rights:
The right-of-way was platted with the Country Club Heights Addition plat in 1912. The
entire area of the abandoned right-of-way (37’ X 95’) will revert to the owner of the
adjacent property, Lots 11 and 12, Block 11, Country Club Heights Addition.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues:
Abandoning this area of right-of-way will have no effect on the public welfare or safety.
By all appearances, the area seems to serve as a private driveway. The Fire
Department has commented that any gate must be approved by them to assure
access to the property. Central Arkansas Water has requested the area of the right-of-
way be retained as a utility easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the right-of-way abandonment subject to the area of
abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility easement and any gate across the former
street being approved by the Little Rock Fire Department.
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-394
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and
a recommendation of approval subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being
retained as a utility easement and any gate across the former street being approved by the
Little Rock Fire Department. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.