HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 22 2008
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MAY 22, 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: Troy Laha
Jerry Meyer
Lucas Hargraves
Jeff Yates
Chauncey Taylor
Darrin Williams
J. T. Ferstl
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Bill Rector
Valerie Pruitt
Members Absent: Pam Adcock
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the April 10, 2008 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MAY 22, 2008
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. LU08-19-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning
District from Multi Family to Neighborhood Commercial
and Community Shopping located at the southwest
corner of Champagnolle and Rahling Roads.
A.1 Z-4807-I Rezoning from R-2 and MF-24 to C-1 and C-2; and
R-2 to OS
Along Champagnolle Drive, west of the future extension
of Rahling Road
B. LA-0020 Rees Land Alteration Variance
C. Z-8318 Schock Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
1711 N. Palm Street
D. Z-8319 Ultimate Detail Truck Rental and Car Wash –
Conditional Use Permit
7101 Colonel Glenn Road
E. Z-7980-A Entergy Substation – Revised Conditional Use Permit
14250 Colonel Glenn Road
F. MSP07-04 University Avenue Design Standard Modifications
G. Z-4953-B Park Avenue Long-form PCD, located on the Northwest
corner of St. Vincent Circle and University Avenue.
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. Z-6957-J Rezoning from C-3 to C-4
West side of Talley Road, 1,000 feet south of Colonel
Glenn Road
2. Z-8246-A Rezoning from I-1 to C-3
9601 Interstate 30
3. Z-3371-X Crain Automobile Dealership – Conditional Use Permit
Lot 9, Village at Brodie Creek
4. Z-3371-Y Crain Automobile Dealership – Conditional Use Permit
Lot 10, Village at Brodie Creek
5. Z-3371-Z Crain Automobile Dealership – Conditional Use Permit
Lot 11, Village at Brodie Creek
6. Z-7669-A Little Angels Childcare Center – Revised Conditional
Use Permit
5104 Baseline Road
7. G-23-399 Witry Court Right-of-Way Abandonment
8. Z-8341 Residences at Riverdale Zoning Site Plan Review
2010 Rebsamen Park Road
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: LU08-19-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District
Location: Along Champagnolle Drive, west of the future extension of Rahling
Road
Request: Multi Family to Neighborhood Commercial and Community
Shopping
Source: Tim Daters, White-Daters and Associates
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
At the request of Staff in order to further review the item, it was placed on the
consent agenda for deferral to May 22, 2008. By a vote of 11 for and 0 against
the consent agenda was approved.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Multi Family to
Neighborhood Commercial and Community Shopping. Neighborhood
Commercial includes limited small-scale commercial development in close
proximity to a neighborhood. Community Shopping represents shopping center
developments with one or more general merchandise stores. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning from R-2 and MF-24 Multi Family to C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial and C-2 Shopping Center District and from O-2 Office to OS Open
Space. Staff is not expanding the application since the land Use Plan in this area
was reviewed 14 months ago.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant and undeveloped. It is currently zoned MF-24 and R-2.
The property is approximately 16 acres ± in size. South of this site is zoned C-3
with two old, commercial buildings and an existing single family residence. Part
of this area is beginning to be cleared for the Rahling Road extension. East of
the amendment site is zoned MF-18 and is undeveloped. North of this site is
zoned O-2 and OS Open Space and is also undeveloped. West of the
amendment site is zoned R-2 Single Family and is undeveloped. Further west is
also zoned R-2 and is occupied by the Champagnolle POA park and subdivision.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
March 20, 2007, Ordinance 19722 amended several different sites in this vicinity
including the current application site. This was a City initiated amendment
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO: LU08-19-01
2
initiated due to concerns about a recent Land Use Plan Amendment on Kanis
near Chenal Parkway. The current application site was amended from Public
Institutional to Suburban Office and Multi Family as part of this large amendment
package. Other changes were along Kanis Road from Multi Family to Single
Family, Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial, Public Institutional to
Suburban Office, and Multi Family to Commercial.
June 27, 2006 a change was made from Office, Neighborhood Commercial and
Low Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial approximately one mile to
the northeast of this amendment located east of Kirk Road and north of Chenal
Parkway. The changes resulted from a Planned Commercial Development
reclassification to allow for future development.
August 15, 2006, Ordinance 19582 amended the eastern intersection of
LaGrande and Rahling Roads from Multi Family to Mixed Office Commercial to
allow for future development.
June 17, 2003, changes from Office, Multifamily, and Single Family to Multifamily
and Low Density Residential located south of Chenal Parkway around Rahling
Road. These changes were mace to reflect new zoning in the area for future
development.
The Land Use Plan in this area generally reflects the existing land use. South of
the application is shown as Commercial. West is shown as Low Density
Residential and Single Family. North is shown as Suburban Office and Park
Open Space. East is shown as Multi Family and Park Open Space.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
In this area, Rahling Road is shown as a proposed Principal Arterial extending
south to Kanis Road. 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 Rahling since it is a Principal Arterial.
Champagnolle is shown as a Collector and is proposed to connect to Rahling
Road. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from
Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class I bike route is shown along Rahling Road. 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 along Champagnolle and intersecting with Rahling
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO: LU08-19-01
3
Road. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six
foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is within eight blocks of park/open
space. The Champagnolle POA park is just west of this location and the Chenal
golf course is located north of this site.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
This area of Little Rock has seen major growth in the last ten years. New
subdivisions have been built to the northwest and northeast of this amendment
site along with large-lot subdivisions to the southwest outside the city limits. The
amendment area is located along the alignment of the Rahling Road extension
and the intersection of Champagnolle Road extension and Rahling Road.
Rahling Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan.
Champagnolle is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Collector. Staff feels that
commercial uses are preferable at arterial-arterial or arterial-collector
intersections.
Further north along Rahling Road is the new Promenade at Chenal commercial
development. This site is almost fully developed and the Rahling Road extension
is already being cleared south to Kanis. The demand for more commercial uses
in this area is illustrated by the development of the Promenade. Staff was asked
to rezone this current application site to C-3 General Commercial in December
2003. At that time, Staff suggested that the rezoning was premature and that the
proposed area should only be considered when development of this area is
eminent, so the applicant withdrew this area from consideration. Now, with the
extension of Rahling Road well on its way and the Promenade nearing
completion, the case can be made that development is eminent for this area.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO: LU08-19-01
4
The majority of the commercial development has been and is proposed to be
regional in nature. The availability of local commercial to serve the immediate
neighborhoods is lacking. Small scale shops and services which meet these
needs could help reduce travel demands on the street network in the western
sections of Little Rock, thereby reducing trips.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Witry Court N.A.,
Champagnolle Court POA and Bascom Place POA. Staff has received no
comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The item was placed on consent agenda for approval. By a vote of 10 for and
0 against the consent agenda was approved.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z-4807-I
Owner: Deltic Timber Corp.
Applicant: Tim Daters, White-Daters and Associates
Location: Along Champagnolle Drive, west of the future
extension of Rahling Road
Area: 14.46 Acres and 1.604 Acres
Request: Rezonings from R-2 and MF-24 to C-1 and
C-2; and from R-2 to OS
Purpose: Future development (proposed C-1 and C-2)
and Open Space (proposed OS)
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property; zoned O-2 and OS
South – Single family residence and two (2) commercial buildings;
zoned C-3 and R-2
East – Undeveloped property; zoned MF-18 and O-2
West – Single family residences and neighborhood park; zoned R-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. As shown on the Master Street Plan, Champagnolle Drive is shown to
connect with Rahling Road, which is currently under construction.
Champagnolle Drive is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street. A dedication of right-of-way 30 feet from centerline will
be required.
2. Rahling 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.
3. Per the Master Street Plan, where principal arterial streets intersect
collector streets the applicant shall dedicate an additional 10 ft. of right-
of-way for a right turn lane. The additional right-of-way shall normally
be 250 ft. in length measured from the intersecting right-of-way.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection
of Champagnolle Drive and Rahling Road.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-I
2
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Bascom Place,
Champagnolle Court and Witry Court Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Multifamily for this property. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from R-2 Single Family and MF-24 Multifamily District to C-1
Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 Shopping Center District, and OS Open
Space District.
A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU08-19-01) is a separate item on this
agenda.
Master Street Plan:
Rahling 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 exit s
should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
Rahling since it is a Principal Arterial. Champagnolle is shown as a
Collector extending to Rahling. The primary function of a Collector Street is
to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan:
A Class I bike route is shown along Rahling Road. A Class I bikeway is
built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right-of-
way may be required. A Class II route is shown along Champagnolle. A
Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a 5’ shoulder or six foot
marked bike lane. Additional paving and right-of-way may be required.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-I
3
Neighborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of
Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Deltic Timber Corporation, owner of two (2) tracts of property located
along Champagnolle Drive, west of its future intersection with a future
extension of Rahling Road, is requesting to rezone the property from R-2
and MF-24 to C-1, C-2 and OS. The rezoning is proposed for future
commercial development and open space buffer.
Tract 1 is comprised of 1.604 acres and located immediately east of the
Witry Court Neighborhood, along the north side of Champagnolle Drive.
The applicant is requesting rezoning of this tract from “R-2” Single Family
District to “OS” Open Space District. This rezoning is requested to provide
an open space buffer between the Witry Court Neighborhood and future
office development to the east.
Tract 2 consists of 14.46 acres and is located immediately east of the
Champagnolle Neighborhood Park at what will be the southwest corner of
the intersection of the future extensions of Champagnolle Drive and
Rahling Road. The applicant is requesting rezoning 2.73 acres of this
tract from “R-2” Single Family District and “MF-24” Multifamily District to
“C-1” Neighborhood Commercial District, and 11.73 acres from “R-2”
Single Family District and “MF-24” Multifamily District to “C-2” Shopping
Center District. The rezoning of this tract is proposed for future
commercial development.
Both tracts are currently undeveloped and mostly wooded. Tract 1 slopes
downward slightly from Champagnolle Drive. Tract 2 has varying degrees
of slope. Site work has begun on the future extensions of Champagnolle
Drive and Rahling Road.
Undeveloped OS zoned property is located immediately north of the
proposed OS rezoning, with undeveloped O-2 zoned property being north
of the proposed C-1/C-2. The Witry Court neighborhood is located west of
the proposed OS tract. The Champagnolle Drive neighborhood park and
pool facilities are located immediately west of the proposed C-1/C-2.
Undeveloped O-2 and MF-18 zoned property is located east of the
proposed rezonings. Undeveloped R-2 property is located across
Champagnolle Drive from the proposed OS, with C-3 zoned property
south of the proposed C-1/C-2, along the north side of Kanis Road.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-I
4
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates Tract 1 as Single Family and
Tract 2 as Multifamily. The applicant has filed an application for a Land
Use Plan amendment, which is a separate item on this agenda.
The applicant is proposing to eliminate certain permitted and conditional
uses from the requested C-1 and C-2 zoned areas. Attached is the
applicant’s list, dated May 13, 2008, of uses to be eliminated. The
applicant is also agreeing to require site plan review approval by the
Planning Commission for the proposed C-1 zoning. The elimination of
uses and site plan review will be made conditions of the ordinance, which
will be presented to the City’s Board of Directors for approval.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezonings and the associated Land
Use Plan amendment. Staff views the request as reasonable, given the
current surrounding zonings and land use plan designations. Staff
believes the requested 1.604 acres of OS will provide an appropriate
buffer between the Witry Court neighborhood and a future office
development to its east. With respect to the proposed C-1/C-2 rezoning,
staff feels that the commercial zoning will be appropriate at what will be
the southwest corner of the future intersection of Champagnolle Drive and
Rahling Road. There is currently C-3 zoned property immediately south of
the proposed C-1/C-2 area. The C-2 zoning district is a site plan review
district, with a development plan for the property requiring approval by the
Planning Commission. With the proposed C-1 zoning being adjacent to
the Champagnolle Drive neighborhood park and pool facilities and
undeveloped R-2 zoned property, staff also feels it appropriate to require
site plan review for this zoning. With site plan review for all of the
proposed commercial zoning, staff believes the rezoning will have no
adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested OS, C-1 and C-2 rezoning,
subject to the C-1 zoned area requiring site plan review approval by the
Planning Commission, and the elimination of certain permitted/conditional
uses within the C-1/C-2 zoning as proposed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant agreed to defer the application
to the May 22, 2008 Agenda to allow staff additional time to review the Land Use
Plan Amendment associated with the rezoning request. Staff supported the
deferral request.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4807-I
5
The chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 22, 2008 Agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had made a minor revision to
the application by increasing the proposed OS zoning by 0.75 acre, adding 50
feet of width to the proposed OS zoned area.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval, as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: LA-0020
NAME: 1815 Rahling Road Land Alteration Regulation Variance
LOCATION: 1815 Rahling Road
APPLICANT: John Rees
ENGINEER: Tom Chambers, P.E.
AREA: Approx. 2.1 acres
CURRENT ZONING: O3
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance request to exceed the cut,
fill, and slope requirements of Sec. 29-190 of the Land Alteration Regulations.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to exceed the total maximum vertical height of
30 ft for terraces with multiple retaining walls. The applicant’s terrace
retaining walls total approximately 36 ft high from the original ground line
elevation. The applicant desires to exceed the maximum height of 15 ft
for a single vertical retaining wall. The tallest vertical retaining wall is
approximately16 ft. The applicant also desires to exceed the 1:1 slope
requirement between terraces meaning the slope will be steeper than the
code allows. Furthermore, the applicant desires to landscape the terraces
differently than required by code. The applicant believes the different
landscaping will help hide the height and extreme slope of the wall and
make it more appealing to the public.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This approximate 2.1 acre property is zoned O3 and located at 1815
Rahling Road just east of the Champlin and Rahling Road intersection.
This current building with the terraces and retaining walls is the 2nd
building in this complex. Currently, the first building has yet to receive a
full certificate of occupancy due to not complying with the City Landscape
codes. The property on the east of the subject property is undeveloped
and zoned R2. The property on the south is an apartment complex and
currently zoned MF-18. The property to the west is owned by the
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
2
applicant where an office was recently built. To the north of Rahling Road
is a church and undeveloped steep property that are both zoned R2.
The applicant began construction on the property at 1815 Rahling Road
without a grading permit issued by Public Works. The terraces and
retaining walls have already been built and are not in compliance with the
Land Alteration Regulations. The applicant has filled on the neighbor’s
property and it is unknown at the time of writing if permission was given.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any phone calls about this matter.
Also at time of writing, staff has not received proof of public notice to
adjacent property owners by the applicant.
D. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Provide letter from adjacent property owner on their letterhead
approving grading on their property.
2. Per Sec 29-190(1), the maximum height of a vertical terrace is 30 ft.
Per Sec. 29-190(a), the depth of fill or excavation shall be measured
from the finish grade elevation to the original ground line elevation.
The original ground line elevation shows to be approximately 294 ft
and the finish grade elevation of 330 ft meaning the vertical terrace is 6
ft above the maximum height allowed.
3. Per Sec 29-190(1)(e), terracing width shall be at a ratio of at least 1 ft
of horizontal terrace for every 1 ft of vertical height up to a maximum
15 ft if architectural stone is used. In other words, the terraces should
be approximately constructed to a 1:1 slope. The existing terraces are
constructed much steeper than a 1:1 slope.
4. Per Sec. 29-190(1)(f), if vertical wall is faced with architectural stone,
the terrace plantings shall be a minimum of 2 rows of trees 4 ft
between the rows, staggered not more than 20 ft on centers. Shrubs
and ground cover shall be required in accordance with the Landscape
Regulations. The applicant is proposing: Terrace #1) no trees planted
at base of wall and instead proposes a vegetation to climb the stone
faced wall; Terrace #2) proposes trees to be planted on 10 ft centers
and vegetation to climb the stone faced wall; Terrace #3) no trees
planted at base of wall and instead proposed holly bushes to be
planted; and Terrace #4) proposes holly bushes to be planted near
parking lot.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
3
5. If variance is not approved, the terrace should be reconstructed to
meet the Land Alteration Regulations.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: (NOVEMBER 1, 2007)
At the subdivision committee, the application was explained by staff. It
was explained that the total maximum height of vertical terraces and
retaining walls cannot exceed 30 ft, the terrace slope cannot be steeper
than 1:1, and a single retaining wall cannot exceed 15 ft without variances
issued by the Planning Commission. It was further explained that the
applicant desires to hide the terrace walls by landscaping that does not
comply with the Land Alteration Regulations.
F. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff was not aware of the construction of the terrace retaining walls on
this property due to a grading permit had yet to be issued for the work to
begin. Upon inspection, it was determined that the construction of the
terrace retaining walls was nearly complete and the structure did not
comply with the City’s Land Alteration Regulations. The project was told
to stop work and submit plans to detail the heights and widths of the
terraces. As staff suspected, the terrace retaining walls did not comply
with the City’s Land Alteration Regulations.
The following violations were found:
1.) The total vertical height of the terrace walls is 36 ft. tall from the
original ground line elevation. The code states the total vertical
height of the terrace walls cannot exceed 30 ft. tall.
2.) The tallest retaining wall exceeds the maximum height of 15 ft.
This retaining wall is 16 ft. tall.
3.) The slope of the terraces is steeper than the maximum 1:1
slope. The code requires for a 10 ft. vertical retaining wall the
width of the terrace must also be 10 ft. and for a 15 ft. vertical
retaining wall the width of the terrace must not exceed 10 ft.
One of the applicant retaining walls is 16 ft. vertical and the
terrace is 9 ft. wide and another retaining wall is 12 ft. vertical
and the terrace is 5 ft. wide.
4.) No grading permit has been issued for grading and drainage
and construction of the terraces and retaining walls to begin on
the property.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
4
To make the terraces more appealing to the public at their present heights
and slopes, the applicant has proposed a different landscape scheme for
the terraces. The code requires terrace plantings to a minimum 2 rows of
trees 4 ft between the rows, staggered not more than 20 ft. on centers and
shrubs and ground cover shall be required in accordance with the
landscape regulations.
The applicant is proposing the following landscape:
Terrace #1. No trees planted at base of wall and proposes vegetation
planted to climb the modular wall;
Terrace #2. Trees are to planted on 10 foot centers and vegetation
planted to climb the modular wall;
Terrace #3. No trees planted on base of wall and proposes dwarf holly
bushes planted instead;
Terrace #4. Proposes holly bushes to be planted on the terrace near
the parking lot.
In addition all landscaped areas are to be irrigated.
This many variances have never been requested on one application since
the Land Alteration Regulations were adopted in September, 2000.
Usually, only one particular code cannot be met and a variance is then
requested. In this case, the applicant is requesting variances from nearly
all of the codes pertaining to construction of terraces and retaining walls
as found in the Land Alteration Regulations.
Besides the terrace and retaining wall violations on this site, the property
next door to the west which is also owned by the applicant does not
comply with the Landscape Code and has yet to get a full certificate of
occupancy.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes if the variances are not approved by the Planning
Commission, the terraces should be reconstructed to meet the Land
Alteration Regulations. If the variances are approved, all disturbed area
should be temporarily vegetated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 6, 2007)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the
item. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
5
agenda and deferred to the January 17, 2008 agenda. The vote was 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2008)
Staff informed the Commission that on January 9, 2008 the applicant requested
the application be deferred to the February 28, 2008 Agenda. Staff supported
the deferral request.
The chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 28, 2008 Agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 28, 2008)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to send the required
notices to surrounding property owners. Staff requested the application be
deferred to the April 10, 2008 Agenda.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 10, 2008 Agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
On February 20, 2008, staff was given a letter from James C. Clark, Jr., attorney
at law, representing Deltic Timber Cooperation the owner of the property to the
east of the retaining wall where the fill material was placed. Mr. Clark states in
his letter that Deltic Timber’s objection to the wall heights and filling on there
property has not been resolved.
The applicant is requesting the following variances from the Land Alteration
Regulations:
1. To exceed the maximum vertical wall height by 1 ft. The code allows 15 ft.
tall and the applicant is requesting the wall to remain at 16 ft tall;
2. To exceed the total vertical height of the terrace walls by 6 ft. The code
allows 30 ft. tall and the applicant is requesting the total vertical height of the
terrace walls to be 36 ft tall;
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
6
3. To exceed the maximum slope of the terrace walls. The code requires the
terracing width to be at a ratio of at least one (1) ft. of horizontal terrace for
every one (1) ft. of vertical height, up to a maximum of ten (10) ft. The
applicant is requesting the ratio of the slope to be steeper than at least one
(1) ft. of horizontal terrace for every one (1) ft. of vertical height, up to a
maximum of ten (10) ft;
4. To landscape the terraces as explained in Paragraph F, Staff Analysis. The
code requires terrace plantings shall be a minimum of 2 rows of trees 4 ft
between the rows, staggered not more than 20 ft on centers. Shrubs and
ground cover shall be required in accordance with the Landscape
Regulations. The applicant is requesting a landscape design that appears to
meet landscaping requirements except for the planting of trees on each
terrace.
The structural integrity of the walls has been questioned. During review of
building permits staff does not examine the design or integrity of terrace walls on
private property. Per the Land Alteration Regulations, staff only looks at the total
terrace height; individual wall height; materials; slopes; and plantings.
Staff believes if the variances are not approved by the Planning Commission, the
terraces should be reconstructed to meet the Land Alteration Regulations. If the
variances are approved, all disturbed area should be temporarily vegetated.
The code also states the Planning Commission may impose conditions on the
approval of variances.
Per Sec. 29-187(d), appeals from the variance decision of the Planning
Commission shall be filed with the appropriate court of jurisdiction within thirty
(30) days of the decision of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
The item was introduced to the Commission by Mike Hood of Public Works. An
introduction of the application was given by the applicant ending with the
applicant requesting deferral of the item. The Commission was informed this
item could no longer be deferred by the applicant per the Planning Commission
By-Laws. Hearing the applicant reasoning, Commissioner Nunnley requested
the Commission to consider deferring the item to May 22, 2008 agenda so the
applicant could meet with Deltic Timber and its representatives. Mr. James Clark
representing Deltic Timber was questioned if he agreed with the deferral and he
replied that he was agreeable.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
7
The chairman placed the item before the Commission for vote to defer the item to
the May 22, 2008 Planning Commission agenda. A motion to that effect was
made. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff met with the applicant, his engineer, and contractor to discuss the wall
variance further. The applicant told staff, Deltic Timber and the Chenal
Architectural Committee had approved the wall construction and worked out the
other problematic issues. Staff asked the applicant to provide written proof of
that approval. Staff also asked the applicant to provide a copy of the landscape
plan for the terraces and a professional engineer’s certification of the stability of
the wall.
Tthe applicant has agreed to move the top wall back 6 ft so that it will be a
minimum11 ft from the wall just below it. By moving the wall, the development
will lose 4 parking spaces. Public Works gave the applicant permission to begin
removal of the top wall only. Construction though cannot begin until a decision is
made by the Planning Commission. With moving the top wall, four (4) variances
are still required to be approved by the Planning Commission.
The applicant’s engineer provided certification the wall was constructed in
general conformance with the Design Report. The certification goes on further
and states the wall system as constructed is structurally stable based on the
information provided to the engineer by the contractor and all other involved
parties.
At the time of writing, written approval has not been provided to staff from Deltic
Timber and/or the Chenal Architectural Committee. A landscape plan was
provided but after its review staff does not recommend the plan for approval
because staff believes at a minimum the terraces should be planted to meet the
landscape requirements found in the Land Alteration Regulations as stated
above in Section H.4.
Staff agrees with the applicant’s desire to move the top wall to a minimum 11 ft
from the wall just below it. Staff cannot though recommend approval for this
variance application until written proof of approval is provided from Deltic Timber
and/or the Chenal Architectural Committee and the landscape plan at a minimum
meets the planting requirements found in the Land Alteration Regulations as
stated above in Section H.4.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0020
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
John Rees spoke for the application. He apologized for the time it took for this
item to finally be heard by the Planning Commission. He stated the revised plan
would be followed as approved by the Planning Commission. He also stated he
appreciated working with Mike Hood and Vince Floriani to resolve this matter.
There was a motion to approve the variance application with all staff
recommendations and comments. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
1 nay, and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-8318
NAME: Shock Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1705 – 1711 N. Palm Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ethan and Lara Schock/George Wittenberg
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow
temporary use of an existing residence as an
accessory dwelling. The property is zoned R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of N. Palm Street, south of
Cantrell Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is exclusively single family in
zoning and use. No doubt, other properties in the area have accessory
dwellings or guest quarters. In so much as the applicant’s request is
temporary in nature and is created by an ordinance technicality that
occurs when the main dwelling is expanded across the property line, staff
believes the use to be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Heights Neighborhood
Association were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are required to have one
on-site parking space each. The principal dwelling (1711 N. Palm) will
have a three-car, front loading garage during phase 1. The accessory
dwelling (1705 N. Palm) has a separate driveway and parking area on the
south side of the house. When the house at 1705 N. Palm is removed,
the driveway for 1711 will be moved to the south and the garage
converted to side loading.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments on this single family residential application.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8318
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Existing sewer main located under existing garage at
1711 N. Palm. Contact Little Rock Wastewater prior to construction.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. CAW wishes to abandon the old galvanized
water main in the rear of these residences. A new 3-inch PVC main
was installed in front of these homes and we are encouraging all
residents in this area to have their meters moved to the front of their
property. We hope these customers will plan to do that in conjunction
with this project. CAW does not charge to relocate the meters. They
would have to have their plumber tie their houseline(s) into the new
meter location(s).
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 20, 2008)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional
information was needed. The applicant was advised to provide details
concerning the connection between the house and proposed new garage. It was
explained that a heated and cooled connection would make the house and
garage one structure as opposed to a house and detached accessory structure.
Staff explained that the setback requirements would be determined by the nature
of the structure. The applicant responded that the connection was, in fact,
heated and cooled.
Utility and Public Works Comments were noted.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8318
3
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned property located at 1711 N. Palm Street (Lots 21, 22 and 23,
Cliffewood Addition) is occupied by a two-story, brick and frame, single family
residence and a detached one-story, brick and frame accessory structure. The
R-2 zoned property located adjacent at 1705 N. Palm Street (Lot 20, Cliffewood)
is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence and a
detached one-story, stucco accessory structure. Both properties are owned by
the applicants who reside at 1711 N. Palm and rent-out the residence at 1705 N.
Palm.
The applicants are proposing to remodel and expand their residence at 1711 N.
Palm Street. During the remodeling, they will reside at 1705 N. Palm. One
aspect of the remodeling project at 1711 involves the removal of the detached
accessory building and the construction of a new three-car garage in its place.
The new garage will be part of the house at 1711 since it will be attached by a
heated and cooled connection. The new garage addition will extend across the
property line onto the property at 1705 N. Palm by 3-4 feet creating a “zoning lot”
with two dwellings on it. Once the remodeling of 1711 N. Palm is complete, the
applicants will move back into that residence. The residence at 1705 N. Palm
will remain for 2-3 years as a rental unit. The residence at 1705 N. Palm will then
be removed, leaving just the one residence on all 4 lots. It is during this interim
period, when both residences will exist on one single “zoning lot”, that a
conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling is required.
The existing detached accessory structure on 1711 N. Palm Street has a rear
yard setback of 3.4 – 4.4 feet. The new, two story garage addition will have a
rear yard setback of 8.5 feet. The portion of the garage addition that extends
onto the adjacent lot will have a rear yard setback of 5 feet. This involves only a
foot or two of the structure. Although the rear yard setback is greater than the
existing accessory structure, since the garage will be part of the principal
dwelling, the setback requirement changes to 25 feet. Staff is supportive of the
variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback since the garage addition replaces
an existing structure and the garage would be allowed by-right if it did not have
the heated and cooled “breezeway” connection to the house.
Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. to allow a “temporary” accessory
dwelling. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The 1924 Bill of
Assurance for Cliffewood Addition does not address use issues.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8318
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. to allow use of the residence at
1705 N. Palm Street as an accessory dwelling to the principal dwelling located at
1711 N. Palm Street subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Section 6 of the
agenda staff report.
2. The residence and accessory structure located at 1705 N. Palm Street (Lot
20, Cliffewood Addition) are to be removed within three (3) years of a
certificate of occupancy being issued for the remodeled residence at 1711 N.
Palm Street.
3. One of the dwellings must be occupied by the property owner.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback
for the new garage additions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant desired to have the item deferred to the May 22,
2008 agenda to allow an opportunity to meet with neighbors to try to address
their concerns. There was no further discussion. A motion was made and
approved to waive the bylaws to allow the late request for deferral. The vote was
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made and approved to defer the
item to the May 22, 2008 agenda. That motion was approved by a vote of
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-8319
NAME: Ultimate Detail Truck Detail and Car Wash
– Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 7101 Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jack Pate/Telly Noel
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow
rehabilitation of an existing self-serve car wash and
addition of truck rental to the existing detail shop
located on this C-3 zoned lot.
STAFF UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION:
On March 19, 2008, the applicant requested that this item be deferred to the
May 22, 2008 Commission meeting. Staff recommends approval of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. Staff informed the
Commission that, on March 19, 2008, the applicant had requested that the item be
deferred to the May 22, 2008 agenda. There was no further discussion. The item
was placed on the consent agenda and approved for deferral to the May 22, 2008
agenda. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION:
On May 5, 2008, the applicant requested deferral of the item to the July 10, 2008
meeting. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. Staff informed
the Commission that, on May 5, 2008, the applicant had requested that the item
be deferred to the July 10, 2008 meeting. There was no further discussion. The
item was placed on the consent agenda and approved for deferral to the July 10,
2008 meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
NAME: Entergy Substation – Revised Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mintons, Koban, Young/Entergy
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
revision of a previously approved C.U.P. to allow a
utility substation on this R-2 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the south side of Colonel Glenn Road; west of
Cooper Orbit Road. The property is located outside of the city limits but
within the City’s zoning jurisdiction.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area characterized primarily by single-family
residences on large tracts and large areas of undeveloped properties.
The substation was approved by the Commission on May 11, 2006 and
subsequently approved by the Board of Directors on February 20, 2007.
Relocating the access drive to the south, within the existing Entergy
transmission line right-of-way will not affect the substation’s compatibility
with the area in a negative manner.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The substation access drive will include a 15-foot concrete apron at the
intersection with Lawson Road. From the concrete apron, approximately
85 feet of the access drive will be paved with asphalt. The remainder of
the access drive and the area within the substation will be surfaced with
gravel. Parking area is available for service vehicles.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site must be developed to comply with the City’s landscape and buffer
ordinance.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
2
Buffer and screening are required where the site is adjacent to
residentially zoned or used property. Screening may be either a solid
fence or wall or dense evergreen plants.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Plat Requirements
a. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to fifty-five (55) feet
from centerline will be required.
b. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to
Colonel Glenn Road including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
2. The property appears to be within the 100-year floodplain and is
beyond the City Limits. Contact Pulaski County Planning Department
pertaining to development requirements in the floodplain.
3. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersection of Lawson Road and the access easement
complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Property is outside of current service boundary. No
comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Fire
Department having jurisdiction 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: Approved as submitted. Located outside Little Rock
City Limits. Provide approval and comment from local Volunteer Fire
Department.
County Planning: Access from Lawson Road appears to be located in the
Floodway and Floodplain. No fill allowed in the floodplain without a
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
3
development permit from the County. No fill allowed in the floodway
without a no rise certificate or no adverse impact. Contact Pulaski
County Planning.
CATA: Outside service areas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 7, 2008)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted there were
some issues that needed to be addressed. In response to a question from staff,
the applicant stated the proposed new access road was located entirely within an
existing utility right-of-way easement. Staff asked if the new driveway would be
paved. The applicants were asked to locate and describe any fencing and gates
and to label areas to be cleared and to be left wooded. The applicants were
asked to provide a statement from the local volunteer fire department indicating
that the proposed new access was acceptable and sufficient to provide access to
the site.
In response to questions, the applicants stated the driveway was relocated to
avoid a tributary that crosses the site. They stated more trees could be
preserved on the north perimeter, reducing visibility of the site.
Public Works, Landscape, Utility and County Comments were discussed.
Pulaski County Planning Director Van McClendon was present and spoke about
flood plain/floodway concerns. The applicants were advised to address those
issues and provide responses to staff.
In response to a question, the applicants stated the lots had not been final
platted, due to an ongoing lawsuit, which objectors had filed over the City’s
approval of the plat and C.U.P.
The applicants were advised to respond to staff issues by February 13, 2008.
The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On May 11, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to
allow construction of an Entergy Utility Substation on this R-2 zoned tract. A
preliminary plat was also approved, creating a 3-lot residential plat with a
variance to allow a lot without public street frontage. An access easement was
approved to provide access off of Colonel Glenn Road to the lot. It is on this lot
that the substation was approved. On February 20, 2007, the Board of Directors
upheld the Commission’s action, approving the plat and C.U.P. Objectors filed
suit, seeking to overturn the City’s action. That trial is pending.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
4
Entergy has filed a revision to the previously approved conditional use permit.
The utility proposes to take access from Lawson Road to the substation site,
rather than from the access easement onto Colonel Glenn Road. That access
easement, which was a part of the approved plat, will remain in place but will not
be used by Entergy. The access road to Lawson will be constructed entirely
within an existing Entergy transmission line right-of-way.
Under the presently approved C.U.P., access to the substation would extend
from Colonel Glenn Road, across Tract 1 of the 3-lot subdivision and across an
unnamed tributary of McHenry Creek. Taking access from Lawson Road will
make use of the existing utility right-of-way easement. This proposed access will
minimize the impact caused by access to the subdivided property and eliminate
the need for channelization work to the unnamed tributary. Also, the substation
has been reduced from a 3-transformer bay structure to a 2-bay structure and the
northern fence line has been revised to allow for less visibility from the north.
The site plan has been slightly modified to adjust to the boundary set by the court
as a result of a boundary dispute.
The substation will be enclosed by a 7-foot tall chain link fence topped by 3
strands of barbed wire, for a total height of 8 feet. Two gates will provide access
to the substation. An additional steel gate is proposed on the access drive itself,
approximately 100 feet off of Lawson Road. A letter of approval has been
provide by the Crystal Fire Protection District No. 24. Signage will include an
aluminum sign with Entergy name, logo and substation name. The sign will be
mounted on the south fence of the substation. Applicable warning signs will also
be included. A letter from an engineer certifying sight-distance for the driveway
onto Lawson Road has been provided to Public Works. The applicant is working
with Pulaski County Staff to comply with applicable development requirements in
the floodplain.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. There is no bill of
assurance for this acreage, preliminarily platted tract.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised C.U.P. subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff
report.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 28, 2008)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on
February 27, 2008 requesting the application be deferred to the April 10, 2008
Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request.
With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent the Commission voted to waive their
bylaws and accept the request for deferral being less than five (5) working days
prior to the public hearing.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 10, 2008 Agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
The applicants were not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that, on April 2, 2008, the applicants had requested deferral of
the item to the May 22, 2008 agenda. There was no further discussion. The item
was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the May 22, 2008 agenda.
The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were several objectors present. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with
the conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above.
James Jones of Entergy addressed the Commission. He showed a power-point
presentation in which he gave a brief history of the project and described the
proposed revision. He reviewed the need for a substation in the area and showed
an aerial photograph of the area in question. Mr. Jones stated the nearest
substation was located four miles to the east of this site and that substation was
at or near capacity. He stated this proposed substation was going to be located
under an existing Entergy transmission line. He stated relocating the access
would result in not having to dredge the unnamed tributary for McHenry Creek.
He stated the previously approved access easement would be used as a utility
easement.
Gary Brown, of 14220 Lawson Road, spoke in opposition. He stated the
proposed substation would create flooding in the area. He also expressed
concern about pollutants from the site.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
6
Francis Jamell, of 14124 Col. Glenn Rd., spoke in opposition. He stated the
originally approved C.U.P. was invalid because the wrong owners were indicated
on the application. He made note of two past zoning related issues where the
City had lost lawsuits because proper procedures had not been followed.
Mr. Jamell stated the proposed substation would cause flooding in the area and
the City would bear responsibility. He stated the City’s past decisions on the
issue had been capricious and arbitrary.
Commissioner Meyer responded that the past decisions had been made only
after much discussion and review and were not capricious.
The subsequent discussion between Mr. Jamell and the Commission became
very animated and the Chairman intervened to stop the discussion.
Carolyn Jolley, of 14280 Col. Glenn Rd., spoke in opposition. She stated she had
taken photographs of the property showing it to be flooded after recent rains. The
photographs were not presented. Ms. Jolley stated the proposed substation had
a larger footprint than the previously approved plan and would cause flooding of
the neighbors’ properties.
James Jones responded that the footprint of the proposed substation was no
larger than the prior approval. He stated Entergy would follow all rules and
guidelines for development of the site to assure that no increase in flooding was
caused.
Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Jones if Entergy considered other sites. Mr. Jones
stated Entergy started out looking at five sites before determining this site to be
best. He stated the site preferred by the neighbors would involve the construction
of a mile of transmission line and the clear-cutting of a one hundred foot wide path
for the transmission line.
Commissioner Meyer asked if Entergy could be sued if it were determined that
the substation caused flooding in the area. Mr. Jones responded that Entergy
could be sued.
Chairman Taylor asked why the substation was being reduced from three bays to
two. Mr. Jones responded that it was an effort to reduce the substation’s footprint
and to reduce the impact of the development. He stated the facility would be
constructed with one bay which would likely reach capacity in about seven years.
At that point, the second bay would be added.
In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, the engineer
accompanying Mr. Jones from Entergy stated the footprint of the revised
substation was slightly smaller than the previously approved plan.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7980-A
7
In response to a question, Mike Hood of Public Works stated the developers
would have to comply with Pulaski County regulations for construction in the
floodplain.
Commissioner Yates commented that the Commission was not approving a
specific engineering plan for development of the site. He stated the issue was
addition of access to Lawson Road.
Other objectors arrived and turned in cards after the designated time for
opposition to speak. The Chair allotted each person one minute to speak.
Tammy McLain, of 14245 Col. Glenn Rd., stated she had concerns about
flooding.
Jeff Stephens, of 24 Ashwood Dr., spoke of his concerns for his parents’
property. He asked how his parents could be assured that their property would
be protected.
Sue Ann Stephens, of 14075 Col. Glenn Rd., stated the property had been
subdivided for single-family homes, not utility substation. She also voiced
concerns about flooding.
Roy Jolley, of 14300 Col. Glenn Rd., stated the proposed access Rd. would
create a dam, causing flooding. He stated “the Planning Commission had been
nothing but yes men for your rich Entergy friends.”
Commissioner Rector stated Entergy was required by law not to increase
flooding and it was an engineering issue.
Commissioner Yates stated the Commission’s approval was subject to Entergy
following all the laws related to development of the site, and it was not blanket
approval to do anything they want. He stated the Commission was approving a
change of access to a use that had already been approved.
A motion was made to approve the application as presented, including all staff
recommendations and conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: MSP07-04
Name: Master Street Plan Amendment University Avenue Design Standard
Location: University Avenue from Markham to Cantrell Road
Request: Alternate Design Standards
Source: Staff
On November 13, 2007 it was requested to defer this item to the January 17,
2008 Hearing of the Little Rock Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 6, 2007)
The applicant requested the item be deferred to January 17, 2008. The item was
placed on consent agenda for deferral. By a vote of 11 for, 0 against the consent
agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant requested that the item be deferred to February 28, 2008 hearing
of the Little Rock Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2008)
The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to April 10, 2008. By a vote
of 10 for, 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant requested that the item be deferred to May 22, 2008, hearing of
the Little Rock Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 10, 2008)
At the request of Staff in order to further review the item, it was placed on the
consent agenda for deferral to May 22, 2008. By a vote of 11 for and 0 against
the consent agenda was approved.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP07-04
2
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the Midtown Redevelopment Advisory Board have reviewed traffic
information and expect to have an amendment to present at the July 10, 2008
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The item was placed on consent agenda for deferral to July 10, 2008. By a vote
of 10 for and 0 against the consent agenda was approved.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
NAME: Park Avenue Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of St. Vincent Circle and University
Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Strode Property Company
5950 Berkshire Lane #1600
Dallas, TX 75225
ENGINEER:
Lawrence A. Cates and Associates, LLP
14800 Quorum Drive, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75254
PLANNER:
Good Fulton and Farrel
2808 Fairmount, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
AREA: 28.39 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development – Residential, Retail
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an increased wall height
along McKinley Street.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL:
The site of the former University Mall is 28.39 acres of land. Strode Property
Company, the applicant, purchased the property in September of 2007, and
began demolition of the deteriorating facility in November 2007. During the
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
2
demolition phase, the structure was taken down to 2 feet below the current
finished floor elevation and the hazardous materials were removed under the
supervision of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
The plans for the new development, named Park Avenue, involve a mixed-use
concept incorporating retail, restaurant, residential and theatre. The design
scheme uses building materials and site scapes that invite customers, residents
and employees to change their life patterns and spend more time in one place,
Park Avenue. Integrating retail with multi-family and designing open public
spaces into the site plan gives the development a much desired “sense of place”.
Specifically, the plan includes 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing
the existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking
garage that will sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The
remainder of the site will be surface parked using a formula that reduces the
standard parking ratios by complimentary uses. The large anchors expected to
be involved demand a parking field in front of their stores for their customers.
With the current plan of 748,250 square feet, the components break down as
follows:
Project Data:
Retail/Restaurant 79,650 square feet
Anchor 212,600 square feet
Cinema 27,000 square feet
Residential or Residential and Hotel 429,000 square feet
900 SF Avg. 476 Units Max – Residential; 127 room hotel
Total Square Footage 748,250 square feet
Parking Provided:
Surface Spaces/Lot A 384 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot B 391 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot C 6 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot D 38 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot E 43 spaces
Surface Spaces/Lot F 47 spaces
Existing Parking Structure 682 spaces
Underground Garage 207 spaces
Total Spaces 1,798 spaces
Building Lot Coverage 336,250 Sq. Ft. 25.8 %
Parking Lot Coverage 319,600 Sq. Ft. 25.8 %
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
3
The total number of spaces for the development is a ratio of 2.4 per 1,000 square
feet of floor area or 1,798 total parking spaces. The site will be subdivided into
separate parcels to allow for future transfer of property to potential tenants.
Park Avenue is designed to meet the purpose and intent of the Midtown Overlay
District by creating the ability to work, live, shop and recreate in one location.
This will achieved by using the ground floor of key building pods for retail space
similar to the description in Section 36.388 of the Midtown Overlay District.
Multiple free standing single user retail buildings are proposed within the site
plan.
Common elements, either colors or materials, to achieve architectural harmony
throughout the development are proposed. The building façades are proposed
constructed using a predominance of masonry, stone, or exterior insulation finish
system and the retail ground floor will utilize a glass store front system. To
address long or tall building elevations, special care will be taken to break up the
mass with articulations of color and/or material change.
The signage includes multi-tenant and single tenant monument type structures at
all entrances. Directional or “way finding” signs will direct visitors across the
project and include tenant logos. Tenant signage is strictly governed by the
owner to insure a cohesive, controlled and unique “branding” of the development.
Tenant signage on some buildings may be allowed on three sides. Blade,
awning, window and seasonal banners will be utilized by the development.
The residential units of Pak Avenue will be for rent and the residents will utilize
the parking structures mentioned previously to serve their parking needs. This
component will include private areas for fitness, sunbathing or congregating and
there will be balconies to encourage the residents to embrace the open spaces
and promote the “sense of place”. Parking lot lighting will be pole mounted over
a concrete base at levels necessary to ensure residents and customer safety at
the project.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is the former University Mall site which is currently being demolished.
The developers have retained the parking deck structure. The area is a mix of
office, commercial and institutional uses. St. Vincent’s Hospital is located to the
east of the site, across South University Avenue, and is currently undergoing an
expansion. Doctors Office building and St. Vincent’s Doctors Hospital is located
to the South of the site, across St. Vincent Circle. To the west of the site is
residential housing, both single-family and multi-family homes. North of the site
are office and commercial uses including a multi-story office building located at
the southwest intersection of West Markham and South University Avenue. A
vacant branch bank building located at the property’s northeast corner, a
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
4
restaurant, a high rise residential tower and a funeral home are all located to the
north of this site fronting West Markham Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received an informational phone call from an area
resident. The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, all property owners located
within 200 feet of the site 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. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that McKinley Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate that portion of right-of-way on McKinley Street
which is private. Additional right-of-way may be required to be dedicated if
the eastern half of the right-of-way is not 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
University Avenue and St. Vincent Circle.
4. With site development, provide the design of the street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to western
portion of St. Vincent Circle with the planned development. The new curb
line should match the curb line on the eastern portion of St. Vincent Circle.
5. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan to be
installed along University Avenue, St. Vincent Circle and McKinley Street.
6. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet. The minimum driveway spacing on a principal arterial
street (University Avenue) is 300 feet from another driveway or intersection
and 150 feet from property line. The proposed driveways on University
Avenue do not meet the spacing requirement.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The driveway spacing on a
commercial street (St. Vincent Circle) is at least 250 feet from another
driveway or intersection and at least 150 feet from the property line. The
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
5
proposed driveways on St. Vincent Circle do not meet the spacing
requirement.
9. Due to the many changes made to the original site plan including the
changes to the types and amount of uses on the site, the submitted traffic
study dated February 18, 2008, is no longer applicable. Please resubmit an
updated Traffic Study addressing total trip generation, trip distribution, traffic
signal operation/coordination, levels of service and traffic circulation. At the
time the updated traffic study is submitted, additional comments maybe
made relating to traffic.
10. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
11. 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).
12. 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 if the
amount of cut and fill is equal to or greater than 1000 cubic yards or if
vertical cuts and fills are greater than 10 feet. Site grading, and drainage
plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction.
13. 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.
14. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development due to the
amount of proposed impervious surface is comparable to the amount of
existing impervious surface.
15. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
16. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street
improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval.
17. Smaller scaled plans are desired to be submitted for all future reviews.
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.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
6
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding the size and location of the water meter(s). On site fire
protection and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the
existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on a major connecting point between five CATA
routes. In order to prevent major tie-ups along St. Vincent Circle a bus pullout
lane of at least 140-feet must be available along westbound St. Vincent Circle
between South University Avenue and McKinley Street. The current curb lane
along the south side of St. Vincent Circle for eastbound buses must also be
maintained. The final street configuration for St. Vincent Circle should allow for a
minimum of two lanes in each direction. One of the two lanes will be used for
bus loading; the other lane will be used for through traffic.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant
has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow development of a
mixed use development containing commercial, office, cinema, hotel, and
residential.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: South University is shown as a Principal Arterial. The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and
exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on
South University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. St. Vincent Circle and
McKinley Street are both shown as Local Streets. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets which are
abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes
are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a design standard
the same as a Collector. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
7
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in this immediate area.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is covered by the Briarwood Neighborhood
Plan, but the plan does not address this issue.
Parks and Recreation: Encourage pedestrian/bicycle links to War Memorial
Park. Contact the Parks and Recreation Department for additional information.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City’s landscape, buffer ordinance and the
Midtown Design Overlay District requirements unless variances are approved.
2. Additional street trees are recommended on the site’s perimeters and
vehicular access areas.
3. Special attention should be given to this highly pedestrian development for
open shared space opportunities and additional green space(s).
4. This site will be reviewed as an overall development plan; therefore, the site’s
entirety will need to be automatically irrigated and have a landscape plan with
the stamp of a licensed Landscape Architect.
5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width
and 300 square feet in area. The proposed plan does not currently reflect this
minimum requirement.
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.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 6, 2008)
Mr. Chuck Keller was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the first set of comments
were related to the Midtown Design Overlay District and were being provided for
the developer to address for compliance or non-compliance. Staff stated the
areas the developer was not complying with would require a notation in the
write-up and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Staff
stated the Planning Staff comments were to address additional information
needed by staff for inclusion in the write-up and recommendation. Staff noted
the site plan as proposed did not provide connectivity through the site, the
parking lots were not providing pedestrian tables and staff questioned the intent
of building signage. Staff stated dumpster facilities would require screening and
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
8
site lighting was not be directed downward and into the site. Staff noted the DOD
addressed lighting, establishing minimum and maximum foot candles.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the Master Street Plan
and the Boundary Street ordinances would require dedications and street
construction to the abutting streets. Staff also stated any broken curb, gutter or
sidewalk damaged in the right of way would require replacing prior to occupancy.
Staff stated a grading permit would be required and a storm water permit would
be required prior to the start of construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated eight percent of the
vehicular use area would require landscaping in landscape islands at least
300 square feet in area. Staff stated a landscape plan would be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Staff also stated the site would require
automatic irrigation to water landscaped areas. Staff noted the site would require
compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District and the City’s landscape
and buffer ordinances unless variations were approved.
Staff noted comments received from CATA. Staff stated CATA desired a bus
pull-off along the south side of the site. Staff also noted comments from the
various other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant
contact them directly for additional information. There was no further discussion
of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing
most of the issues raised at the March 6, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The revisions include the proposed signage plan, pedestrian connectivity and a
note indicating site lighting at the property line will be zero.
The following is a listing of the specific requirements of the Midtown Overlay
District and the applicant’s proposal for meeting the typical requirements. For
any new development, redevelopment exceeding 50 percent or expansion of an
existing development by more than 50 percent a PZD application is required.
Midtown Overlay District
Applicant’s Proposal
A planned zoning district process shall
be required for a new development,
redevelopment exceeding 50 percent of
The development is proposed as new
construction therefore a rezoning from
C-3, General Commercial District to
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
9
the structure’s current replacement
value based on its configuration at the
time of the DOD’s adoption, and for
expansion of existing developments
exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s
current square footage at the time of
the DOD’s adoption. Routine repairs,
maintenance and interior alterations to
accommodate existing, expanding or
new tenants within the existing building
envelope shall not require compliance
with Chapter 36, Article 10 (Midtown
Design Overlay District). The proposed
planned zoning development shall be
reviewed to realize a development plan
that is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Midtown Design Overlay
District.
PCD is required.
For a new development or structure of
over 100,000 square feet (excluding
structured parking), a mix of uses must
be provided. This mix may occur either
under the same roof or in adjacent
structures as part of a common
development. In order to be considered
a mix, the new development must
either:
Devote the majority of its leasable
ground floor space to a secondary use
i.e. retail in a multi-story office building;
or
Devote ten percent of the gross
leasable area of a single building to the
secondary use i.e. residential on the
upper levels of a multi-story office, retail
The proposal is for a mixed-use
development containing retail and
residential; both in separate buildings
or as mixed uses within multi-story
buildings.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
10
or institutional building; or
Devote fifteen percent of the gross
leasable area to a secondary use in a
separate building constructed and
occupied at the same time as the
primary structure i.e. a restaurant on a
pad adjacent to an office building.
The Midtown Design Overlay District
requires developments in excess of
200,000 square feet to contain a
residential component. The residential
may be in the same structure or a
separate structure, as long as the
separate structure is part of the overall
development and the overall
development is built simultaneously.
For any development constructed in
phases, a portion of the secondary
uses shall be included in the initial
phases.
Park Avenue will contain the required
residential component. However, the
residential or hotel at the northwest
corner of the property (separate
structure) may be constructed in a
separate phase as shown on the site
plan (phasing).
Façade treatment – for new
construction at least 60 percent of the
ground floor level facing internal
pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets shall be glass-windows, entry
features or displays.
The primary façade of a building shall
be oriented parallel with the street, or to
the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or
private.
Buildings shall maintain a distinction
between upper and lower levels; an
elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment,
which visually divides the structure into
stories.
Some of the buildings will not contain a
minimum of 60 percent of the ground
floor as glass-windows, entry features
or displays.
The primary façade of the building will
be oriented parallel to the private
vehicular routes of travel within the
development.
Architectural treatments are indicated
on the multi-story buildings to visually
divide the structure into stories. The
proposed elevations for the major
anchor indicate an attempt to visually
break up the height of the structure
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
11
Wall projections or recesses a minimum
of three feet deep and a minimum of 20
continuous feet not to extend over 20
percent of the façade shall be required.
Arches, display windows, entry areas or
awnings shall exist along at least 60
percent of the façade.
through the use of different colors and
materials.
Projections will be included along the
facades to break the massing of the
structure. Some of the buildings will
not contain arches, display windows,
entry areas or awnings along at least
60 percent of the façade.
Entryway – Primary entrances shall be
oriented to the street or to the principal
vehicular or pedestrian routes of travel
within a development.
Buildings shall have clearly defined and
visible customer entrances featuring
elements such as overhangs, arcades,
arches, canopies, peaked roof forms,
display windows.
All sides of buildings that face abutting
public or private rights of way, except
alleys, shall feature at least one
customer entrance.
Elevations - No elevation facing an
arterial or greater street shall be
primarily used as a service entry or
otherwise be treated as the rear of the
structures.
New construction wider than 100 linear
feet shall be visually massed so as to
break the structure visually.
Rooflines shall be varied with changes
in height every 100 liner feet in building
length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable
roofs, high roofs, shall be used to
The primary entrances will be oriented
to the vehicular or pedestrian routes
within the development.
The buildings will contain clearly
defined and visible customer entrances
featuring elements such as overhangs,
arcades, arches, canopies, peaked
roof forms, and display windows.
The buildings will not contain customer
entrances on all abutting streets.
The elevations abutting South
University Avenue will be designed as
four (4) sided buildings and will not be
used as a service entry or treated as
the rear of the buildings.
Based on the information provided to
staff, it appears the buildings will be
constructed to visually break the mass
of the structure through the use of
various materials and colors.
The site plan appears to comply with
this typical standard. There may be
exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3 based
on the information provided to staff.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
12
conceal flat roofs and roof top
equipment.
Exterior building materials and colors
shall be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors
used in neighboring developments.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall be of high quality materials; such
as but not limited to: brick, wood, store,
tinted, stucco, EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) concreted masonry
units. Façade colors – shall be low
reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone
with trim and accents brighter colors.
Predominant exterior building materials
shall not be smooth-faced concrete
block, tilt-up concrete panels or
prefabricated steel panels.
The development will be constructed
with painted concrete tilt wall, masonry
veneer, stone veneer or CMU block,
Glass storefronts, Metal panels,
Painted metal, Plaster or EIFS,
Perforated metal screens, Composite
wood panels.
The development will utilize tilt-up
concrete panels. The panels will be
scored for visual aesthetics.
Projections (all requirements for a
franchise remain in place). Objects
shall not project from the building
facade over the public right of way
except for awnings, signs, and
balconies.
Not applicable.
Awnings shall not project more than five
(5) feet from the building facade and
have a minimum clearance of nine (9)
feet above pedestrian areas and
thirteen (13) feet above vehicular areas.
Not applicable.
Balconies over the public right-of-way
shall have a minimum clearance of nine
(9) feet above the sidewalk. One (1)
inch of projection is permitted for each
additional inch of clearance above eight
(8) feet, provided that no such
projection shall exceed a distance of
four (4) feet. Balconies shall not be
supported with posts extending to the
sidewalk. Mounting heights for balcony
Not applicable.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
13
brackets shall conform to minimum
clearance standards.
Building height – No building hereafter
erected or structural altered shall
exceed a height of 60 feet, except as
provided below. Structures may have a
greater height as follows, and these
bonuses may be cumulative:
Any structure that is certified by CATA
as provide a portion of the structure for
mass transit is entitled to add 15-feet.
Structures with a mix of uses with the
street-level primarily devoted to retail
uses and at lease 50 percent of these
uses having direct access to the street,
is entitled to add 25 feet to the
structure; alternately a development
with an integrated parking facility
substantially located within the footprint
of the primary structure, is entitled to
add 25 feet to the structure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
structure located north of West
Markham Street and east of University
shall be limited to a height of 35 feet.
The maximum building height will be
105 feet.
The buildings along the “main street”
driveway are a maximum of 5-stories
in height. The buildings contain
ground floor retail and 4 stories of
residential. The northern buildings
incorporate access to the existing
parking deck. The southern buildings
are located over the underground
parking garage.
The proposed building height of 105
feet is less than the 110 allowed with
the bonuses if consideration is given
for use of the existing parking deck
and underground garage.
Building setbacks from property lines
and street rights of way shall be:
Front yard setbacks may be zero but
will not be more than 20-feet excepting
in those cases where grade changes
make such setbacks impractical.
The property fronts onto S. University
Avenue. It appears 2 of the 3 buildings
along the street are set in excess of
the 20-foot typical requirement.
Side yard setbacks may be zero except
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the side yard setback shall be
a setback of not less than four (4) feet.
There is not residential abutting the
development.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
14
Rear yard setback may be zero, except
where adjacent to lots containing
single-family detached structures. In
this case the rear yard setback shall
have a setback of not less than 25-feet.
There is not residential abutting the
development.
Driveways, Sidewalks and Alleys –
Driveways and internal circulation
streets must have lanes at least ten feet
in width, but not more than 12 feet
excepting that width needed for bike
lanes or special pedestrian
accommodations.
The development is requesting the
allowance of 15-foot drive lanes.
Intersections of internal drives or
streets will be minimally controlled by
stop signs, and will feature special
crossway paving or treated surfaces.
The development appears to be
complying.
Access driveways running parallel with
the street shall not create a four-way
intersection within 125 feet of the
ultimate curb line of the public street.
The drives are located in excess of
125-feet from the street intersections.
No more than one curb cut per block
face shall be permitted. Driveways and
parking lot entrances-exit shall be
combined and where appropriate
located in alleys.
There are 2 driveways on each street
perimeter. The property has more
than 2 blocks of frontage on each
street.
Sidewalks and Pedestrian walkways –
All driveways and internal streets shall
have minimum five foot sidewalks on
both sides located away from the back
of curb.
Some of the drives do not have
sidewalks located along both sides.
All sidewalks fronting buildings with
ground floor retail shall be at least 10
feet in width.
Some of the walks are indicated less
than ten (10) feet.
Protected pedestrian walkways shall be
provided through parking lots.
Crosswalks shall be incorporated at
strategic locations to provide
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
15
All developments shall include as part
of their site plan pedestrian linkages
through parking areas and to adjacent
buildings or developments.
pedestrian linkages to structures within
the development.
Alleys – shall not be more than 20-feet
wide unless needed for emergency
access. Where an alley runs along a
property line, it shall be screened from
the adjacent property by a permanent
wall of high quality materials compatible
with neighboring buildings.
Not applicable. There are no alleys
located within the development.
All new utilities for developments within
the District shall be buried. All new
developments shall underground all
utilities onsite or within adjacent public
right of way wherever determined by
the utility agency to be feasible.
All new utilities for the proposed
development will be buried where
technically feasible.
Trash enclosures shall be located in
alleys wherever available or in common
service areas for multiple
developments.
In all areas, service and waste removal
areas shall be screened and located
away from public outdoor spaces and
pedestrian. Dumpster screening shall
comply with Section 36-523.
Waste removal areas shall be
screened and located away from public
outdoor spaces and pedestrians when
physically possible.
Parking facilities – wherever feasible,
multilevel parking structures shall be
encouraged. Surface parking shall be
limited to the side and rear of
structures, unless grouped in quantities
of 50 spaces or less separated by a
landscaping strip no less than the
The applicant is utilizing an existing
parking structure and is proposing to
construct an underground parking
garage.
A portion of the parking fields contain
more than 50 spaces.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
16
perimeter landscape strip as required
for the property by Chapter 15 of the
code or a structure from other vehicular
areas and having no more than one
vehicular connection to another surface
parking area. Surface parking areas
should be broken up or distributed
around large structures so as to shorten
the distance to other buildings and
public sidewalks. For corner lots,
parking is allowed along the side street
frontage.
Parking requirements within the District
shall be 50 percent of that required by
Article VII of Chapter 36. The
maximum allowed parking shall be the
minimum standard established in Article
VII of Chapter 36.
The maximum parking allowed for the
development is 3,325 spaces. The
minimum parking allowed is 1,662
spaces. The development is proposed
to contain 1,798 spaces.
Shared parking. As an alternative to
subsection (f)(2) above, mixed-use
developments may utilize the shared
parking methodologies developed by
the Urban Land Institute and published
in Shared Parking (Second Edition,
2005) by Mary S. Smith, et al. A project
may elect this means of determining the
total parking requirement by submitting
a parking demand analysis prepared by
a qualified parking or traffic consultant,
a licensed architect, city planner, or
urban planner or civil engineer.
Not applicable.
On-street parking. On-street parking on
internal streets or circulation routes
shall be allowed and may count
towards the parking requirement. On-
street parking is permitted either
parallel, in areas in front of, or adjacent
to, retail or commercial entries. Angled
street (drive) parking shall not be
permitted on streets (drives) that
Not applicable.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
17
provide the development majority
access. Such parking may count
towards the overall project parking
requirements. No on-street parking
shall be allowed on University Avenue
or Markham Street.
No parking shall be allowed in the front
yard setback area.
Some of the parking will be located
within the front yard setback of South
University Avenue.
Parking garage design – Parking
facilities should be designed consistent
with the overall project design. Where
possible, other uses, residential or
commercial should be used to wrap or
otherwise block the view of a parking
garage.
The development is utilizing an
existing parking structure (682
spaces). The structure will be
screened from view in most locations.
An underground parking garage is also
being constructed (207 spaces).
Signage – Signage shall comply with
Article X except as follows – No off-site
advertising signs are permitted. No
pole mounted signs are permitted.
Monument signs are to identify the
development and be limited to 72
square feet in area and 6 feet in height
for developments greater than one
acre. Signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose
design theme and materials are directly
related to the primary development may
be submitted for approval under the
PZD process if located along University
southerly of Lee. No single elevation or
face of such a structure shall be more
than 400 square feet.
No off-site signage is proposed. The
development is proposing signage
larger than typically allowed.
Four major tenant identification signs
are proposed with a height of 36 feet
and a sign area of 430 square feet.
The total area of the sign structures is
720 square feet (36’ X 20’).
No street buffer or landscaping is
required along streets classified less
than an arterial. When the structure is
not built to the property line,
landscaping is required in the area
Landscaping will be placed along
South University Avenue where the
building is not placed at the zero
setback and where conflicts do not
exist.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
18
between the building and property line
up to that required in Chapter 15 of the
Code.
Land use buffers shall only be provided
where single-family and duplex use or
zoning is the abutting use. In those
cases where a land use buffer is
required, buffers shall be the same as
those for multi-family uses in Section
36-522(b)(1). In areas where terrain
variation is great or other features result
in the loss of privacy, alternative
designs and massing shall be
considered.
Not applicable.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
a minimum of 300 square feet for
30,000 square foot structures. For
each additional 5,000 square feet or
portion thereof, a minimum of an
additional 50 square feet of plaza area
is required.
The site plan indicates the placement
of 42,800 square feet of open space.
Surface parking lots shall meet all
current landscape requirements.
The surface lots will meet the
requirements of Chapter 15.
Street trees shall be a minimum of
3-inch caliper and shall be 2 feet off the
back of curb, 30 feet on center. The
canopy shall be maintained with an
8 foot clearance. A four foot planter
strip shall be maintained.
Street trees will meet this requirement
as well as 4’ planter strip, where
possible. Conflicts could be
encountered along portions of
University and St. Vincent’s where
existing structures or utilities exist.
Common use areas and plazas shall be
maintained by a common authority.
Attempts shall be made to maintain
vegetation, trees, bushes, in
undisturbed conditions to serve the
aesthetic, recreational and ecological
needs of the district. Trees planted in
these areas shall be a minimum of two
inches in caliper and ten feet in height.
Common areas will be maintained by a
common authority by private document
such as an “Operating and Easement
Agreement” between the parties within
the project.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
19
Trees greater than 14 inches in
diameter, measured at 4 ½ feet above
the ground, shall be protected from
removal and damages in future
development of the district. Any
development within 50 feet of such tree
shall be reviewed prior to development
to assure protective measures are
included and in place.
There are no trees located on this site.
Lighting shall conform to the design
overlay district standards. The intent is
to prevent light from commercial
developments from excessively
illuminating the property in question,
other properties or the night sky. Only
light fixtures which are categorized as
full cut-off fixtures shall be permitted.
The use of fully shielded floodlights are
permitted but not encouraged.
The maximum allowable fixture
mounting height is proposed to be 38
feet. The photometric plan will provide
that foot candle at the property line will
be zero.
The ordinance provides for the
following specific standards for lighting
intensity based upon the activities
performed involved. Values are
presented in allowable foot candles (fc)
maintained (measured horizontally) at
grade and are to be averaged
throughout the site to avoid hot spots,
i.e. areas of extreme light intensity
relative to the remainder of the site:
Pedestrian areas/sidewalks
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 1.0 fc Maximum 10.0 fc
Street lighting
Minimum 0.2 fc Maximum 1.0 fc
Parking area
Minimum 2.0 fc Maximum 4.0 fc
Pedestrian areas / sidewalks
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Building entries
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Has not been addressed.
Parking areas
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
20
Playgrounds
Maximum 5.0 fc
Sports grounds
Maximum 20.2 fc
Site perimeter
Maximum 0.5 fc
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Site perimeter
Minimum 5.0 fc Maximum 18.0 fc
Gas station canopies shall be
illuminated at a maximum luminance of
thirty (30) fc and individual fixtures shall
be flush mounted or have the canopy
edge below the lowest light-emitting
point on the fixtures. All existing gas
station canopies that exceed this
standard shall be made compliant
within seven (7) years of the date of
adoption of this article.
Not applicable.
Up lighting may be used to illuminate a
building, landscaping element or
architectural feature, provided the
lighting design has a maximum
luminance of twelve (12) fc, measured
in a vertical plane. Down lighting is
preferred.
Has not been addressed by the
applicant.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for
staff review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan
shall contain the following information:
An area lighting plan, drawn to scale,
indicating all structures, parking lots,
building entrances, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic areas, vegetation that
may interfere with lighting, and adjacent
land uses that may be adversely
impacted by the lighting. The plan shall
Will comply.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
21
contain a layout of all proposed fixtures
by location, orientation, aiming
direction, mounting height and type.
The submission shall include, in
addition to proposed area lighting, all
other exterior lighting, e.g.,
architectural, building entrance,
landscape, flagpole, sign, etc.
A ten-foot by ten-foot luminance grid
(point-by-point) of maintained foot-
candles overlaid on the site plan plotted
out to 0.0 foot-candles, which
demonstrates compliance with light
intensity standards.
Property, if for any reason, that cannot
be developed without violating the
standards of this article shall be
reviewed through the planned zoning
district (PZD) section of the zoning
ordinance, with the intent to devise a
workable development plan which is
consistent with the purpose and intent
of the overlay standards.
The property is being considered as a
PZD.
The site plan also indicates the placement of building signage along the interior
drive and along the street sides. The development is proposed as a “Life Style
Center” with a main street feel. The fronts of the buildings will be located along
the interior drive and the signage in this location will allow identification of the
tenants. In addition, the request is also to allow wall signage along the street
sides.
Building signage is intended to allow window, blade, awning and building signage
for the retail and theatre uses. Sign totals will equal 10% of the height multiplied
by the width of the fascia area to be “signed”. For freestanding buildings,
building signage would be allowed on three sides, except the second or third sign
area total would be reduced by half, as an example:
A. Primary Entrance Elevation: Assuming 190’ wide and 30’ tall x 10% would
allow 570 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning
signs on the front elevation.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
22
B. Rear Elevation: Assuming 190’ wide and 30’ tall x 5% would allow
285 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the rear elevation.
C. Side Elevation: Assuming 160’ wide and 30’ tall x 5% would allow
240 total square feet for all building, blade window and/or awning signs on
the side elevation.
Buildings with a second entrance “end-cap” or two faced storefronts would be
allowed a second sign as described in B or C above.
The development is proposing to place an identification sign at the St.
Vincent’s/South University Avenue entrance mounted on the existing wall. The
sign is proposed with individual letters and project logo with a maximum area of
100 square feet. Two tenant identification signs are proposed with a maximum
height of six feet and a maximum sign area of 52 square feet. The signs will be
masonry sign constructed of materials used on the shopping center building.
Four shopping center identification sign are proposed with a maximum height of
36-feet and a maximum sign area of 430 square feet. The signage is larger than
signage typically allowed per the Overlay District. The signage is proposed with
an overall dimension of 36 feet in height and 20 feet in width. Seasonal Banners
will be placed on light poles within the development.
The applicant has indicated all mechanical equipment will be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. The applicant has also indicated the low
architectural walls mansard roofs, parapets, gable or high roofs conforming to the
general architectural theme of the center.
All dumpster facilities will be screened with structurally sound materials that use
materials directly used on the face of adjacent structures, and will be at locations
accessible to tenants; exact locations as yet undetermined. Any dumpsters
located in an area visible from the street will be additionally screened with trees
and/or hedges.
The applicant has indicated the street buffer along South University Avenue to
meet the minimum ordinance requirement of nine feet. The applicant has also
included landscape islands within the development to soften the impact of the on
site paved area. Pedestrian accesses are indicated to the site from all three
abutting streets.
The development is proposed to contain six lots. The lots have been indicated to
allow the developer flexibility should a potential user desire to own their own
property. The development will be served by an Operating and Easement
Agreement, which will define cross access and cross parking agreements within
the development.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
23
The development is proposed to contain 748,250 square feet of both residential
and commercial space and a total of 1,798 parking spaces. Of the 1,798 parking
spaces, 889 spaces (49 percent) are located within the existing parking deck or
the proposed underground parking garage. The site is proposed with
27.2 percent of the site covered with buildings and 25.8 percent of the site
covered with parking. The site plan indicates the placement of 42,800 square
feet of open space. The plaza area contains 15,760 square feet of open space
area and an additional 16,970 square feet of hardscaped in font of the buildings.
A 1,210 square foot open space area has been indicated with an architectural
landmark at the western end of the plaza drive. The remainder of the open
space is located distributed throughout the site. Based on the DOD, a total of
14,913 square feet of open space would typically be required.
Included within the 748,250 square feet of building area is 429,000 square feet of
residential or 57.3 percent. The residential units are proposed with
approximately 900 square feet of livable space per unit and a maximum of
476 units are proposed. The developer has indicated the northwestern building
with alternative uses. The building is indicated with 162 apartment units or with a
127 room hotel. The building is proposed with four stories.
The site plan indicates a dedication of right of way per the Master Street Plan for
McKinley Street along the northern portion of the development. The site plan
indicates a dedication of 45-feet. There is an existing 35-foot street easement in
this area which will be publicly dedicated. A 60-foot right of way is in place along
the southern portion of the development. The developer is requesting a waiver of
the right of way dedication along South University Avenue. The developer has
indicated sidewalks will be provided along St. Vincent’s Circle and McKinley
Street north to the proposed drive of the hotel/apartment building. The request
includes a variance along McKinley Street to allow five-foot sidewalks
immediately adjacent to the curb. The request includes a variance from Sections
30-43 and 31-210 for driveway locations and widths on South University and
St. Vincent’s.
An additional 140 linear feet within the proposed development for a bus pullout
lane is not feasible according to the developer due to the existing conditions
along St. Vincent’s. The current grades allow access to the proposed
development in an area limited to approximately 140 linear feet along the south
property line. Within the area the developer will be handling the service/loading
areas of Anchors 1, 2 and 3, the south customer entrance to the development
and the pedestrian connectivity to the southern properties. The development will
construct an additional lane to St. Vincent’s Circle allowing for the bus to stop
within the public right of way and allowing one lane of continued flow of traffic.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
24
The developer is seeking a variance to allow an increased wall height along
McKinley Street. According to the developer a portion of the western wall may
exceed the 15-foot maximum wall height allowed per the Land Alteration
Ordinance.
The developer’s traffic engineer is working with City staff to determine the
capacities of the intersection of West Markham and McKinley Streets. The
existing lane configuration will be restriped to allow for one right, one left and one
combination left-through lane.
Staff is continuing to review the site plan. Staff’s recommendation is forthcoming.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommendation forthcoming.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 27, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
based on the number of comments raised at the March 6, 2008, Subdivision Committee
meeting, staff and the applicant requested the item be deferred to the May 8, 2008,
public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the applicant have continued to meet to resolve outstanding issues.
On April 30, 2008, both parties agreed to defer the item to allow time to address those
issues. Staff recommends approval of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 8, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated
the applicant and staff had continued to meet to resolve outstanding issues and
on April 30, 2008, both parties agreed to defer the item to the May 22, 2008,
public hearing to allow time to address outstanding issues. Staff presented a positive
recommendation of the deferral request.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
25
There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item
for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE: (MAY 22, 2008)
In staff’s opinion Park Avenue has done a good job in trying to meet the development
criteria as established by the Mid-town Design Overlay District Ordinance. The
developers are providing a mixed-use development with residential and retail activities
to create a 24-7 environment on this site. The proposed retail uses are those identified
in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations. The
retail uses proposed include uses, which will meet the needs of the nearby
neighborhood residents. Placement of the cinema on the site further connects the
development with the neighborhood by providing a use that is currently not available to
the neighborhood.
The site contains two (2) large retailers as Anchors, which typically have criteria that
must be meet with regard to parking lot layout and a minimum criteria established for
the number parking spaces. The applicant is utilizing a parking deck and underground
parking to help reduce the number of surface parking spaces. The development
includes the placement of nearly 50 percent of the site’s parking within the existing
garage or underground. Based on the current ordinance standard, parking for a
shopping center would be calculated at one space per 225 square feet of gross leasable
space. This development would typically be required to have 3,325 spaces. By
assessing the parking based on the individual uses of the center; residential, retail,
cinema, hotel, etc. the required parking would be 1,811 parking spaces. The Mid-town
Design Overlay District states parking may be as few as 50 percent of the requirement
but no more than the maximum allowed by the ordinance. The development is
proposed to have 1,798 spaces. The proposed number of parking spaces falls within
the standards established by the Overlay.
However, the site plan proposes large fields of parking that do not comply with the
standards established by the Overlay or the Statement of Expectations. Breaking up or
redistribution of the parking areas is encouraged by the Overlay. The Overlay states
surface parking shall be limited to the side and rear of the structure, unless grouped in
quantities of 50 spaces or less separated by a landscaping strip no less than the
perimeter landscape strip as required for the property by Chapter 15 of the code. The
Overlay states no parking shall be allowed within the front yard setback area. The site
plan as proposed does include parking within the front yard setback of South University
Avenue.
The common use area has been enlarged. The site plan indicates the placement of
15,760 square feet of common use area within the Plaza Area. Based on the Design
Overlay District requirements, a total of 14,913 square feet of common use area would
be required.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
26
Per the Design Overlay, the façade treatment for new construction must include at least
60 percent of the ground floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or
streets to be glass-windows, entry features or displays. Some of the buildings as
proposed will not contain the minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor as
glass-windows, entry features or displays. Per the Overlay, buildings are to maintain a
distinction between upper and lower levels. Elevation greater than 18 feet in height
shall contain an architectural treatment, which visually divides the structure into stories.
The building elevations provided indicate architectural treatments on the multi-story
buildings to visually divide the structure into stories. The proposed elevations for the
major anchor have indicated an attempt to visually break up the height of the structure
through the use of different colors and materials.
Wall projections or recesses a minimum of three feet deep and a minimum of
20 continuous feet not to extend over 20 percent of the façade shall be required per the
Overlay. Arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings shall exist along at least
60 percent of the façade. Projections will be included along the facades to break the
massing of the structure. Some of the buildings abutting the public rights of way will not
contain arches, display windows, entry areas or awnings along the façade as required
by the Overlay. Per the Overlay, the primary façade and primary entrances of a building
shall be oriented parallel with the street, or to the principal vehicular or pedestrian
routes of travel whether public or private. The primary façade and building entrance of
the Anchor buildings will be oriented parallel to the private vehicular routes of travel
within the development. All sides of buildings that face abutting public or private rights
of way, except alleys, shall feature at least one customer entrance. The buildings as
proposed will not contain customer entrances on all abutting streets. The buildings are
proposed with customer entrances on one side only. Rooflines are to be varied with
changes in height every 100 linear feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs,
gable roofs, high roofs, shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment. The
site plan appears to comply with this standard. Possible exceptions on Anchors 1 and 3
may be required based on the information provided to staff. The elevation and roofline
variations of Anchor 1 have not been clearly defined to indicate the variations in
materials and height to break the visual massing of the building.
The lighting proposed for the site exceeds the maximum intensity typically allowed by
the Overlay. The applicant has stated all lighting will be contained within the site with
zero foot candles present at the property line.
There are four (4) individual tenant identification signs and all exceed the allowable
maximums of 72 square feet in area and 6 feet in height. The individual tenant
identification signs are proposed with a height of 36 feet and a sign area of 430 square
feet. There are four complex signs indicated. Per the Overlay, signage integrated into
free-standing vertical structures whose design theme and materials are directly related
to the primary development may be submitted for approval under the PZD process if
located along University southerly of Lee. No single elevation or face of such a
structure shall be more than 400 square feet. The total area of the complex sign
structures is 720 square feet (36’ X 20’).
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
27
Two of the three out-lots adjacent to University Avenue have buildings with setbacks
proposed in excess of the typical maximum allowed by the Overlay. The Overlay states
front yard setbacks may be zero but will not be more than 20-feet excepting in those
cases where grade changes make such setbacks impractical. Additionally, parking on
these out-lots is located within the front yard setback.
The Overlay states all driveways and internal streets shall have minimum five foot
sidewalks on both sides located away from the back of curb. Some of the drives do not
have sidewalks located along both sides. The Overlay also states all developments are
to include as part of their site plan pedestrian linkages through parking areas and to
adjacent buildings or developments. Crosswalks shall be incorporated at strategic
locations to provide pedestrian linkages to structures within the development. It
appears that there are areas within the development where pedestrian linkage is
inadequate.
The request includes a waiver of the right of way dedication for South University
Avenue. The existing right of way is five (5) feet short of the required right of way per
the Master Street Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver of right of way
dedication.
While staff is generally supportive of the applicant’s proposal for a mixed-use
redevelopment of this site, there are concerns related to the overall design concept and
some of the areas of non-compliance with the Midtown Design Overlay District criteria.
Based on the site plan it appears some elements of the project have the look and feel of
a typical suburban retail shopping center development with large anchor tenants and
large parking fields. Staff has concerns with the internal connectivity of the
development and the connectivity of the development with the adjoining neighborhood
and businesses. A portion of the site is indicated as a “main street” town center
development and establishes a sense of place but the sense of place has not been
integrated with the remainder of the development. Staff does not feel the development
is meeting the purpose and intent of the Mid-town Design Overlay District and the
expectations of the Statement of Design and Programming Expectations for the
Redevelopment of the University Mall. Based on these concerns, staff is not supportive
of the development plan as proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of non-support for the request. Staff stated the
development plan included 748,250 square feet of total building area utilizing the
existing two story parking structure as well as an underground parking garage that
would sit under one of the retail/multi-family building pods. The development was
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
28
proposed containing 1,798 parking spaces. Staff stated of the parking provided nearly
50 percent of the parking was located within the parking structure or underground. Staff
stated the development was proposed containing approximately 80,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant space, 213,000 square feet of larger retail anchor space a 27,000
square foot cinema with an estimated seating capacity of 1,300 persons, a residential
component containing a maximum of 476 units and a 127 room hotel which was
indicated as a potential multi-family apartment building with a maximum of 162 units.
Staff stated the building lot coverage was 336,250 square feet or 27.2 percent and the
parking lot coverage was 319,600 square feet or 25.8 percent. Staff stated the
development was indicated with common usable area totaling 15,760 square feet within
the plaza area of the town center. Staff stated additional common use areas were
indicated through out the site. Staff noted there was a variance from the Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow an increased wall height for the retaining wall located along
McKinley Street. Staff stated the developers were also seeking a waiver of the required
right of way dedication for South University Avenue. Staff stated they were supportive
of the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance and the waiver of right of
way dedication for South University Avenue.
Staff stated in their opinion Park Avenue had done a good job in trying to meet the
development criteria as established by the Mid-town Design Overlay District Ordinance.
Staff stated the developers were providing a mixed-use development with residential
and retail activities to create a 24-7 environment on the site. Staff stated the proposed
retail uses were those identified in the ULI Study and the Statement of Design and
Programming Expectations. Staff stated the retail uses proposed included uses, which
would meet the needs of the nearby neighborhood residents. Staff stated the
placement of the cinema on the site further connected the development with the
neighborhood by providing a use that was currently not available to the neighborhood.
Mr. Chuck Keller addressed the Commission on behalf of the development team. He
stated there had been numerous meeting with staff, area residents and the mid-town
redevelopment committee. He stated the site was limited by the access drives and the
grade of the site. He stated the desire to retain the existing parking structure also
constrained the development possibilities of the site. Mr. Keller stated the grade of St.
Vincent’s Circle limited access points to a narrow 140-foot area along the crest of the
hill. He stated the large anchor also had criteria that had to be met which also limited
the design capabilities of the site. He stated the anchor did construct two story
buildings but had indicated the two story buildings were limited to dense urban
environments where land and density did not allow for single story structures. He stated
the development was proposed as a median density mixed use development.
Mr. Keller stated based on the evolution of mixed use developments it had been
determined the mixed use concept as proposed was the most successful. He stated the
development was trying to meet the spirit of the Design Overlay District and the
Statement of Expectations.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
29
Mr. Larry Good, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission providing
information of the site constraints and the proposed development rational. He stated
the topo and access were the two primary constraints. He stated the existing parking
structure had been reviewed and determined was suitable for reuse. He stated the
residential, the hotel and the cinema had been placed in the proposed areas to take
advantage of the parking structure. He stated the residences on the south side of the
town center would utilize the underground parking. He stated large retailers had
specific requirements and if they could not get parking fields in front of the store they
were not likely to locate in the center. He stated the large traditional retailers energized
the small retail shops. He stated the town center was the gateway to the development.
Mr. Good stated the development did not want multiple plaza areas. He stated two
buildings lined the drive to the development, which did not have parking in the front or
side yard. He stated the town center was proposed as a four-story building with ground
level retail and residential on the remaining floors. Mr. Good stated the building was
designed with a ratio of height to width to make the town center inviting. He stated the
four story buildings would define the space and the town center would terminate at the
west end with the placement of an architectural feature.
Mr. Good stated the desire was to create good linkage through the center. He stated the
pedestrian tables were designed to create a safe passageway for the pedestrians
through out the development. He stated the development was breaking the massing of
parking but was not providing parking lots with 50 spaces or fewer. He stated the
perimeter areas would be well handled and landscaped. He stated the open space
provided with the center was triple the required open space of the DOD. Mr. Good
stated the Anchor on McKinley Street was below the grade of McKinley Street, which
would visually break the massing of the structure. He stated changes in the wall plane
and height would also break the massing. Mr. Good stated customer entrances on all
street sides was not feasible. He stated the anchor tenant was not designed to handle
multiple entryways. He stated a defined front entrance would be provided within the
development. He stated consideration would be given to the walls facing McKinley
Street and St. Vincent’s Circle to break the massing.
Mr. Jim Bell addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was representing the
Briarwood Neighborhood Association, which had previously sent a letter of opposition.
He stated the residents were in support of the development and understood the need
for the large parking fields in front of Anchor 1. He stated the truck entrance was
originally a concern but the developers had indicated varied paving materials would be
provided to alert the pedestrians and truck traffic of potential conflicts. He stated the
association now understood entrances would be provided from both McKinley and
St. Vincent’s Circle to the development. He stated the pedestrian tables proposed were
important to provide connectivity through the site and the neighborhood was in full
support of the tables as proposed. Mr. Bell stated he felt with the redevelopment of this
site the area would see a boost and encourage new growth and businesses in the area.
Mr. Bell stated the Briarwood Neighborhood Association was in full support of the
development as proposed.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
30
Richard Downing addressed the Commission. He stated he previously held a seat on
the Commission and was Chair of the Commission. He stated he was on the
Commission during the time the ULI Study was being prepared for the City and worked
with staff and the Board of Directors to develop the Mid-Town Design Overlay District
Ordinance. He stated he wanted the City to follow through with development as was
planned with the Design Overlay District. He stated the project had a number of quality
attributes but the development also contained a number of attributes the area did not
need. He stated he was not sure the area needed a shopping center with a residential
component. He stated he felt the Commission should look closely and consider the
request and the proposed uses.
Mr. Craig Berry addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated as Chair of the
Mid-town Advisory Board he wanted to make the Commission aware of concerns. He
stated the Board was friendly to reinvestment. He stated there was some variability to
the site design and program uses. Mr. Berry stated the redevelopment efforts started
eight years ago for the mid-town area. He stated the City developed a DOD for the
area, which established not what was restricted but what was allowed within the District.
He stated the DOD allowed verticality and maximum build-out of the site. He stated he
did not feel the development was providing the maximum economic benefit.
Mr. Berry stated the City needed to review the site to ensure they were not missing
anything. He stated the developers were in a hurry and the review process was tenant
driven. He stated the development would be better suited for a phased review.
Mr. Berry stated the development should create a unique identity to the area when
completed. He stated there were some problems with the site design. He stated the
City had a contact with a design consultant to review the site plan and offer
suggestions. He stated he felt with the assistance of the design review specialist the
development would reach the right balance and feeling of an urban village in mid-town.
Commissioner Meyer asked what would make the development more palatable.
Mr. Berry stated the development lacked verticality and an office component. He stated
the development was not a walkable development. He stated the town center should be
functional and provide a use mix to sustain. Mr. Berry stated the development should
be transit friendly both internally and externally. He questioned residential above the
cinema.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission with concerns.
She stated the development did not appear to be pedestrian or bicyclist friendly. She
stated the areas east of University were bike and pedestrian friendly but the areas west
of University were not designed for walkers or bicyclist. She stated the signage
proposed seamed excessive. She stated the signage should be scaled to more closely
adhere to the DOD requirements.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
31
Mr. Keller stated they had received from staff some bullet points related to the overall
site design. He stated some were general and some were more specific. He stated the
developers would work with staff to address the points, which were addressable before
going to the Board of Directors. Mr. Keller stated the developers were also willing to
meet with the design professional under contract with the City prior to going to the
Board of Directors.
Commissioner Rector stated the development was a two-phased project. He stated
with the exception of the hotel the entire development would be constructed in the first
phase. Mr. Keller stated the intent was to develop the entire project in the first phase
but staff had suggested a phasing plan to allow flexibility. Commissioner Rector stated
the City had adopted a Design Overlay District for the area and was concerned with
how the area redeveloped. He stated the City had contacted with a design professional
to provide advice on the specifics of the redevelopment. Mr. Keller stated he did not
feel the development would meet 100 percent of the Design Overlay District
requirements. He stated his firm was willing to meet with staff and the design
professional to review suggestions for change prior to the Board of Directors meeting.
Chairman Taylor requested staff provide the listing of bullet points for the record. Staff
stated the bullet points were only suggestions. Staff stated they were not engineers and
had not placed any of the suggestions on paper to see if they were feasible. Staff
stated the suggestions were a result of a brainstorming session held the previous
afternoon and was not meant to be an all inclusive list of suggestions. Staff read the
listing which included better compliance with the Design Overlay District, better
pedestrian connectivity internally and externally, breaking up the parking fields to break
up the visual and physical impact, relocate Anchor 3, Anchor 2 and the associated retail
to the north with a rear yard relationship to the retail/restaurant thus relocating the
parking to the south in place of the buildings, create a more defined entry from
St. Vincent similar to the entry from South University Avenue, expand the concept of the
town center design through the site rather than the typical power center concept, design
the buildings street exteriors with architectural elements to create the appearance of a
front façade and reduce the sign areas of the ground mounted signage to more closely
comply with the overlay district.
Staff noted CATA was satisfied with the proposed transit stop. Staff stated there were
concerns with an existing fence located south of St. Vincent’s Circle and the ability to
relocated the southern stop to an area corresponding with the northern stop to allow
ease of access to the transit stops.
Commissioner Williams stated the site was an important piece of land within the City
and the development of the site would impact the area and the City for a number of
years. He stated he felt it important the redevelopment of the site be something that
would sustain and would be a benefit to the City for 10 to 20 years in the future.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4953-B
32
Commissioner Pruitt stated she felt the project was a good project. She questioned
staff as to how they felt the parking could be broken. Staff stated the DOD required
parking fields with less than 50 spaces. Staff stated connectivity was an important
aspect of the development. Staff stated with the connectivity this would begin breaking
the parking lot areas and offer that visual break.
Chairman Taylor stated he too felt this an important project. He stated it was important
the development be a development the City would be proud of for a number of years.
Staff stated the item would require three separate votes. Staff stated the application
included the variance request for the Land Alteration Ordinance, the request for the
waiver of right of way dedication along South University Avenue and the zoning request.
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the variance request from the Land
Alteration Ordinance to allow an increased wall height along McKinley Street. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner
Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the waiver request of the right of way
dedication along South University Avenue. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and Commissioner Ferstl).
The chair entertained a motion for approval of the requested PCD. The motion carried
by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noes, 2 absent and 2 recusal (Commissioner Yates and
Commissioner Ferstl).
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-6957-J
Owner: Colonel Glenn Center, LLC
Applicant: Patrick M. McGetrick
Location: West side of Talley Road, 1,000 feet
South of Colonel Glenn Road
Area: 11.4 Acres
Request: Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Purpose: Future commercial development
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Hotel and undeveloped property; zoned C-3
South – Undeveloped property; zoned O-3
East – Undeveloped property (across Talley Road); zoned R-2
West – Auto dealership and hotel; zoned C-4 and PD-O
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #14 (Rosedale
Route) runs along Colonel Glenn Road to the east.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and SWLR
United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6957-J
2
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land
Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied
for a rezoning from C-3 to C-4.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
Talley 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. 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 Stagecoach Pecan Lake Neighborhood Action
Plan. The Infrastructure Goal states: “Improve drainage of Talley Road.”
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Colonel Glenn Centre LLC, owner of the 11.4 acre property located along
the west side of Talley Road, 1,000 feet south of Colonel Glenn Road, is
requesting to rezone the property from “C-3” General Commercial District
to “C-4” Open Display District. The rezoning is proposed for future
commercial development of the site.
The property is currently undeveloped and grass-covered. Some site
work has taken place over the past few years in preparation for future site
development.
The property immediately north of the proposed rezoning contains a hotel
and undeveloped property along the south side of Colonel Glenn Road.
Undeveloped O-3 zoned property is located to the south. Undeveloped
R-2 zoned property is located across Talley Road to the east. There is an
auto dealership and a hotel to the west, along the east side of Interstate
430.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6957-J
3
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Commercial.
The requested C-4 zoning does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested C-4 rezoning. Staff views the request
as reasonable, given the current surrounding uses, zoning and future plan
designation. The property immediately west of this site is zoned C-4 and
contains an auto dealership. The properties to the west and north are also
Commercial on the Land Use Plan, with the property to the east (across
Talley Road) shown as Light Industrial. Staff believes future C-4
commercial development of this property will be appropriate and will have
no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.
Pat McGetrick addressed the Commission in support of the application. He
explained that the rezoning was proposed for a future commercial development
with open display. He noted that the owner of the property immediately north
had initial concerns but the concerns had been satisfied.
Darrin Williams explained that several of the permitted/conditional uses in the
C-4 district might not be appropriate for this property. Mr. McGetrick noted that
there would possibly be a home center – type use or a car dealership developed
on this property. Mr. Williams asked why a PZD zoning was not proposed for the
property. Mr. McGetrick noted that a PZD was not considered based on the fact
that there is no specific site plan for the property at this time. He noted that there
were several potential developers looking at the property. Mr. Williams asked
why the staff was recommending approval of the C-4 rezoning. Tony Bozynski,
Director of Planning and Development, noted that the City’s Land Use Plan
designated this property as commercial, which supports the requested C-4
rezoning. He also explained that the proposed C-4 zoning would be compatible
with the adjacent property and the development across I-430 to the west. There
was a brief discussion of this issue.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6957-J
4
Vice Chairman Yates asked Mr. McGetrick if any of the permitted C-4 uses could
be eliminated from consideration. Mr. McGetrick stated that he did not know
which ones the property owner might be willing to eliminate.
There was a motion to approve the requested C-4 rezoning. The motion passed
by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. The C-4 rezoning was approved.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-8246-A
Owner: Joe Albert
Applicant: Joe Albert
Location: 9601 Interstate 30
Area: 0.47 Acre
Request: Rezone from I-1 to C-3
Purpose: Future commercial use
Existing Use: Vacant commercial building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Mixed commercial and light industrial uses (across I-30);
zoned C-3, C-4 and I-2
South – Mixed light industrial uses; zoned I-2
East – Motel and night club; zoned R-2, C-3 and I-2
West – Mixed commercial and light industrial uses; zoned C-3 and I-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the West Baseline and SWLR
United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8246-A
2
applied for a rezoning from I-1 Industrial Park District to C-3 General
Commercial.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:
I-30 is shown as a Freeway on the Master Street Plan and Distribution Drive
is shown as a Local Street. These streets may require dedication of right-
of-way and may require street improvements. The primary function of a
Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that
are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than
duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. These streets have a
design standard the same as a Collector.
Bicycle Plan:
Existing or proposed Class I, II or III Bikeways are not in the immediate
vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West I-30
South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Economic Development goal
states: “Attract better restaurants” and “Recruit businesses to fill vacant
buildings.”
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Joe Albert, owner of the 0.47 acre property at 9601 Interstate 30, is
requesting to rezone the property from “C-3” General Commercial District
to “I-1” Industrial Park District. The rezoning is proposed to allow future
use of the existing commercial building as commercial.
On August 30, 2007 the Planning Commission approved a rezoning of this
property from C-3 to I-1. On October 2, 2007 the Board of Directors
passed Ordinance No. 19,831 approving the rezoning. The property
owner has since determined that the property is too small for the operation
of his heat and air business. Therefore, he is requesting a rezoning back
to the original C-3 zoning for commercial use of the existing building on
the site.
The 0.47 acre property is occupied by a one-story vacant commercial
building within the east half of the property. The building previously
housed a restaurant use. There is paved parking on the north, south and
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8246-A
3
west sides of the building. A driveway from the I-30 frontage road serves
as access.
The general area contains a mixture of commercial and industrial uses.
There are mixed uses and zoning north (across I-30) and west of the site.
There is a motel and night club immediately to the east. A light industrial
subdivision is located to the south.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as
“Commercial”. The requested C-3 zoning does not require an amendment
to the Land Use Plan.
Staff is supportive of the requested C-3 rezoning. Staff feels that it is
reasonable to rezone the property back to C-3 for commercial use of the
existing building which was previously used as a restaurant. The City’s
Future Land Use Plans shows this property and the properties to the west
as Commercial. Light Industrial designations exist to the south and east.
There is also existing C-3 zoned parcels in this area. Staff believes the
proposed rezoning of this property to C-3 and future use as commercial
will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties on this general
area along Interstate 30.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 rezoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
Staff informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the
July 10, 2008 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to send
notification to surrounding property owners as required.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 10, 2008 agenda. A motion to that effect
was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The
application was deferred.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
NAME: Crain Automobile Dealership Lot 9 –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Lot 9, Village at Brodie Creek; Northwest of I-430
and Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: CGBRD, LLC/Crain Investments
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow an
automobile sales business on this undeveloped,
7.58± acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located within an undeveloped, 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract
located north of Colonel Glenn Road, west of I-430.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within the commercial node that has been
established around the I-430/Colonel Glenn Interchange. The lot is within
an 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract that has been preliminary platted as a 15-lot
commercial development. I-430 is adjacent to the east. An OS zoned
floodway is located to the north. Other, undeveloped, C-2 zoned tracts
within the larger development are located to the west and south. The
proposed use is compatible with uses and development in the area.
All owners of properties within 200 feet and the SWLR United for Progress
and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via proposed Brodie Creek Cove. The building is
proposed to have an area of 30,000 square feet, which would typically
require 125 parking spaces as an automobile service use. The sales lot
provides more than enough spaces to serve customers, employees and
inventory. Lot 9 is proposed with 615 spaces, Lot 10 with 463 spaces and
Lot 11 with 648 spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
2
All interior islands must be a minimum of three-hundred (300’) square foot
in area to be given credit towards meeting the minimal landscape
ordinance requirements. Currently, many of these are less than three-
hundred (300); these islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the
site; currently, they are not.
An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas is required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan must be
approved and must obtain the seal of a licensed Landscape Architect.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Brodie Creek Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard are classified on the
Master Street Plan as commercial streets. A dedication of right-of-
way sixty (60) feet will be required.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Brodie Creek
Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3. All previous conditions from the preliminary plat approval apply if not
changed by this application.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.
Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans
must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
5. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section
29-186 (e). Provide elevations of any retaining walls or slopes if
grading has changed since the preliminary plat approval.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior
to the start of construction.
8. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown
as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a
25-foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
3
boundary. Encroachments including fill are not allowed in the
floodway.
9. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
10. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
11. 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).
12. Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code.
Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must
be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic
Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
13. A variance must be requested for advanced street construction and
grading if the phasing plan has changed from the preliminary plat
approval application.
14. In accordance with 31-210 (h)(12), access driveways running parallel
to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 75 feet of
the future curb line of the street.
15. Show the proposed maneuvering routes of WB-55 trucks delivering
and picking up vehicles within this site. Delivery or pick up is not
allowed within City right-of-way.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
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 12-inch water main
extension and on-site fire protection will be required in order to provide
service to this property.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
4
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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 1, 2008)
Items 3, 4 and 5; File Numbers Z-3371-X, Z-3371-Y and Z-3371-Z were
discussed concurrently.
Staff presented the items and noted additional information was needed regarding
building design, signage, fencing and number of employees. Staff asked that
the dumpster location and screening be shown on the plans. Staff asked the
applicant to describe any automobile service activities, which would be
conducted on the site.
Public Works Comments were presented and discussed. Landscape and Utility
Comments were presented. Staff noted the applicant’s request to grade within
the 30-foot interstate buffer. Staff stated a preliminary plat for this development
had been approved by the Commission on February 14, 2008. It was noted that
a variance from the Land Alteration regulations was approved in conjunction with
the plat to allow advance grading of the entire site upon the issuance of two
building permits. Staff questioned if the current C.U.P. applications fit within the
plan for the advance grading as approved by the Commission. Staff commented
that it may be necessary to revise the plat or the variance. Staff stated they
would meet with the applicant to discuss the issue. It was also noted that
proposed Lot 9 encroached on the regulatory floodway and the plan needed to
be adjusted to remove improvements at the floodway. While discussing the
request to grade within the freeway buffer, staff asked if the applicant would be
approaching AHTD to allow clearing of trees within the interstate right-of-way.
The applicant responded that he would be making that request. The applicant
explained that it was desirable to grade within the interstate buffer due to terrain
issues on the site in relation to the interstate right-of-way. In the discussion of
the landscape comments, it was noted that a land use buffer would not be
required on the north perimeter of Lot 9 since it abutted a large, OS zoned tract.
Public Works staff asked the applicant to indicate on the plan where transport
trucks would park for vehicle off-loading. It was noted that the right-of-way of
abutting streets could not be used for that purpose.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
5
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, May 7,
2008. The committee then forwarded the items to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow an automobile dealership on this
C-2 zoned tract. The lot is within an 80+ acre tract for which a 15-lot preliminary
plat was approved by the Commission in February 2008. The requested C.U.P.
is for one of three contiguous lots for which C.U.P.’s have been requested (Lot 9,
Z-3371-X; Lot 10, Z-3371-Y; Lot 11, Z-3371-Z). The lots are currently
undeveloped and streets within the overall development have not been
constructed.
The proposed development consists of a single building and associated
parking/vehicle display lots. The building materials will be a mix of brick,
decorative block, EFIS, alukobond siding and limited decorative metal panels.
The roof will generally be standing seam metal with extensive use of decorative
parapet walls. The building will contain sales offices and service areas. No body
work or painting are proposed. The maximum building height will be 35 feet.
Days and hours of operation are proposed as 6:00 a.m. – midnight, 6 days a
week. The facility will employ 70 – 100 persons.
The applicant submitted a revised plan and responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. No filling (or development) will occur in the floodway,
which is adjacent to the north perimeter of Lot 9. A 6-foot tall, black chain link
fence will enclose a portion of the parking area behind the building. A single
dumpster with screening has been located on the site. A truck delivery route has
been shown on Lot 11. This delivery area will serve all three lots. No vehicle
unloading will occur in the public right-of-way.
Signage is to consist of one ground mounted sign on the lot. Additionally, space
will be utilized on the large, shared development signs that were approved under
the February 2008 preliminary plat and site plan review. Wall signage will be
permitted which complies with ordinance standards for commercial zones. No
other signage was requested. The applicant has proposed that the ground
mounted sign for the lot be 40 feet in height. Staff believes the sign should
comply with the commercial district standard of 36 feet in height and 160 square
feet in area.
In February 2008, the Commission approved a preliminary plat and land
alteration variance for the overall 80+ acre tract. The variance allowed the
advance grading of the site with conditions regarding temporary and permanent
buffers. The plan proposed the 30-foot interstate buffer to be undisturbed and to
remain after development was complete. This applicant had originally proposed
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-X
6
to grade within the interstate buffer. Once aware of the prior condition related to
the land alteration variance, that proposal was dropped. This plan complies with
that prior approval by maintaining the buffer as indicated under the February
2008 action.
When the preliminary plat was reviewed in February 2008, the Commission also
approved site plans for development of other lots within the development. Two
conditions of that prior action are appropriate for consideration under this
proposal as well. All mechanical equipment should be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. Additionally, the building should be
constructed as a 360-degree building with the building rear being treated with
architectural elements to give the appearance of a false front.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The proposed
development complies with the C-2 zoning district standards for building height
and setbacks. There is no bill of assurance for this preliminary platted lot. The
proposed use is compatible with development and uses in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda Staff Report.
2. There is to be no vehicle transport loading or unloading in the public right-of-
way.
3. Mechanical equipment is to be roof mounted and screened by parapet walls.
4. The building is to be designed so that the rear of the building has architectural
elements to give the appearance of a false front when viewed from I-430.
5. The individual ground sign for the lot is to be limited to 36 feet in height and
160 square feet in area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
NAME: Crain Automobile Dealership Lot 10 –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Lot 10, Village at Brodie Creek; Northwest of I-430
and Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: CGBRD, LLC/Crain Investments
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow an
automobile sales business on this undeveloped,
5.43± acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located within an undeveloped, 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract
located north of Colonel Glenn Road, west of I-430.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within the commercial node that has been
established around the I-430/Colonel Glenn Interchange. The lot is within
an 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract that has been preliminary platted as a 15-lot
commercial development. I-430 is adjacent to the east. An OS zoned
floodway is located to the north. Other, undeveloped, C-2 zoned tracts
within the larger development are located to the west and south. The
proposed use is compatible with uses and development in the area.
All owners of properties within 200 feet and the SWLR United for Progress
and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via proposed Brodie Creek Cove. The building is
proposed to have an area of 30,000 square feet, which would typically
require 125 parking spaces as an automobile service use. The sales lot
provides more than enough spaces to serve customers, employees and
inventory. Lot 9 is proposed with 615 spaces, Lot 10 with 463 spaces and
Lot 11 with 648 spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
2
All interior islands must be a minimum of three-hundred (300’) square foot
in area to be given credit towards meeting the minimal landscape
ordinance requirements. Currently, many of these are less than three-
hundred (300); these islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the
site; currently, they are not.
An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas is required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan must be
approved and must obtain the seal of a licensed Landscape Architect.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Brodie Creek Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard are classified on the
Master Street Plan as commercial streets. A dedication of right-of-
way sixty (60) feet will be required.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Brodie Creek
Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3. All previous conditions from the approved preliminary plat apply if not
changed by this application.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.
Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans
must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
5. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section
29-186 (e). Provide elevations of any retaining walls or slopes if
grading has changed since the preliminary plat approval.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior
to the start of construction.
8. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown
as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a
25-foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
3
boundary. Encroachments including fill are not allowed in the
floodway.
9. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
10. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
11. 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).
12. Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code.
Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must
be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic
Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
13. A variance must be requested for advanced street construction and
grading if the phasing plan has changed from the preliminary plat
approval application.
14. Show the proposed maneuvering routes of WB-55 trucks delivering
and picking up vehicles within this site. Delivery or pick up is not
allowed within City right-of-way.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
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 12-inch water main
extension and on-site fire protection 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.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
4
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 1, 2008)
Items 3, 4 and 5; File Numbers Z-3371-X, Z-3371-Y and Z-3371-Z were
discussed concurrently.
Staff presented the items and noted additional information was needed regarding
building design, signage, fencing and number of employees. Staff asked that
the dumpster location and screening be shown on the plans. Staff asked the
applicant to describe any automobile service activities, which would be
conducted on the site.
Public Works Comments were presented and discussed. Landscape and Utility
Comments were presented. Staff noted the applicant’s request to grade within
the 30-foot interstate buffer. Staff stated a preliminary plat for this development
had been approved by the Commission on February 14, 2008. It was noted that
a variance from the Land Alteration regulations was approved in conjunction with
the plat to allow advance grading of the entire site upon the issuance of two
building permits. Staff questioned if the current C.U.P. applications fit within the
plan for the advance grading as approved by the Commission. Staff commented
that it may be necessary to revise the plat or the variance. Staff stated they
would meet with the applicant to discuss the issue. It was also noted that
proposed Lot 9 encroached on the regulatory floodway and the plan needed to
be adjusted to remove improvements at the floodway. While discussing the
request to grade within the freeway buffer, staff asked if the applicant would be
approaching AHTD to allow clearing of trees within the interstate right-of-way.
The applicant responded that he would be making that request. The applicant
explained that it was desirable to grade within the interstate buffer due to terrain
issues on the site in relation to the interstate right-of-way. In the discussion of
the landscape comments, it was noted that a land use buffer would not be
required on the north perimeter of Lot 9 since it abutted a large, OS zoned tract.
Public Works staff asked the applicant to indicate on the plan where transport
trucks would park for vehicle off-loading. It was noted that the right-of-way of
abutting streets could not be used for that purpose.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, May 7,
2008. The committee then forwarded the items to the full Commission.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
5
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow an automobile dealership on this
C-2 zoned tract. The lot is within an 80+ acre tract for which a 15-lot preliminary
plat was approved by the Commission in February 2008. The requested C.U.P.
is for one of three contiguous lots for which C.U.P.’s have been requested (Lot 9,
Z-3371-X; Lot 10, Z-3371-Y; Lot 11, Z-3371-Z). The lots are currently
undeveloped and streets within the overall development have not been
constructed.
The proposed development consists of a single building and associated
parking/vehicle display lots. The building materials will be a mix of brick,
decorative block, EFIS, alukobond siding and limited decorative metal panels.
The roof will generally be standing seam metal with extensive use of decorative
parapet walls. The building will contain sales offices and service areas. No body
work or painting are proposed. The maximum building height will be 35 feet.
Days and hours of operation are proposed as 6:00 a.m. – midnight, 6 days a
week. The facility will employ 70 – 100 persons.
The applicant submitted a revised plan and responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. No filling (or development) will occur in the floodway,
which is adjacent to the north perimeter of Lot 9. A 6-foot tall, black chain link
fence will enclose a portion of the parking area behind the building. A single
dumpster with screening has been located on the site. A truck delivery route has
been shown on Lot 11. This delivery area will serve all three lots. No vehicle
unloading will occur in the public right-of-way.
Signage is to consist of one ground mounted sign on the lot. Additionally, space
will be utilized on the large, shared development signs that were approved under
the February 2008 preliminary plat and site plan review. Wall signage will be
permitted which complies with ordinance standards for commercial zones. No
other signage was requested. The applicant has proposed that the ground
mounted sign for the lot be 40 feet in height. Staff believes the sign should
comply with the commercial district standard of 36 feet in height and 160 square
feet in area.
In February 2008, the Commission approved a preliminary plat and land
alteration variance for the overall 80+ acre tract. The variance allowed the
advance grading of the site with conditions regarding temporary and permanent
buffers. The plan proposed the 30-foot interstate buffer to be undisturbed and to
remain after development was complete. This applicant had originally proposed
to grade within the interstate buffer. Once aware of the prior condition related to
the land alteration variance, that proposal was dropped. This plan complies with
that prior approval by maintaining the buffer as indicated under the February
2008 action.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Y
6
When the preliminary plat was reviewed in February 2008, the Commission also
approved site plans for development of other lots within the development. Two
conditions of that prior action are appropriate for consideration under this
proposal as well. All mechanical equipment should be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. Additionally, the building should be
constructed as a 360-degree building with the building rear being treated with
architectural elements to give the appearance of a false front.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The proposed
development complies with the C-2 zoning district standards for building height
and setbacks. There is no bill of assurance for this preliminary platted lot. The
proposed use is compatible with development and uses in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda Staff Report.
2. There is to be no vehicle transport loading or unloading in the public right-of-
way.
3. Mechanical equipment is to be roof mounted and screened by parapet walls.
4. The building is to be designed so that the rear of the building has architectural
elements to give the appearance of a false front when viewed from I-430.
5. The individual ground sign for the lot is to be limited to 36 feet in height and
160 square feet in area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
NAME: Crain Automobile Dealership Lot 11 –
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: Lot 11, Village at Brodie Creek; Northwest of I-430
and Colonel Glenn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: CGBRD, LLC/Crain Investments
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow an
automobile sales business on this undeveloped,
6.9± acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located within an undeveloped, 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract
located north of Colonel Glenn Road, west of I-430.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located within the commercial node that has been
established around the I-430/Colonel Glenn Interchange. The lot is within
an 80+ acre C-2 zoned tract that has been preliminary platted as a 15-lot
commercial development. I-430 is adjacent to the east. An OS zoned
floodway is located to the north. Other, undeveloped, C-2 zoned tracts
within the larger development are located to the west and south. The
proposed use is compatible with uses and development in the area.
All owners of properties within 200 feet and the SWLR United for Progress
and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site will be via proposed Brodie Creek Cove. The building is
proposed to have an area of 30,000 square feet, which would typically
require 125 parking spaces as an automobile service use. The sales lot
provides more than enough spaces to serve customers, employees and
inventory. Lot 9 is proposed with 615 spaces, Lot 10 with 463 spaces and
Lot 11 with 648 spaces.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
2
All interior islands must be a minimum of three-hundred (300’) square foot
in area to be given credit towards meeting the minimal landscape
ordinance requirements. Currently, many of these are less than three-
hundred (300); these islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the
site; currently, they are not.
An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas is required.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit a landscape plan must be
approved and must obtain the seal of a licensed Landscape Architect.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Brodie Creek Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard are classified on the
Master Street Plan as commercial streets. A dedication of right-of-
way sixty (60) feet will be required.
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to Brodie Creek
Cove and Brodie Creek Boulevard including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3. All previous conditions from the approved preliminary plat apply if not
changed by this application.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.
Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans
must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
5. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section
29-186 (e). Provide elevations of any retaining walls or slopes if
grading has changed since the preliminary plat approval.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior
to the start of construction.
8. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown
as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a
25-foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
3
boundary. Encroachments including fill are not allowed in the
floodway.
9. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
10. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
11. 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).
12. Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code.
Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must
be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic
Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
13. A variance must be requested for advanced street construction and
grading if the phasing plan has changed from the preliminary plat
approval application.
14. Show the proposed maneuvering routes of WB-55 trucks delivering
and picking up vehicles within this site. Delivery or pick up is not
allowed within City right-of-way.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
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 12-inch water main
extension and on-site fire protection 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.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
4
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 1, 2008)
Items 3, 4 and 5; File Numbers Z-3371-X, Z-3371-Y and Z-3371-Z were
discussed concurrently.
Staff presented the items and noted additional information was needed regarding
building design, signage, fencing and number of employees. Staff asked that
the dumpster location and screening be shown on the plans. Staff asked the
applicant to describe any automobile service activities, which would be
conducted on the site.
Public Works Comments were presented and discussed. Landscape and Utility
Comments were presented. Staff noted the applicant’s request to grade within
the 30-foot interstate buffer. Staff stated a preliminary plat for this development
had been approved by the Commission on February 14, 2008. It was noted that
a variance from the Land Alteration regulations was approved in conjunction with
the plat to allow advance grading of the entire site upon the issuance of two
building permits. Staff questioned if the current C.U.P. applications fit within the
plan for the advance grading as approved by the Commission. Staff commented
that it may be necessary to revise the plat or the variance. Staff stated they
would meet with the applicant to discuss the issue. It was also noted that
proposed Lot 9 encroached on the regulatory floodway and the plan needed to
be adjusted to remove improvements at the floodway. While discussing the
request to grade within the freeway buffer, staff asked if the applicant would be
approaching AHTD to allow clearing of trees within the interstate right-of-way.
The applicant responded that he would be making that request. The applicant
explained that it was desirable to grade within the interstate buffer due to terrain
issues on the site in relation to the interstate right-of-way. In the discussion of
the landscape comments, it was noted that a land use buffer would not be
required on the north perimeter of Lot 9 since it abutted a large, OS zoned tract.
Public Works staff asked the applicant to indicate on the plan where transport
trucks would park for vehicle off-loading. It was noted that the right-of-way of
abutting streets could not be used for that purpose.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, May 7,
2008. The committee then forwarded the items to the full Commission.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
5
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow an automobile dealership on this
C-2 zoned tract. The lot is within an 80+ acre tract for which a 15-lot preliminary
plat was approved by the Commission in February 2008. The requested C.U.P.
is for one of three contiguous lots for which C.U.P.’s have been requested (Lot 9,
Z-3371-X; Lot 10, Z-3371-Y; Lot 11, Z-3371-Z). The lots are currently
undeveloped and streets within the overall development have not been
constructed.
The proposed development consists of a single building and associated
parking/vehicle display lots. The building materials will be a mix of brick,
decorative block, EFIS, alukobond siding and limited decorative metal panels.
The roof will generally be standing seam metal with extensive use of decorative
parapet walls. The building will contain sales offices and service areas. No body
work or painting are proposed. The maximum building height will be 35 feet.
Days and hours of operation are proposed as 6:00 a.m. – midnight, 6 days a
week. The facility will employ 70 – 100 persons.
The applicant submitted a revised plan and responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee. No filling (or development) will occur in the floodway,
which is adjacent to the north perimeter of Lot 9. A 6-foot tall, black chain link
fence will enclose a portion of the parking area behind the building. A single
dumpster with screening has been located on the site. A truck delivery route has
been shown on Lot 11. This delivery area will serve all three lots. No vehicle
unloading will occur in the public right-of-way.
Signage is to consist of one ground mounted sign on the lot. Additionally, space
will be utilized on the large, shared development signs that were approved under
the February 2008 preliminary plat and site plan review. Wall signage will be
permitted which complies with ordinance standards for commercial zones. No
other signage was requested. The applicant has proposed that the ground
mounted sign for the lot be 40 feet in height. Staff believes the sign should
comply with the commercial district standard of 36 feet in height and 160 square
feet in area.
In February 2008, the Commission approved a preliminary plat and land
alteration variance for the overall 80+ acre tract. The variance allowed the
advance grading of the site with conditions regarding temporary and permanent
buffers. The plan proposed the 30-foot interstate buffer to be undisturbed and to
remain after development was complete. This applicant had originally proposed
to grade within the interstate buffer. Once aware of the prior condition related to
the land alteration variance, that proposal was dropped. This plan complies with
that prior approval by maintaining the buffer as indicated under the February
2008 action.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3371-Z
6
When the preliminary plat was reviewed in February 2008, the Commission also
approved site plans for development of other lots within the development. Two
conditions of that prior action are appropriate for consideration under this
proposal as well. All mechanical equipment should be roof mounted and
screened from view by parapet walls. Additionally, the building should be
constructed as a 360-degree building with the building rear being treated with
architectural elements to give the appearance of a false front.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The proposed
development complies with the C-2 zoning district standards for building height
and setbacks. There is no bill of assurance for this preliminary platted lot. The
proposed use is compatible with development and uses in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda Staff Report.
2. There is to be no vehicle transport loading or unloading in the public right-of-
way.
3. Mechanical equipment is to be roof mounted and screened by parapet walls.
4. The building is to be designed so that the rear of the building has architectural
elements to give the appearance of a false front when viewed from I-430.
5. The individual ground sign for the lot is to be limited to 36 feet in height and
160 square feet in area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-7669-A
NAME: Little Angels Childcare Center – Revised Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: 5104 Baseline Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: David Rector/Felicia Evans
PROPOSAL: A revision to a previously approved conditional
use permit is requested to allow for expansion of
enrollment and hours of operation for this existing
day care center. The property is zoned R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located at the northeast corner of Baseline Road and Dreher
Lane.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property has a history of use as a nonconforming use since its
annexation into the City. In July 2004, the Commission granted a C.U.P.
to allow use of the property as a day care center. The property is located
on an arterial street in an area of mixed uses; including an auto repair
business, a beauty school, an electrical contractor’s office, a church and
several multifamily developments. The use of the site as a day care
center is an appropriate use.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the SWLR United for Progress
and Windamere Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site currently contains one paved parking space and a
nonconforming, gravel parking area. The prior C.U.P. approval included
an 18-month deferral of the requirement to construct a paved parking lot.
That applicant is no longer involved. Under this proposal, this applicant
proposes to expand the day care to allow an enrollment of 29 children with
5 employees; requiring 7 parking spaces. Staff has worked with the
applicant to prepare a plan whereby a new, paved, 6-vehicle parking area
would be built with access off of Dreher Lane. The existing paved space
will be used as a handicap parking space.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7669-A
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site plan must comply with the City’s minimal landscape and buffer
ordinance requirements.
Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new parking required
on the site.
The screening fence located around the property should be in good repair
or be replaced in conjunction with this application.
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.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that Dreher Lane for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to thirty (30) feet
from centerline.
2. A twenty foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Dreher Lane and Baseline Road.
3. With any development in the future beyond this application, provide
design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to Dreher Lane including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer is available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: No objection.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7669-A
3
Fire Department: Fire sprinklers may be required. Contact Fire Marshall
at 918-3757.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 1, 2008)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional
information was needed. Staff asked the applicant to indicate the playground
area and fencing on the plan. Staff recommended use of the playground to be
limited to daylight hours. In response to a question from staff, the applicant
indicated the existing ground sign would remain and no new signage was
planned. Staff noted a paved parking lot was required and presented a plan
indicating a 6-space parking lot, which in conjunction with the existing one paved
space, would meet the parking requirement.
Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted and discussed.
The Committee noted there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the
full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned, .67-acre property located at 5104 Baseline Road is occupied by
a one-story, brick and frame, residential structure. The property had a history of
nonconforming office use predating its annexation to the City. In July 2004, the
Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow use of the property for a
day care center with an enrollment of 12 children with 2 employees. The
Commission approved an 18-month deferral of the paving requirement to allow
continued use of an existing gravel parking lot. Days and hours of operation
were approved as Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The prior applicant is no longer associated with the property and the current
applicant is proposing to revise the conditional use permit. The current proposal
is to expand the enrollment to 29 children with 5 employees and to increase the
hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. until midnight, Monday through Friday. A new,
6-space paved parking lot will be constructed with access off of Dreher Lane.
The existing, paved driveway space adjacent to the structure will be utilized as a
handicap parking space. No other changes are proposed. The playground is
located in the rear yard area and is enclosed by a chain link fence. A 6’ X 6’ X 6 ‘
tall ground sign is located in the front yard. No other signage is proposed.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7669-A
4
Staff is supportive of the revised C.U.P. The property is located on an arterial
street in an area of mixed uses. A nonconforming auto repair garage is adjacent
to the north. A nonconforming commercial building is adjacent to the east. A
nonconforming electrical contractor’s office is located across Dreher Lane to the
west. A church is located across Baseline Road to the south. The use is
compatible with uses in the area.
Staff is supportive of a continued variance from the screening requirement on the
north and east perimeters. Although those adjacent properties are zoned R-2,
they are occupied by commercial uses.
The 1911 bill of assurance for Gloeckler Acres does not address use issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested revised conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda Staff Report.
2. Use of the playground is to be limited to daylight hours.
3. The new, 6-space parking lot is to be paved and landscaped to comply with
applicable code standards.
Staff recommends approval of a variance from the screening requirement on the
north and east perimeters of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions noted in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: G-23-399
Name: Witry Court Right-of-Way Abandonment
Location: Witry Court, off Champagnolle Drive
Owner/Applicant: All nine property owners on Witry Court
Request: Abandon Witry Court as public right-of-way.
Purpose: Make Witry Court a private street with a gated entrance.
STAFF REVIEW :
A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way:
The street provides access to nine (9) residential properties. Once the public right-of-
way is abandoned, the street will become a private street providing access to these
properties. The owners of all nine properties are requesting abandonment of the right-
of-way. There is no other public need for this minor residential cul-de-sac street.
B. Master Street Plan:
There is no Master Street Plan issue. The street is a minor residential cul-de-sac.
C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain:
The right-of-way is approximately 470 feet in length, containing a minor residential
street which ends in a cul-de-sac. The right-of-way contains a paved roadway with
curb and gutter.
D. Development Potential:
Once the public right-of-way is abandoned, the street will become a private street with
a gated entrance off of Champagnolle Drive.
E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect:
The street provides access to nine residential lots. As a private street, access will
continue to be provided. There will be no effect on land use and all property owners
are requesting the change.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-399
2
F. Neighborhood Position:
The owners of the abutting properties are requesting the abandonment of the right-of-
way and creation of a private street.
G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities:
All public utility companies and the City’s Public Works Department have approved the
abandonment request subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being
maintained as a drainage and utility easement. The fire hydrant located between lots
2 and 3 must become a private hydrant and the Witry Court Property Owners
Association must sign a private hydrant contract and be responsible for maintenance
and applicable fees.
H. Reversionary Rights:
All reversionary rights extend to the owners of the abutting residential properties.
These owners have prepared a revision to their bill of assurance for the purpose of
establishing a property owners association with the responsibility of maintaining the
private street.
I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues:
Access to the gated entrance will be provided to emergency services as is typical for a
gated community.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 1, 2008)
The applicants were not present. Staff presented the item to the Committee and noted there
were no outstanding issues. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
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 and drainage easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the “staff
recommendation” above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the
consent agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-8341
NAME: Residences at Riverdale Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 2010 Rebsamen Park Road
DEVELOPER:
Residences at Riverdale, GP, LLC
2601 Network Blvd., Suite 203
Frisco, TX 75034
(972) 228-3701
ENGINEER:
Precision Civil
660 North Central Expressway, #475
Plano, TX 75074
(972) 422-2690
AREA: 3.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-6
ALLOWED USES: High-rise Multifamily, 72 units per acre
PROPOSED USE: 4-story Multifamily building containing 124 units
(38 units per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Reduced front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet
2. Reduction of street buffer on Rebsamen Park Road from 18 feet to 15 feet
3. Reduction of land use buffer on south perimeter from 15.75 feet to 6.75 feet
4. Reduction of on-site parking from 186 spaces to 172 spaces
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
2
BACKGROUND:
This R-6 zoned tract was previously occupied by an apartment development. The
building burned and the site has been cleared. The parking lots remain as of this
writing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicants propose to construct a single, four-story building containing
124 units. 48 units are to have 2 bedrooms. The remaining 76 units are one-
bedroom and efficiency units. Construction will consist of wood frame with
exterior finish of stucco and manufactured stone. The structure will have a
shingled, hipped roof. The roof mounted mechanical equipment will be hidden
behind the pitched roof. Amenities include interior elevators and trash chutes,
clubroom, fitness center and two courtyards with a gazebo and swimming pool.
Approximately half of the 172 parking spaces will be covered.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The building, which previously was located on the site, burned and has been
removed. The parking lots remain. Multifamily developments are located
adjacent to the north and west. A high-rise condominium development is located
to the northwest. Rebsamen Park Road, a railroad and industrial properties are
located to the east. An older single-family neighborhood is located to the south.
A half-acre tract separates this multifamily site from the adjacent single family.
The tract ranges from 60 feet to 100 feet in width, is densely vegetated and
appears to contain a drainage ditch.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified. The property does not lie
within any neighborhood association boundary. As of this writing, staff has
received only a few information inquiries.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Rebsamen Park Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street. A dedication of right-of-way thirty (30) feet from centerline will be
required.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
3
2. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Rebsamen Park Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
3. A maximum of thirty (30) vertical feet of fill or excavation (3-10 feet vertical
terraces or 2-15 feet vertical terraces) is permitted, however additional
development areas may be constructed a minimum of one hundred (150) feet
in width at a slope no more than 8%. The maximum thirty (30) feet of fill or
excavation may again be utilized. Provide elevations of top and bottom of
retaining wall. A variance will be needed for the retaining wall in the rear due
to it exceeds the maximum length of two hundred (200) feet of terrace in a
straight line and a variance will be needed for the retaining wall if it is greater
than fifteen (15) feet.
4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required
prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than
residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted
and approved prior to the start of construction.
6. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. 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 service is available to this site.
Entergy: No comment received.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request
for water service must be met. Please submit plans for the fire protection system
to Central Arkansas Water for review. Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding procedures for installation of fire service. Approval of plans by the
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
4
Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
Department is required. Fire sprinkler systems, which do not contain additives
such as antifreeze, shall be isolated with a double detector check valve
assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer
shall be required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: The site is located on a CATA bus route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: The property is located within the Heights-Hillcrest Planning
District. The Plan indicates this area as Multifamily. The proposed development
complies with the Land Use Plan. The property does not fall within an area
covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape: Landscape Plan must have seal/stamp of registered Landscape
Architect.
All landscape areas must be irrigated. Submit irrigation plan or note on
landscape plan that irrigation will be provided.
The land use buffer on the south side where the adjacent property is zoned R-2
should be 6% of the average width of the lot. This equates to a buffer of 21 feet,
of which 70% is to remain undisturbed. Since the site is located in the designated
mature area of the City, the buffer may be reduced by 25% to 15.75 feet, 70% of
which is to remain undisturbed. The Planning Commission may approve a
variance to allow the buffer as proposed.
The street buffer on the Rebsamen Park Road frontage should be 6% of the
average depth of the lot. This equates to a buffer of 24.6 feet. Since the site is
located in the designated mature area of the City, the street buffer may be
reduced by 25% to 18 feet. The Planning Commission may approve a variance to
allow the buffer as proposed.
Interior landscape islands must be a minimum of 7.5 feet in width and 300 square
feet in area to count toward fulfilling the interior landscape requirement. Several
of the areas indicated as interior landscape areas do not meet this requirement.
The interior landscape islands need to be more evenly distributed. The parking
fields on the north and west sides of the building need interior landscape islands.
Variances from the interior landscape requirement may only be approved by the
City Beautiful Commission.
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
5
Three shrubs for every 30 linear feet are required in the south perimeter
landscape strip.
The 6-foot tall wood fence along the south property line must be built with the
finished side facing outward.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 1, 2008)
The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional
information was needed. The applicants presented an updated version of the
site plan, which indicated a front yard setback variance and a buffer variance.
Staff stated they had been working with the applicant on the revised plan and
were supportive of both variances. It was noted that pulling the building forward
slightly reduced the amount of cut that was necessary at the rear of the site
where there was an extreme slope. The applicants stated any retaining wall at
the rear of the site would comply with the height limits of the Code. It was noted
that pulling the development to the south would allow for preservation of several
mature trees along Treetops Lane, an access easement. Staff noted that there
was an R-2 zoned tract adjacent to the south that contained a drainageway and
that tract separated this parcel from the residences located further to the south.
During the discussion of the landscape comments, it was noted that additional
interior landscaping was needed. Staff stated they could support a parking
variance since the majority of the units were efficiency or one-bedroom
apartments. The Committee agreed with that assessment. Public Works and
Utility Comments were discussed.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicants propose to construct a single, four-story building containing
124 multifamily units on this R-6 zoned, 3.23-acre tract. R-6 is a zoning site
plan review district requiring review and approval by the Planning Commission.
R-6 allows a density of up to 72 units per acre. The proposed development
has a density of 38 units per acre. 172 parking spaces are proposed with
approximately half of the spaces being covered. Access to the site will be via a
single driveway onto a Rebsamen Park Road and a driveway onto Treetops
Lane, an access easement within the north perimeter of the site.
The four-story building will have a height of 50 feet to the midpoint of the pitched
roof. R-6 allows a building height ranging from 75 feet to as much as 125 feet.
The building will have an exterior of stucco and manufactured stone with a
shingled, hipped roof. The building is built around two courtyards containing a
gazebo and pool. Of the 124 units, 48 are two-bedroom. The remaining 76 units
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
6
are one-bedroom or efficiency units. Amenities include 6 elevators and trash
chutes, club room and fitness center. The trash chutes empty into ground floor
dumpsters that are hidden within the building behind roll-up doors. The site will
also contain one external dumpster.
Variances are requested to allow a reduced front setback, a slight reduction in
buffers and a reduction in parking. Staff is supportive of the variance requests.
The building is proposed to have a front yard setback of 15 feet. The R-6 district
typically requires a 25-foot front yard. Pulling the building forward allows the
parking to be located to the rear and helps to minimize excavation of the extreme
slope at the rear of the site. Only a relatively small portion of the building will be
at the 15-foot setback. The larger portion of the front of the building will have a
setback of 30± feet. Approximately half of the parking spaces are to be covered.
Some of the carport structures will have reduced setbacks from the south
property line and will also have a 15-foot setback from the front. The required
street buffer on the Rebsamen Park frontage is 18 feet. The applicants are
proposing a street buffer of 15 feet. In an area in front of the building, the buffer
will have a depth of 30± feet. The street buffer will be heavily landscaped. The
required land use buffer on the south perimeter is 15.75 feet. The applicants
propose a buffer in this area of 6.75 feet, the minimum required by the landscape
ordinance. A screening fence and landscaping will be installed in this area. The
R-2 zoned tract to the south is densely vegetated and contains a creek. That
tract separates the subject property from the residences located further to the
south. Moving the development to the south as proposed allows the developers
to save several mature trees that are located along the Treetops Lane Perimeter.
Lastly, a slight reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces is requested.
The ordinance typically requires 1.5 spaces per unit, irregardless of the number
of bedrooms in the units. A 124-unit development would typically require
186 spaces. The applicants are proposing to have 172 spaces. Of the 124 units,
61% are one-bedroom or efficiency units. The remaining units are two-bedroom.
The slight reduction in parking is appropriate due to the use mix of apartments.
Staff suggested the reduction to allow for more interior landscaping within
the site.
Portions of the development will be endorsed by a retaining wall. The applicants
have stated they will work with the terrain to assure that the wall height and
design complies with Code standards and will not require a variance. An
overhead power line in a 10-foot easement runs east to west along the south
perimeter and then turns to the north at the rear of the site. Some of the covered
parking spaces are indicated in the easement. The applicants have stated the
easement and power line will be relocated to run within the driveway. A 6-foot
tall wood screening fence will be located along the south and west perimeters.
Treetops Lane is a private road located within a 25-foot access easement located
within the north perimeter of the site. Signage has not been specified but will be
limited to that allowed in multifamily zones; one ground-mounted sign not to
May 22, 2008
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8341
7
exceed
24 square feet in area and 6 feet in height.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. Staff supports the
proposed redevelopment of this R-6 zoned tract as proposed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections D, E
and F of the agenda staff report.
2. The easement is to be relocated so that the carport structures are not located
within the easement.
3. The carport structures are not to extend past the 15-foot front yard setback.
Staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance,
the street buffer and land use buffer variances and the parking variance
as proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 22, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions noted in
the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further discussion. The item was
placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.