Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 20 2005sub LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 20, 2005 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine (11) in number. II. Members Present: Pam Adcock Gary Langlais Jerry Yates Robert Stebbins Norm Floyd Mizan Rahman Bill Rector Jerry Meyer Fred Allen, Jr. Darrin Williams Chauncey Taylor Members Absent: None City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 2, 2004 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JANUARY 20, 2005 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Hampton Site Plan Review (S-1457), located on the Southeast corner of Dixon Road and HWY 65/167. B.1. Bella Rosa Revised Long-form POD (Z-6219-B), located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Road. C. The Pines Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-643-C), located on Castle Valley Road, West of Chicot Road. D. LU04-17-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District located at 17415 Lawson Road from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial. D.1. Loux Short-form PCD (Z-6683-A), located at 17415 Lawson Road. E. LU04-01-07 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain Planning District on the North side of Cantrell Road West of Pinnacle Road from Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use. E.1. PDC Company Short-form POD (Z-7603-A), located North of Cantrell Road, West of Taylor Loop Road. F. Big Red Fina Car Wash C.U.P. (Z-6973-C); located at the SW corner of David O Dodd and Colonel Glenn Roads. II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Otter Creek Phase II Preliminary Plat (S-45-A-60), located on the East end of Rosewall Lane. 2. Chenal Commercial Park II Revised Preliminary Plat (S-969-E), located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Wellington Village Road. Agenda, Page Two II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: (Cont.) 3. The Village at Colonel Glenn Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1423-A), located on the Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road. 4. Tucker’s Replat of Tract 1, John D. Shackleford Acres Addition (S-1467), located at 19001 Kanis Road. 5. West Heights Place Replat (S-1468), located in the 3900 – 4000 Block of Foster Street. 6. Carter No. 1 Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1470), located at 12500 Arch Street Pike. 7. Chenal-Kanis Preliminary Plat (S-1471), located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road. 8. Griffin Preliminary Plat (S-1473), located on the Southwest corner of West 24th Street and Walker Street. III. Site Plan Review – Conditional Use Permits: 9. Pavilion in the Park Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1472), located at 8201 Cantrell Road. 10. Lot 1 Ardoin Industrial Subdivision Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-4555-C), located on the Northwest corner of Clearwater Drive and Shackleford Road. 11. Wilson Conditional Use Permit (Z-7768), located at 410 Stewart Road. IV. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 12. Bowman Plaza Revised Long-form POD (Z-4213-H), located on the Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road. 13. Coulson Oil Revised Long-form PCD (Z-4411-D), located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road. 14. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-15-01) in the Geyer Springs West Planning District on Mabelvale West Road, East of Southwest Hospital from Office to Mixed Use. Agenda, Page Three IV. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (Cont.) 14.1. Valley Oaks Court Long-form POD (Z-4768-B), located on Mabelvale West Road, just East of Southwest Hospital. 15. South Square Revised Long-form PCD (Z-5654-B), located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road. 16. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-12-01) in the 65th Street West Planning District at the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Shackleford Road from Light Industrial to Mixed Office Commercial. 16.1. Shackleford Commercial Revised Long-form POD (Z-5703-B), located on the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Shackelford Road. 17. Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long-form PD-R (Z-6120-K), located on the Southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue. 18. Catfish City Restaurant Long-form PCD (Z-7022-B), located at 14800 Cantrell Road. 19. Chardeau Court Revised Short-form PD-R (Z-7668-B), located at 12900 Hinson Road. 20. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-08-01) in the Central City Planning District in the 1700 Block of Summit Street from Single Family to Low Density Residential. 20.1. Castle Investments Short-form PRD (Z-7769), located at 1715 South Summit Street. 21. 300 Third Building Short-form PD-R (Z-7770), located at 310 East Third Street. 22. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-20-01) in the Pinnacle Planning District at the Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and Country Farm Road from Single Family and Park Open Space to Mixed Use. 22.1. Ludwig Complex Long-form PCD (Z-7771), located on the Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. 23. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-19-01) in the Chenal Planning District at the Southwest corner of Katillus Road and Highway 10 from Transition to Mixed Use. 23.1. Cantrell-Katillus Short-form PCD (Z-7772), located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Katillus Road. 24. Beck’s Replat of Lot 49 Scenic Heights Addition Short-form PD-R (Z- 7774), located at 29 Scenic Point. Agenda, Page Four V. OTHER ITEMS: 25. NOV# Acord Tree Harvesting Appeal, located on the Southwest corner of Baseline Road and Sibley Hole Road. 26. Lewis Short-form PCD Time Extension Request (Z-6611-A), located at 913 Selma Street. 27. Polo Club in Chenal Valley Long-form PD-R Revocation (Z-7131), located on the West side of Chenal Valley Drive near Lamarche Drive. 28. The Ranch Tract E-2 Revised Preliminary Plat (S-285-MMM), located on the North side of Cantrell Road, East of Patrick Country Road. 29. Woodlands Edge Phase IV Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1313-H), located West of the Brodie Creek Subdivision. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1457 NAME: Hampton Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Dixon Road and HWY 65/167 DEVELOPER: Dr. Reginald J. Hampton 1714 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 17.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: Not zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 27 – Fish Creek Planning District CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated September 23, 2004 requesting this item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved the issue related to the means of wastewater disposal. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the December 2, 2004, Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve the issue related to the proposed septic system and placement. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1457 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not resolved all the outstanding issues associated with the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system. The applicant is requesting this item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved all the outstanding issues associated with the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system and requested that the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 Commission meeting. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not resolved the issues related to the wastewater collection and treatment system proposed for the site. Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had not resolved the issues related to the wastewater collection and treatment system proposed for the site. Staff presented a recommendation the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: B.1 FILE NO.: Z-6219-B NAME: Bella Rosa Revised Long-form POD LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive DEVELOPER: HWY 107 Associates, LLC 3801 Woodland Heights Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 7.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Office/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse – Mini-warehouse development VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission previously reviewed and denied a request to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to POD to allow the site to develop with limited office space, conditioned storage and mini-storage. The proposal included the placement of 102,775 square feet of improvements, containing approximately 18,000 square feet of office and office/warehouse space, including an on-site manager’s office and apartment comprising approximately 1,600 square feet. The balance of the project was to be self- storage units. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 2 The applicant proposed the perimeter of the two buildings located adjacent to Cantrell Road to be constructed of “drivet” wall system over a steel super structure mixed with glass office front. The roof system was to be a flat roof hidden behind a metal parapet. The self-storage units were proposed as metal system over a steel structure with access provided by overhead doors. On March 11, 2004 the Little Rock Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval of a request to redevelop this 7.5-acre site located on the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive. The applicant intended to develop the site with a total of 82,800 square feet of office/retail and mini-warehouse buildings. The site was to contain a single building of office/retail containing a total of 29,000 square feet and an office/managers residence for the mini-warehouse development. A second building would contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage accessed from interior halls. There were three buildings of stand-alone mini-warehouse buildings containing a total of 25,800 square feet of space. The total building coverage proposed was 34.3 percent with 27 percent of the site designated as landscaped/green space area. The site contained 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The applicant indicated the days and hours of operation from 7 am to 8 pm seven days per week. The mini-warehouse would have 24-hour access. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,072 on April 6, 2004, establishing the Bella Rosa Long-form PCD as presented to the Little Rock Planning Commission. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved POD to add office/showroom/warehouse as allowable activities for the site (currently allowable in O-3 with a Conditional Use Permit). The previous approval allows O-3 uses and an allowance for ten percent of the gross floor area as O-3 accessory uses. No changes are proposed to the approved site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site has been cleared for construction of the new center. The site is relatively flat with a creek running along the western and southern perimeters. The property to the east of the site (across Bella Rosa Drive) is vacant and has been cleared. Further to the west is the Seven Acres Business Park zoned POD and developed with a mix of commercial and office uses. To the southeast are single-family homes adjoining the northern bank of the creek. To the south of the site (across the creek) are vacant lands and single-family homes fronting Bella Rosa Drive. To the west of the proposed site (west of the creek) are also vacant lands fronting Cantrell Road. North of the site are single-family homes on large acreages. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Property Owners Association, all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several phone calls concerning the proposed request. D. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. Transition provides for an orderly transition between residential uses and more intense uses. Uses that might be considered in this area are low-density multifamily residential and office uses if proposals are compatible with the quality of life in nearby residential areas. The applicant has applied for a revised POD -Planned Office Development to remove Office from the plan and facilitate an Office, Showroom and Warehouse, which will not add any additional square footage to the development. When comparing zoning permitted uses to the Land Use Plan, the Office Showroom and Warehouse is considered a commercial use, not office, thus not consistent with the area’s land use plan. A Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda (Item #F – File No. LU04-19-03). This application would normally require a Land Use Plan Amendment. Presently the Planning Staff is reviewing the Land Use Plan along this section of Highway 10. The review has just begun and the Planning staff is still receiving information on the current Highway 10 Land Use Plan. Any change at this time would be premature and possibly detrimental to the study effort. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and Bella Rosa is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Principal Arterial is to connect major traffic generators in an area and not to provide access to adjoining properties. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 4 E. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved POD to add an additional use to the site. The applicant’s request is to add office/showroom/warehouse activities to the site to allow flexibility in the marketing of the site. The current approved site plan includes office/warehouse and O-3, General Office uses, along with the ten percent accessory uses, as allowable uses. The Zoning Ordinance defines Office/Showroom/Warehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: (1) A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, expect within C-3 general commercial district; (2) A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than sixty percent of the gross floor areas of the structure; (3) The principal office of the business; (4) Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer and users. Staff does not feel the addition of “showroom” activities will generate a large amount of additional customer traffic. Contractor’s sales would be an allowable use for the site but not a retail paint store. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to add office/showroom/warehouse as an allowable use on the site. The previous approval allowed O-3 uses with ten percent of the gross floor area being utilized as O-3 accessory uses to be located in the 29,000 square foot office/retail building. Staff does not feel the addition of office/showroom warehouse as an allowable use for the site changes the character of the development. The applicant has provided a building elevation, which details and gives the appearance an office setting. Staff feels limiting the commercial to ten percent of the gross floor area will not allow the development to become a retail center. Staff does not feel the mini-warehouse portion of the development will have a negative impact on the adjoining properties since the mini-warehouse is located to the rear and screened by the office uses in the front of the development. Staff feels the site will maintain an overall office feel. The applicant has indicated through building elevations the rear of the site will be screened and none of the commercial uses will be visible from Cantrell Road. Only through this scenario does staff feel comfortable allowing this development to locate on this site. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the proposed site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow office/showroom/warehouse activities to locate within the development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated September 23 2004, requesting the item be deferred to the December 2, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had filed to notify properties owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws. Staff requested the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: After further review staff has determined they no longer support the applicant’s request to add office/showroom/warehouse to the site. The development was approved with five buildings totaling 82,000 square feet of office/retail and mini-warehouse. The approval included the placement of a 29,000 square foot office/retail building, which would utilize ten percent of the gross floor area with accessory uses as listed in the O-3, General Office District zoning classification. The second building was to contain 28,000 square feet of conditioned storage accessed from interior halls and three stand along mini-warehouse buildings containing a total of 25,800 square feet of space. The proposed site plan included the placement of 117 parking spaces with 19 spaces proposed for boat and RV storage. The mini-warehouse square footage approved for developed on the site totaled 53,800 square feet. This portion of the development is an intense commercial activity allowable as a by right use in the C-4, Open Display District zoning classification. The current approval allows sixty-five percent of the total square footage allowed on the site to be developed with C-4, General Commercial District activities. The indicated boat and RV storage is also a C-4, General Commercial District uses. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 6 In addition, the accessory uses allowed in the O-3, General Office District zoning classification are for the most part commercial activities, which total 2,900 square feet allowable in the office/retail building. When combining the two commercial aspects of the development sixty-nine percent of the total square footage currently allowed on the site is commercial in nature and thirty-one percent is office in nature. Staff felt comfortable recommending the development of the site as was previously approved since the office/retail building would screen the mini-warehouse buildings. Also, the developer provided a building elevation, which allowed the site to appear office in character and proposed building materials to compliment the overall design. Staff feels by the addition of office/warehouse (a Conditional Use under C-3, General Commercial District and a by right use in C-4, General Commercial District) and office/showroom/warehouse (a Conditional Use under O-3, General Office District and a by right use in C-3, General Commercial District) to the site only reinforces the commercial aspect of the development. Staff does not feel this location is an appropriate location for a commercial development. The City’s Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Transitional, which allows for office or residential development. Staff feels by allowing the addition of office/warehouse and office/showroom/warehouse activities to develop on the site this changes the character of the development and reinforces a commercial development. Staff feels the development should be constructed as was previously approved maintaining the office face along Cantrell Road and Bella Rosa Drive and placing the intense commercial activities within the site, screened from the adjoining roadways by the office/retail building. Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request to add office/warehouse and/or office/showroom/warehouse to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated they had previously indicated support of the proposed request but after further review had determined they could not longer support the request. Staff stated if the development were approved with the added uses the development would be solely a commercial development. Staff stated they felt the development should be utilized as was previously approved to include mini-warehouse development, office development with O-3 uses as allowable uses and the ten percent gross floor allowance for accessory uses. Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the developers were not requesting a commercial development only the allowance of office/showroom/ warehouse as allowable activities on the site. He stated the development was being developed with 2000 to 5000 square January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 7 foot units. He stated the developers were not looking for commercial uses to locate on the site. He stated the developers were requesting the addition of uses, which they felt were previously approved. Mr. Gene Pfeifer addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the development was similar to a proposal, which the Commission denied in 1997, which included the development of mini-warehouse on the site. He stated the only difference was the developers were now screening the mini-warehouse development with an office building and presenting the development as an office development. Mr. Pfeifer stated there were flaws with the notification on the original approval. He stated his property was located across Highway 10 and he was not notified. He stated many of the parties involved were the same as was previously involved in 1997 and many knew his property was located across the road from the proposed development. He stated he understood the list was obtained from an abstract company and the applicant had meet the minimum requirements but he stated the list should be checked by the applicant and by staff to ensure all parties were notified. Mr. Pfeifer stated the leasing sign outside the development indicated the center as a retail, office and showroom development. He stated the sign was misleading to the public and potential tenants of the development. Mr. Pfeifer requested the Commission deny the request for the added uses. He stated if approved with the additional uses the site would become a commercial center. He stated he felt the development should be utilized as was previously approved with the O-3, General Office District uses. Mr. Chris Parker addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing Mr. Pfeifer as legal counsel. He stated the request did not comply with the Land Use Plan for the site. He stated the site was indicated as Transitional on the Future Land Use Plan which allowed for office and residential. He stated by approving the addition of office/showroom/warehouse to the development would remove any office component. He stated denial of the request would protect the plan. He stated he felt the development was related to timing. He stated the developers had not tried to market the site with the allowed uses and were now requesting to add additional uses to the site. He requested the Commission deny the request to allow the addition of office/showroom warehouse to the allowable uses on the site. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she too felt the developers did not try to market the site with the approved uses. Ms. Bell stated she felt there was already a large amount of commercial uses located on the site with the mini-warehouse. She stated if the Commission allowed the additional uses on the site the development would be potentially 100 percent commercial. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6219-B 8 Mr. Murry Mitchell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated he previously sold the property to the developers. He stated his understanding was the development was approved of office/warehouse uses. He stated the developers were only requesting what was previously approved. Commissioner Rector questioned the previous approval. Staff stated the applicant’s cover letter indicated a request for office/warehouse. Staff stated during the process they had indicated they would not support an office/warehouse development for the site only the allowance of O-3, General Office District uses. Commissioner Rector questioned if the applicant amended his application to gain staff support. Staff stated this was their understanding. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the allowed uses. A motion was made to approve the request to allow the addition of office/showroom/warehouse to the site. The motion failed by a vote of 0 aye, 11 noes and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-643-C NAME: The Pines Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on Castle Valley Road, West of Chicot Road. DEVELOPER: Karim Shamoon/Ahmad Safi 7622 A Baseline Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: ETC Engineers 1510 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 36.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 86 FT. NEW STREET: 4,100 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2 - Single-family, C-2 – Shopping Center District and MF-12 – Multifamily 12 units per acre PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 1, 19, 48 – 60, 76 – 77. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a 20-foot rear yard setback on all lots. 3. A waiver of the Master Street Plan required street improvements to Bunch Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the subdivision of 36.31 acres into 83 single-family lots, a park area and two tracts. Tract A is currently zoned C-2 – Shopping Center District and the second tract will be utilized as detention. Portions of the site are currently zoned R-2, Single-family and MF-12, Multi-family District, which allows up to twelve units per acre. It appears proposed Lots 69 – 78 are currently zoned MF-12, Multi-family District. The applicant has indicated the subdivision January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 2 with a single entry, which will add 4,100 linear feet of new street within the proposed subdivision. Street improvements are proposed along Chicot Road and Castle Valley Road. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required street improvements to Bunch Road. The applicant is not proposing to access Bunch Road but has provided an emergency access to the site from Bunch Road. The applicant has stated this property has only a small frontage on Bunch Road. There is a “sliver” of property between the applicant’s ownership and Bunch Road for the remainder of the site, to the east, which is a separate ownership. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot front building line for each of the indicated lots. The applicant has also indicated a 20-foot rear yard setback for each of the lots indicated. This request will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has also indicated 10-foot side yard setbacks. The side yard setbacks exceed the typically minimum setback required. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of a portion of the indicated lots as double frontage lots. The applicant has indicated on-site detention for the proposed subdivision. The applicant has indicated an area for playground as well. The applicant has indicated the average lot size as 7,700 square feet and a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet. The site plan indicates a maximum buildable area as 3,250 square feet and a minimum buildable area as 2,150. The applicant has indicated no portion of the site is located within floodplain/floodway water. The applicant has indicated the source of water as Central Arkansas Water and the means of wastewater disposal will be by Little Rock Wastewater Utility. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant site currently zoned R-2, C-2 and MF-12. The roadways in the area are not constructed to Master Street Plan standard with narrow roadways and open ditches for drainage. There is a mixture of uses in the area. There are single-family homes located across Bunch Road to the north and the City limits is located to the south across Caste Valley Road. To the southwest of the site is a golf course with new homes developing in the Whispering Pines Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area property owner. The abutting property owners along with the Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way 55- feet from centerline will be required. Other dedications are acceptable as shown. 2. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of all streets. 3. With subdivision development, provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the streets including 5-foot sidewalks on Bunch Road and Castle Valley Road. 4. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances and the Master Street Plan. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Storm water detention facilities are shown on Tract A of the plan. Easements for storm water detention are required. 7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 8. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: Easements required. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Water main extensions 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 January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 4 will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 28, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating additional information was required to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide a preliminary storm drainage plan and a storm drainage analysis. Staff also requested the applicant provide the names of owners of property abutting the indicated plat area along with the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat area. Staff also requested the applicant provide the zoning classification within the proposed plat boundary and of abutting properties. Staff questioned if the development would be phased. Mr. McGetrick stated the development would be constructed in phases. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated boundary street improvements would be required. Mr. McGetrick stated the developer did not own all the properties adjacent to Bunch Road. Staff questioned if Bunch Road was contained within one property ownership. Mr. McGetrick stated the road was a part of the Mackey Court Order as a 50-foot right-of-way. He stated portions of the road were entirely on the property owner to the north of the roadway. Commissioner Adcock questioned if lots would take access to Bunch Road. Mr. McGetrick stated there was a proposed street connection to Bunch Road from the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Adcock stated if the street was not constructed she did not feel access should be taken to the roadway. She stated the intersection of Bunch and Chicot Roads was a dangerous intersection and without improvements to help off set the intersection she had concerns. Mr. McGetrick stated he would look at the design and possibly remove the connection to Bunch Road. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 5 Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating Mr. McGetrick contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the October 28, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The developer has retained ETC Engineering as the firm to now represent their request. The applicant has indicated a preliminary storm drainage plan and a storm drainage analysis per staff’s request. The applicant has also indicated the names of owners of recorded tracts abutting the indicated plat area The applicant has indicated there are no recorded subdivision abutting the indicated plat area. The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in three phases. The developer is proposing the development of 18 lots in the first phase, 30 lots in the second phase and 35 lots in the third phase. The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 7,700 square feet with a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet. The indicated lot size of 6,900 square feet is adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot front building line for each of the indicated lots. The applicant has also indicated ten-foot side yard setbacks and 20-foot rear yard setbacks. The indicated rear yard setback will require a variance from the ordinance to allow a reduced rear yard area. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant has indicated several of the proposed lots as double frontage lots. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 1, 19, 48 – 60, and 76 – 77. The indicated lots will have a 10-foot no vehicular access easement across the rear of the lots to limit the access to the internal streets within the subdivision. Staff is supportive of this request. There are two tracts proposed as a part of the development. One tract is currently zoned C-2, General Commercial District which will be held for future development. The second tract is to be utilized as detention for the proposed subdivision. The applicant has indicated the development of 83 single-family lots. The applicant has also indicated the development of a park as a part of the proposed subdivision containing approximately 0.73 acres. Portions of the single-family site are zoned R-2, Single-family and the remainder is zoned MF-12, Multi-family district. If the development is approved the portion zoned MF-12 must be rezoned to R-2, Single-family district to allow the development as proposed. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 6 The developer is requesting a waiver of the required street improvements to Bunch Road. The applicant has indicated their ownership does not reach the entirely of Bunch Road. In addition, the applicant has indicated they do not intend to take access to Bunch Road therefore, they do not feel the City should require the improvements. The only access to the site from Bunch Road is an emergency access point should the main entrance ever become blocked. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels boundary street improvements should be constructed at the time of development or redevelopment of an area. Staff would support a deferral of the street improvements to Bunch Road until the third phase of the development or until lots abutting the roadway are developed. During this phase the developer would be platting lots which abut Bunch Road and staff feels the improvements to Bunch Road should be constructed. Staff is supportive of the development with the exception of the requested street improvement waiver to Bunch Road. To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the development of the proposed 83 single-family lots at a 2.2 unit per acre density should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the required improvements be constructed to Bunch Road per the Master Street Plan requirement. Staff would support a deferral of the required improvements to Bunch Road until a phase when lots abutting the roadway are proposed for final platting. Staff recommends if the development is approved the portion zoned MF-12 be rezoned to R-2, Single-family district to allow the development as proposed. The applicant failed to provide staff with the additional information requested at the October 28, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 20, 2005, Planning Commission Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to provide staff with the additional information requested at the October 28, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 Commission meeting. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-C 7 There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation the required street improvements be constructed to Bunch Road per the Master Street Plan requirement. Staff stated they would support a deferral of the required improvements to Bunch Road until a phase when lots abutting the roadway were proposed for final platting. Staff presented a recommendation if the development was approved the portion zoned MF-12 be rezoned to R-2, Single-family district to allow the development as proposed. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 no, 1 absent and 1 recuseal (Chairman Mizan Rahman). January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: LU04-17-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Crystal Valley Planning District Location: 17415 Lawson Road Request: Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Source: Kenny Loux PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. The applicant would like to use an existing vacant building and graveled lot for a used car lot and vehicle maintenance activities. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the entire Neighborhood Commercial extending southwest from the Lawson-Sullivan Road intersection. With these changes, 78% of the existing Neighborhood Commercial node would be converted to Commercial. It is thought that the additional area would make the boundaries more logical and incorporate existing businesses. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is partially developed with a mobile home in the center of the lot and a metal building located at the front of the lot currently zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and 1.97 acres ± in size. The application is in the Extraterritorial Planning Area and the area has several non-conforming uses. The land north of the site and on the opposite side of Lawson Road is zoned R-2 -Single Family District consisting of several single family homes and mobile homes situated on narrow lots close to Lawson Road because of the hilly terrain rising from the roadway. Northwest of the site is an area zoned C-1 -Neighborhood Commercial District similar in terrain with additional homes, an abandoned multiple bay coin carwash, and land zoned C-3 with a garage and a small auto/parts salvage yard. Directly east of the property is a CUP - Conditional Use Permit for the Crystal Volunteer Fire Department. Further east at the Lawson/Sullivan Road Intersection is a PCD with two small business uses including Wickety Wax Candle Manufacturing and Tactfully Done Upholstery. On the opposite side of Sullivan Road are two small buildings, one a seasonal sno-cone outlet and the other an office use, Custom Advertising Products, Inc. Further southeast of the property are additional single family homes fronting Lawson Road on narrow lots. South of the site are several mobile homes on single family lots fronting Minton Road and vacant wooded land. Immediately west is a PCD for a seasonal sno-cone stand and mobile January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-17-02 2 home. Further to the west at Morehart Road is land zoned R-2 with several single family homes on large lots. Northwest of the property is additional R-2 land with an abandoned auto sales building with a gravel lot, and a mobile home with a small auto/parts salvage yard. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: June 1, 1999. A change was made from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial on the south side of Lawson Road, west of Sullivan Road, expanding the existing Neighborhood Commercial to including the applicant’s property for proposed development. The surrounding areas are shown as Single Family. A node of Neighborhood Commercial 6.4 acres ± in size exists at the intersection of Sullivan and Lawson Roads. This node expands west from Sullivan Road on the south side of Lawson Road to include the applicant’s property. MASTER STREET PLAN: Lawson Road and Sullivan Road are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Lawson Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. PARKS: The property under review is not located in a recognized Park Planning District and does not show any existing or proposed parks in the area. 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. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-17-02 3 ANALYSIS: This section of Lawson Road lies in a rural area of Pulaski County and was added to the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction March 1, 1988. The present Neighborhood Commercial was established in 1992 to represent a small commercial node at the intersection of two minor arterial streets. Typically commercial areas are located at major intersections and limited to approximately five acres. The Neighborhood Commercial area was chosen to provide low intensity commercial activities in the area while protecting the area’s rural character. Originally (1992) the area shown as Neighborhood Commercial was 2.4 acres ± in size and on June 1, 1999 Ordinance #18,030 was approved expanding the Neighborhood Commercial area from the southwest corner of the Sullivan-Lawson Road intersection towards the applicant’s property which was shown as Single Family. This expansion was initiated at the request of the owner of the land in 1999, not the present applicant. The expansion added 4.2 acres ± of Neighborhood Commercial bringing the total amount shown to 6.4 acres ±, more than double that of 1999. The existing Neighborhood Commercial area is surrounded by numerous single family homes in a rural atmosphere. Because of steep terrain on the north side of the roadway, a majority of the homes have situated themselves close to the roadway giving this section of Lawson Road a rural community atmosphere. The existing area presently shown as Neighborhood Commercial is more than adequate for area residents at this time. Due to the topography of the area developments on the north side of Lawson Road will have to be smaller scale to prevent major cuts or fills, which is supportive of the Neighborhood Commercial concept. Also, when future street improvements are made to Lawson Road topography will prevent large commercial development from occurring on the north side of the property. Showing this land as Commercial would result in a strip of Commercial shown on the south side of Lawson Road. Identifying a strip of Commercial could lead to large scale high intensity strip commercial development, which could be incompatible with adjacent uses. Incompatible uses could result in pressure to expand the Commercial in the area resulting in larger scale more intense uses. Due to the topography north of Lawson Road large scale Commercial uses will be limited unless major cut and fill operations are undergone. Further changes could also result in a higher intensity Commercial node at the Stewart and Lawson Roads intersection. Since the area in question is shown as Neighborhood Commercial, uses could be limited in scale and intensity leading to more desirable commercial activities. The Neighborhood Commercial shown does indicate a strip of Commercial on the south side of Lawson Road and could lead strip commercial. However, since it is Neighborhood Commercial, scale and intensity can be limited making future development more compatible with surrounding land uses. Limiting uses in this area to Neighborhood Commercial will be more compatible with surrounding Single Family and the existing Neighborhood Commercial in the area. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-17-02 4 Almost 90%, 5.6 acres ±, of the Neighborhood Commercial shown is being used for commercial or office use. Generally the businesses located in the area are not targeted at the immediate area residents. Auto repair, candle manufacturing, scrap yards, advertising agencies, and upholstery typically draw from a larger demographic area as compared to the local sno-cone shops. In turn showing this area as Commercial might better recognize the existing businesses in the area and facilitate similar businesses in the future. However, in the area there is an abundance of land shown as Commercial or Mixed Commercial Industrial. This Neighborhood Commercial area makes up just 25% of the 33 acres ± identified for commercial uses within a mile of the site. Uses of higher intensities have been centered at the intersection of Marsh and Lawson Roads while the lower intensity uses have been centered at the present location of the Neighborhood Commercial. Changing this area to a higher intensity use could be considered premature due the amount of Commercial shown less than a mile west of the property. The land west of the application is more suitable for Commercial activities focusing on a larger demographic area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Crystal Valley Property Owners Association and the Plantation House Homeowners Association. Staff has received four comments from area residents. None are in support, two are opposed to the change, and two were neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A Neighborhood Commercial area provides low intensity uses to a local area. Higher intensity commercial uses would be incompatible with the existing rural residential character of the community, and land is shown less than a mile west that can facilitate the applicant’s request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not submitted any alternatives or scheduled any meetings with Staff regarding this application. The application remains unchanged. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-17-02 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 3, 2005, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: D.1 FILE NO.: Z-6683-A NAME: Loux Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 17415 Lawson Road DEVELOPER: Kenny Loux 18305 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: Delton Brown Land Surveying 2421 County Line Road Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 1.97 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District and R-2, Single-family District ALLOWED USES: Limited retail development adjacent to neighborhoods and Single-family PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C and R-2 PROPOSED USE: Used car automobile dealership and Single-family Variance/Waivers: 1. A five year deferral of the required Master Street Plan improvements to Lawson Road. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,063 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 20, 1999, rezoned the north 180-feet of the site from R-2, Single-family to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and left the remainder of the site zoned R-2, Single-family District. A Conditional Use Permit was also approved for the site to allow a furniture repair business to operate on the site. An older singlewide manufactured home was located on the southern half of the tract, which remained zoned R-2, Single-family. The applicant proposed the construction of a new 40-foot by 80-foot metal building on the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 2 north one half of the site. Signage was to be limited to signage allowed in offices zones or six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. Deed Document No. 2000024890 indicates a dedication of right-of-way to the City of Little Rock 20 of additional feet from the south right-of-way line of Lawson Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the rezoning of the portion of this 1.97-acre parcel previously zoned from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District (the north 180- feet) to PD-C to allow the sale of used automobiles from the site. The remainder of the property will remain zoned R-2, Single-family District. The property is located outside the City Limits but within the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The applicant has indicated the existing building will be used for vehicle maintenance. The applicant’s cover letter indicates vehicle maintenance will include repair or replacement of worn parts and damaged body parts. The site plan also indicates 36 parking spaces for the display automobile inventory. The proposed site plan includes two areas for building expansion. The site plan includes the placement of a 30-foot by 40-foot addition to the west side of the building and the addition of a 60-foot by 30-foot area to the rear of the building. The applicant has indicated these expansion areas for potential growth should the need arise in the future. The applicant has indicated employee parking will be located in the rear of the building. The site plan indicates paved areas will be constructed of ground asphalt compacted to a minimum of four inches. The material will then be sealed to maintain the hard surface. The applicant is requesting a five (5) year deferral of the required street improvements to Lawson Road. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located outside the City limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The area is very rural in nature with the predominate land uses being single-family homes on large tracts and large tracts of undeveloped property. A small commercial node is located just east of this site, at the intersection of Lawson and Sullivan Roads. Several small businesses are located at that intersection. There is a local volunteer fire department and a small commercial business located adjacent to the site. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident concerning the proposed use of the property. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. 2. With future construction, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan for a five lane arterial. Construct one-half street improvement to the street with the planned development or obtain a Board of Directors deferral of street construction. 3. The site is outside of the existing corporate limits. No storm water detention or grading permits are required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. The Fire Department having jurisdiction needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: A 40-foot building line is required along all property lines that adjoin residential properties. Indicate owners and uses of all adjoining parcels on the site plan. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 4 Indicate the actual right-of-way line. The County will not allow a cable fence to be installed less than 20-feet from centerline of Lawson Road, it is neither legal nor safe. All driveways accessing County roads require permitting from Pulaski County Road and Bridge (501) 340-6800. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development -PCD for a used car lot featuring 30-40 vehicles. Vehicle maintenance and repair will be done in an existing building on site. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (File No. LU04-17-02 – Item #7). Master Street Plan: Lawson Road and Sullivan Road are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Lawson Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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. Landscape: The plan submitted does not allow for the 28-foot wide on-site street buffer required along Lawson Road. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 28, 2004) Mr. Kenny Loux was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. Loux provide details of the proposed vehicle maintenance to be performed on the site. Mr. Loux stated limited bodywork would be preformed on automobiles but no parts January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 5 would be stored on the site. Staff also requested a detailed parking plan. Mr. Loux stated automobiles would be placed along the western perimeter and along the roadway frontage of Lawson Road. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the required right-of-way dedication would be 45-feet from centerline. Mr. Loux questioned the required right-of-way to meet County standard. Pulaski County Planning staff stated 25- feet. Mr. Loux questioned if the dedication could meet the County standard and not City standard. Staff stated not without a waiver from the Little Rock Board of Directors concerning the Master Street Plan requirements. (It was later determined the right-of-way is currently in place at 45-feet from the centerline.) Mr. Loux also stated to install the street improvements at this time would be a hardship. Staff stated he could seek a deferral from the Little Rock Board of Directors concerning the required improvements. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed site plan did not meet the minimum ordinance requirement of 28-feet. Staff stated at a minimum a landscape strip of nine feet would be required along Lawson Road to meet the City Beautiful Commission requirement. Staff stated less than nine feet would require the applicant to make application to the City Beautiful Commission for relief. County Planning comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed gate would not be allowed in the location indicated. Staff stated the location was not legal and created a safety concern. 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 plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the October 28, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a detailed parking plan for the site. The applicant has also indicated only minor engine repair and minor body repair will be conducted on the site. The applicant has indicated there will be no storage of parts or materials on the site other than automobiles display. The applicant is requesting the placement of automobiles within the existing right-of-way and the placement of a cable fence within the existing right-of-way. The applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm six days per week. The applicant has indicated there will not be a dumpster located on the site. The applicant is not requesting any ground signage as a part of the development. The site plan includes the placement of signage on the awning located on the front of the building. The applicant has indicated there will January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 6 be four employees of the business. The applicant has also indicated site lighting will be low level and directional, directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. The applicant has indicated two expansion areas. One expansion area is located to the west of the building and is located approximately 35-feet from the Lawson Road property line and approximately 15.3 feet from the western property line. The second expansion area is located to the rear of the existing building. The applicant has indicated these expansion areas are to allow for future growth. The expansion areas are estimated at 1200 square feet and 1800 square feet. Employee parking has been designated adjacent to the rear expansion area. The applicant has indicated display parking on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated 14 parking spaces fronting Lawson Road within the existing right-of-way. The applicant has also indicated 22 parking spaces along the western property line. The total available display parking indicated is 36 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated parking will be constructed of reclaimed asphalt grindings compacted with 6-inches to 8-inches of material, rolled and seal coated within one year. The existing manufactured home on the site is to remain. The home is used as a residence and is not proposed as any alternative uses. Access to the home is located along the eastern property line by a single drive shared by the proposed automobile dealership. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required landscaping on the site. The typical minimum ordinance requirement for a site of this depth would be a 28-foot wide on-site street buffer along Lawson Road and a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. The site plan does not include any areas identified for landscape or land use buffers. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The indicated site plan does not comply with current city ordinances and county ordinances with regard to building setbacks and landscaping. Per the current County Ordinances, all buildings should be set a minimum of 40-feet from all property lines. The building with expansion is indicated at approximately 35-feet from the front property line and 15.3 feet from the western property line. To be allowed the expansion areas a variance from Pulaski County Planning Board would have to be approved. Staff does not feel approving a site plan that does not meet current County requirements is appropriate without the County Planning Board first approving the variances. The site was zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District with a Conditional Use Permit to allow furniture repair on the site. Staff feels the requested use as January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 7 a automobile dealership with automobile body repair (which is typically allowed in C-4, Open Display District) is too intense for the site. In addition, staff is not supportive of the placement of the indicated cable fence within the existing right- of-way. The placement of the cable within the right-of-way creates a safety concern as well as a liability concern for the County. Staff is also not supportive of the applicant’s request to display vehicles within the existing right-of-way. The applicant has indicated the additional area is needed to allow the use of the site as an automobile dealership. Staff feels the applicant may be trying to do too much on the site if this 20-feet is required to make the project work. Staff feels the site should utilize the existing neighborhood commercial uses as was previously approved. Staff feels the open display district is too intense for the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 public hearing. Staff stated the request would require a waiver of the By-laws for the late deferral request. A motion was made to waive the By-laws for the later deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing additional concerns raised prior to the December 2, 2004, Planning Commission Public Hearing. The applicant has indicated only minor engine repair will be conducted on the site and no body repair will be performed at the site. The applicant has indicated there will be no storage of parts or materials on the site other than automobiles display. The applicant has removed his request for the placement of automobiles within the existing right-of-way and the placement of a cable fence within the existing right-of-way. The applicant has indicated on the site plan the current right-of-way as was previously dedicated as a part of the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District zoning approval. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 8 As was previously proposed the applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm six days per week. The applicant has indicated there will not be a dumpster located on the site. The applicant is not requesting any ground signage as a part of the development. The site plan includes the placement of signage on the awning located on the front of the building. The applicant has indicated there will be four employees of the business. The applicant has also indicated site lighting will be low level and directional, directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. The applicant has removed his request for two expansion areas. One expansion area was located to the west of the building and was located approximately 35-feet from the Lawson Road property line and approximately 15.3 feet from the western property line. The second expansion area was located to the rear of the existing building. The applicant indicated these expansion areas were needed to allow for future growth. The expansion areas were an estimated 1,200 square feet and 1,800 square feet. Employee parking continues to be designated adjacent to the rear of the existing building. With the removal of the proposed expansion areas the site plan now complies with Pulaski County’s 40-foot building setback requirement. The applicant has indicated display parking on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated display parking fronting Lawson Road, display parking along the western property line and display parking along the eastern property line. The total available display parking indicated on the site plan is 36 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated parking will be constructed of reclaimed asphalt grindings compacted with 6- inches to 8-inches of material, rolled and seal coated within one year. The existing manufactured home on the site is to remain. The home is used as a residence and is not proposed as any alternative uses. Access to the home is located along the eastern property line by a single drive shared by the proposed automobile dealership. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required landscaping on the site. The typical minimum ordinance requirement for a site of this depth would be a 28-foot wide on-site street buffer along Lawson Road and a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern perimeter of the site. The applicant has indicated plantings will be installed along the eastern perimeter of the site to screen adjoining property. The applicant has indicated the street buffer at nine feet. The indicated buffer does meet the minimum landscape strip requirement but does not meet the buffer average requirement. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The site was zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District with a Conditional Use Permit to allow furniture repair on the site. Staff feels the requested use of an automobile dealership is too intense for the site. The site is located within an area identified on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as Single-family residential. There are areas to the east of the site designated as January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6683-A 9 Neighborhood Commercial and areas to the west of the site designated as Commercial and Mixed Commercial Industrial. Staff does not feel this is an appropriate location to introduce a C-4, Open Display District commercial activity. Staff feels the proposed use would be more appropriate locating in an area, which is not predominately single-family. Staff feels the site should utilize the neighborhood commercial uses as was previously approved. Staff feels the open display district is too intense for the area. Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the March 3, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated the deferral requested would take a waiver of the By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law waiver and the deferral request. A motion was made to waive the By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: LU04-01-07 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District Location: Cantrell Road west of Pinnacle Valley Drive Request: Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use Source: Joe White, White Daters Engineering PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District from Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial, or if the use is a mixture of the three. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office & Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a POD -Planned Office Development for a mixed use development. The applicant has previously applied for a POD and a Land Use Plan Amendment from Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use that was withdrawn without prejudice at the June 3, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is a house built on a large lot and currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is about 3.58 acres in size. The remainder of the expanded area includes a single family home and an out building on a large lot and currently zoned R-2. The vacant land to the north is zoned R-2 Single Family. The property to the east is zoned Planned Commercial Development with a recently constructed Walgreen’s and a Catfish City Restaurant under construction, both at the intersection of Cantrell and Taylor Loop Roads. Further to the east is a development zoned C-3, General Commercial District, anchored by a hardware store and other small offices and restaurants. The land to the southeast is a Planned Commercial Development for the David Claiborne furniture store and the Victorian Garden Restaurant. Further southeast is a POD, PDO-Planned Development Office, and even farther southeast are areas zoned as R-2 and PCD - Planned Commercial Development, for a bank, church, offices, hair salon, animal clinic and single-family homes. The land to the south and southwest is mostly vacant land zoned R-2 with a single family development backing onto Cantrell Road and PR for parks and recreational use. The property to the west is zoned PDO with a Bank of the Ozarks at the front of the lot and a two story office building at the rear. Further to the west are several PODs consisting of homes converted into offices. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On April 6, 2004, a change was made from Transition to Commercial about a quarter mile northeast of the applicant’s property at Cantrell Road and the east leg of Taylor Loop Road, immediately northeast of the expanded area, to accommodate proposed development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-07 2 On August 19, 2003 a change was made from Transition to Commercial to about a half mile to the northeast of the property on the north side of Cantrell Road just east of Pinnacle Valley Drive to accommodate a proposed development. On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made within a 1 mile radius of the project site recognize existing conditions. These include Transition to Suburban Office north of the site, Transition to Single Family about quarter mile west of the site, Transition to Commercial about a half mile east of the site and on the opposite side of Cantrell Road, and Transition to Single family about one mile due east of the site The applicant’s property is shown as Suburban Office and Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. The neighboring land to the north is shown as Single Family. The property to the east and southeast is shown as Commercial. The property south of the amendment area is shown as Transition and Single Family. The property to the southwest is shown as Single Family and Park / Open Space. The area to the west is shown as Suburban Office. MASTER STREET PLAN: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. Cantrell Road is built as a five-lane road through that area. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Cantrell Road may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. Since this property is located on a Principal Arterial, access to the site should be minimized and should not impede through traffic. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows the Taylor Loop Park located a short distance to the southwest of the applicant’s property. Taylor Loop Park is shown as a park of 35.0+ acres. Taylor Loop Park is listed as an undeveloped Community Park intended to remain as a passive open space parcel of undeveloped land and is designed to serve the open space needs of several neighborhoods. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed an objective of promoting January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-07 3 the vigorous enforcement of the Landscaping and Excavation Ordinance. This action could result in the removal of trees in order to accommodate the development of uses possible in the Commercial land use category. ANALYSIS: The application area is located in an area of the city characterized by an increase in Office and Commercial uses. Suburban Office requires a Planned Zoning District and a change to Mixed Use would continue the requirement of Planned Zoning Districts for new non-residential developments. Although this amendment could increase the amount of Commercial development along the north side of Cantrell Road, development style could be limited to acceptable design standards through the site plan review process. The back part of the applicant’s property was the subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment for a change from Transition to Suburban Office as part of a Future Land Use review along Cantrell Road presented to the Planning Commission on January 9, 2003. The change to Suburban Office for the front part of the applicant’s property was approved since it was felt that Office developments were more likely to take place fronting Cantrell Road. It was also determined that the Transition land use category should remain in some areas to allow for office development similar to the requirements found in the Suburban Office category while also allowing residential development. Within a half mile of this property is a total of about 52.01 + acres shown as Commercial at two commercial nodes less than a half mile apart on Cantrell Road. These two nodes are at the east leg of Taylor Loop Road and east of Pinnacle Valley Drive. Changing this property to Mixed Use could result in an increase of 10 + acres of commercial uses, a 20% area increase. Three recently approved PCDs are located either at the existing Taylor Loop node or in between the two. The new pattern of PCDs indicates a trend of infill at and between the two existing nodes. This amendment would expand potential Commercial west, not following the present trend of infill at or between the existing commercial nodes. Immediately west of this application land shown as Suburban Office has recently developed with three PODs consistent with the Land Use Plan. If the application area were to remain Suburban Office the possibility of similar office development of the site could occur, which would limit westward expansion of the Cantrell Road/Taylor Loop node and be consistent with the present office development in the area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, River Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey Community Improvement Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Secluded Hills Property Owners Association, Walton January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-01-07 4 Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood Association, Westbury Neighborhood Association, Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, Chenal Ridge Property, and Charleston Heights/North Rahling Road Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received any comments from Neighborhood Associations at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This amendment would further increase the amount of Commercial along the north side of Cantrell Road while expanding the existing Commercial node to the west. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the January 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not submitted any alternatives or scheduled any meetings with Staff regarding this application. The application remains unchanged. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 3, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: E.1 FILE NO.: Z-7603-A NAME: PDC Companies HWY 10 Short-form POD LOCATION: North of Cantrell Road approximately 0.1 miles West of Taylor Loop Road DEVELOPER: PCD Companies HWY #10 1501 North University Avenue, Suite 740 Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.58 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: 65 percent office 35 percent commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance – The creation of a lot without public street frontage. BACKGROUND: A request to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to POD was filed and withdrawn from consideration prior to the June 3, 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The applicant proposed a development to include office and commercial activities on this 3.58 acre site. The previous request was identical to the application now being considered. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the development of this 3.6 acre parcel as a Planned Office Development, POD to allow the development of the site with a January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 2 office/commercial facility and the creation of a two lot plat. There will be a single building on each parcel. Lot 1 will have a drive-through restaurant containing 3000 square feet. Lot 2 will contain 21, 000 square feet of office space and 8200 square feet of commercial space. The overall percent for each use on the site is sixty-five percent office and thirty-five percent commercial. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an occupied single-family home. To the east of the site is also an occupied single-family home with the Wal-Greens development located further east. The area to the north is vacant and undeveloped; currently zoned R-2, Single-family. To the west of the site is a newly constructed branch bank adjacent to Cantrell Road and a dentist office located in the rear of the site on a separate lot. To the south of the site are vacant properties zoned R-2, Single- family. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from an area resident concerning the proposed use of the property. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association, the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. The standard conditions shown on the plans as “Public Works Notes” apply to the project. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project to serve Lot 2. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688- 1414 for additional details. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 3 SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. 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). The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. 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. 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 at 918-3752 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office & Transition for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for office and commercial development. The applicant has previously applied for a POD and a Land Use Plan amendment from Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use that was withdrawn without prejudice at the June 3, 2004 Planning Commission hearing. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (Item #10 – File No. LU04-01-07). Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the plan. Cantrell Road is built as a five-lane road through this area. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Cantrell Road may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. Since this property is located on a Principal Arterial access to the site should be minimized and should not impede through traffic. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 4 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 River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment goal listed an objective of promoting the vigorous enforcement of the Landscaping & Excavation Ordinance. This action could result in the removal of trees in order to accommodate the development of uses possible in the Commercial land use category. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required where adjacent to residentially zoned properties to the north. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 28, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a POD to allow the development of an office/commercial development. Staff stated the percentages requested were consistent with those allowed for a Planned Office Development. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. White provide details concerning the proposed uses of the development. Staff also requested the total building coverage be provided in the general notes section of the site plan. Staff stated the proposed building on Lot 1 was indicated at 80-feet and the typical required setback on Highway 10 was 100-feet. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the conditions noted in the general notes section would apply to the proposed development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the areas set aside for buffers appeared to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Staff also noted screening would be required to the north where adjacent to single-family zoned properties. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 5 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the October 28, 2004 Subdivision Committee Meeting. The applicant has indicated the dumpster location for proposed Lot 2 on the site plan and included a note concerning screening. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed as required by the zoning ordinance or at a minimum on three sides at least two feet above the finished grade of the container. The applicant is requesting the creation of a two lot plat through the planned development process. The requested subdivision will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a lot without public street frontage. The proposed lot will be served by a sixty foot access and utility easement through Lot 1. The applicant has indicated a development sign will be located near the front drive. The applicant has indicated the sign will be a ground mounted monument style no more than ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. The proposed signage is consistent with signage allowed in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The applicant has also indicated a tenant ground mounted sign, maximum allowed by ordinance, near the western property line. Staff is not supportive of the requested signage. Staff feels the placement of two signs on this single development is not consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The applicant has indicated Lot 1 will develop with a restaurant and Lot 2 will develop with an office/commercial development. The applicant has indicated the proposed uses for Lot 2 are those listed in the O-3, General Office Zoning District along with the Conditional Uses and the Accessory Uses with no limit on the percentages allowed. Typically, an O-3 development is allowed ten percent of the gross square footage to develop with the listed accessory uses. The listed Conditional Uses requires approval from the Commission. The site plan includes the total building coverage for each lot. The total building coverage for proposed Lot 1 is 5.69 percent and for proposed Lot 2 is 28.3 percent. The applicant has indicated the development of Lot 1 as a restaurant with 3,000 square feet of building space and 50 parking spaces. The total lot area contains 1.21 acres. The proposed lot area is more than adequate to meet the minimum required lot size for a commercially zoned site but not in compliance with minimum lot sizes typically required under the Highway 10 Design Overlay District or 2 acre minimum lot sizes. The proposed parking is also adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand for a restaurant. The typical minimum parking required for a restaurant would be 30 parking spaces. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 6 The applicant has indicated an office development on Lot 2 consisting of 21,000 square feet of office space and 8,200 square feet of commercial space. The applicant has indicated 116 parking spaces to serve Lot 2. The typical minimum parking required for the site would be 93 parking spaces based on one space per 225 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum demand. The applicant has indicated a reduced building line adjacent to Cantrell Road and a reduced landscape buffer along Cantrell Road. The applicant has indicated an 80-foot building setback (100-foot typically required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District) and a 35-foot landscape buffer (typically 40-feet by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District). Staff is not supportive of the reduced request. Other sites, which have redeveloped in the area have typically maintained the integrity of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Staff feels the developer is requesting to overbuild the site and the proposed site plan does not maintain the integrity of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to landscaping and front building line placement. The applicant has requested a Planned Office Development to develop the site with the indicated uses. The percentage of office and commercial use is consistent with percentages allowed in the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Office Development. Staff does not feel however, the proposed development is appropriate to the site. With the placement of a restaurant on the lot abutting Cantrell Road and the office building located to the rear of the site the overall development will be commercial in character and is not consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Plan. A Land Use Plan for this site has been filed on this agenda as a separate item (Item # 10 – File No. LU04-01-07). Staff feels the proposed request is inconsistent with the adopted plan and feels the change to the plan is inappropriate. With the development of this site as a “commercial development” staff feels this will expand the previously identified commercial node at Taylor Loop thus “stripping out Cantrell Road”. Since the zoning request is inconsistent with the City’s Land Use Plan and the development will have a commercial character, staff is not supportive of the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 2, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter requesting the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 public hearing. Staff stated the request would require a waiver of the By-laws for the late deferral request. A motion was made to January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7603-A 7 waive the By-laws for the later deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated January 13, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the March 3, 2005 public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6973-C NAME: Big Red Fina Car Wash – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: SW corner of David O Dodd and Colonel Glenn OWNER/APPLICANT: TerraForma, LLC/Andrew Hicks, Architect PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of an automatic car wash in conjunction with a proposed convenience store on this C-3 zoned property. The application is associated with a proposed commercial plat; (S-1423-A) The Village at Colonel Glenn Revised Preliminary Plat. 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located at the southwest corner of David O Dodd and Colonel Glenn Roads. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located within the large commercial node which extends along Colonel Glenn Road from Lawson Road to Talley Road. The area is characterized by new commercial and office warehouse developments. Several new developments are under construction or in the planning phase; including a bank, car dealership and a 500,000 square foot shopping center. The proposed convenience store and automatic car wash are compatible with uses and zoning in the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified 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 is off of two proposed access easements; one on the south and one on the west. The access easements also serve the other lots in this commercial subdivision. There is no direct access to either David O Dodd or Colonel Glenn Roads. Thirty-seven (37) parking spaces are provided on the site in addition to stacking space at the pump islands, the restaurant’s drive-through window and the car wash. There appears to be sufficient parking on the site for the proposed uses. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-C 2 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Compliance with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinances is required. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet with ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. From the previous comment on rezoning a portion of this property: Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required plus additional right-of-way for turn lanes at the arterial to arterial intersection. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way must be shown on the plat. 2. From the previous comment on rezoning a portion of this property: David O Dodd is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required plus additional right-of-way for turn lanes at the arterial to arterial intersection. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way must be shown on the plat. 3. The site plan does not match the approved preliminary plat. An access and utility easement must be shown along the entire western property line between lots 1 and 2. The shared driveway is to be located at least 300 feet back from the adjacent right-of-way line. 4. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Two additional lanes are required on David O Dodd and 2 ½ lanes on Colonel Glenn. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any additional land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 8. Street Improvements plans shall include signage, striping and signal modifications. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-C 3 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Fifteen (15) foot additional easement needed adjacent to and south of right-of-way of Colonel Glenn Road due to OSHA, if any sign to be erected at a later time. CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments 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 the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in additional to normal charges. 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). If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 11, 2004) The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed regarding signage, building design and fencing. Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were presented and discussed. Staff noted that the plan did not correspond with the previous approved plat. Staff stated the plat needed to be amended to add the additional property and to address the issues related to driveway locations and access easements. Staff stated this item needed to be deferred due to the outstanding plat issues. It was suggested that the application could be placed on the same agenda as the January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-C 4 amended plat. The applicants asked if there was any way to keep this C.U.P. application on this agenda. Staff responded again that the item needs to be deferred due to the outstanding plat-related issues. The applicant was advised to continue to address staff issues on this application. STAFF ANALYSIS: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a single-tunnel, automatic car wash in conjunction with a convenience store with gas pumps/restaurant to be constructed on this C-3 zoned, 1.78 acre lot. The convenience store/restaurant development is allowed by-right in C-3. The proposed car wash requires a C.U.P. The proposed development consists of a single building containing the convenience store and fast food restaurant; a detached canopy over six (6) fuel pumps; and the car wash tunnel building. Thirty-seven (37) parking spaces and the associated driveways are also included. The facility will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The car wash building is fourteen (14) feet in height and will be built of split face block. A prefab, internally illuminated awning will wrap around the structure. The awning will not extend above the vertical wall of the building. All car wash equipment will be located within the building. A single sign reading “Touch Free Car Wash” will be incorporated into the awnings on each of the four (4) sides. Signage on the awnings is not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the awning. The applicant has responded to various issues raised by staff. The lot has been reconfigured slightly to conform to the proposed preliminary plat. The car wash building has been reoriented and the driveways have been altered to eliminate traffic conflicts. Landscape issues appear to have been addressed and signage on the site will conform to commercial district standards. Although not shown on the site plan, the menu board speakers for the restaurant drive-through must comply with the baffle and screen wall requirements of Section 36-298.(1) of the Code. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. for the single-tunnel, automatic car wash subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-C 5 Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow awning signage on each of the 4 facades of the car wash building subject to the signage not exceeding 50% of the surface area of the awning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 16, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the January 20, 2005 agenda to be heard at the same time as a revised preliminary plat for the subdivision. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the January 20, 2005 meeting by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the “Staff Recommendation” above; including the awning sign variance. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 1. FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 NAME: Otter Creek Phase 11 Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the East end of Rosewall Lane DEVELOPER: Diamond Development Company 9201 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Parkway Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 8.62 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 33 FT. NEW STREET: 1110 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a 15-foot front building line for proposed Lot 1. 3. A variance from the Master Street Plan to allow an increased length of a cul-de-sac street. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the subdivision of this 8.62-acre tract into 33 single- family residential lots. The applicant has indicated the average lot size of 69-feet by 125-feet or 8,625 square feet. The proposal includes the development of 1110 linear feet of new residential street with the development of a new cul-de- sac street. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Master Street Plan to allow an increased length of the proposed cul-de-sac street. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 2 The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has indicated the proposed lot depths as 82.96 feet and 95.83 feet respectively. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced front building line of 15-feet for proposed Lot 1. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with a scattering of trees. There are single-family homes located to the north and west of the site. There is a vacant tract located to the east of the site currently zoned PCD. The PCD zoning was approved in 2003 to allow the development of a mini-warehouse facility. A recently constructed multi- family complex is located to the southeast of the site. Northeast of the site is the Stagecoach Village residential development containing attached single-family homes. South of the site is vacant land zoned R-2, Single-family which was included in the preliminary plat for the Westfield Subdivision. A single cul-de-sac street has been proposed to extend to the north from the Westfield Subdivision for the development of an additional forty plus single-family home sites. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. The abutting property owners along with Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Otter Creek Homeowners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Show street curb lines on the plat for a standard residential street. Because the street exceeds 750-feet, a sidewalk would normally be required. 2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 3. Strom water detention ordinance applies to this property as shown on the plat. 4. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 5. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for more information. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. 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 at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were concerns with a few of the indicated lots. Staff stated Lots 1 and 2 did not meet the minimum depth requirement. Staff also stated proposed Lot 15 did not appear to be buildable with the existing power line easement. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick indicate the proposed street curb lines on the plat for a standard residential street. Staff noted the proposed cul-de-sac exceeded 750-feet and a sidewalk would normally be required. Staff stated a grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) would be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 4 site. Staff stated site grading and drainage plans would need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Staff also stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the property as indicated on the plat. Staff stated a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality would be required prior to the start of construction. There was a general discussion concerning the existing floodplain/floodway located in the area. Staff stated the site was not located in the existing floodplain/floodway. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated a variance request for the increased length of the proposed cul-de-sac street. The indicated street is 1110 feet in length. The Master Street Plan typically allows a maximum length of 750 feet, serving 35 single-family lots and 26-feet of pavement. The applicant has indicated a 5-foot sidewalk to extend along the proposed street. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s proposed street design. The applicant has indicated the development of 33 single-family lots on this 8.62- acre site. The applicant is proposing a density of 3.82 units per acre; consistent with single-family development. The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 8,625 square feet with a minimum lot size of 7,173 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has indicated the proposed lot depth of 82.96 feet and 95.83- feet for these two lots. The ordinance typically requires a minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The lots’ area is adequate to meet the 7,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance; 7,731 and 7,173 square feet respectively. The applicant is also requesting a 15-foot front building line on proposed Lot 1. The remainder of the lots are proposed with a 25-foot front building line. Staff is supportive of the indicated variances. The lot area is adequate to meet the minimum standard of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow development of single-family homes. Staff does not feel the reduced lot depth or reduced building line will have any adverse impact on the adjoining lots. The applicant has addressed staff’s concerns with the developability of proposed Lot 15. The applicant has indicated a structure, which would allow an 1,800 square foot (heated and cooled space) home with a garage could be constructed January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 5 on the proposed lot. Staff is satisfied with the indicated developability of the proposed lot. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The developer is requesting the development of 33 single-family lots at a 3.82 unit per acre density. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the development should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced front building line for proposed Lot 1 of the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Master Street Plan to allow an increased length of a cul-de-sac for the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2 and the requested variance to allow a reduced front building line for proposed Lot 1 of the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Master Street Plan to allow an increased length of a cul-de-sac and the construction of the roadway as a minor residential street for the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-45-A-60 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a decreased lot depth for proposed Lots 1 and 2 and the requested variance to allow a reduced front building line for proposed Lot 1 of the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Master Street Plan to allow an increased length of a cul-de-sac and the construction of the roadway as a minor residential street for the Otter Creek Phase 11 Subdivision. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-969-E NAME: Chenal Commercial Park II Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road DEVELOPER: Dietz and Bowman Realtors 4221 Richard North Little Rock, AR 72117 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm 201 South Izard Street P.O. Box 3887 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 13.619 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 380 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-2, Shopping Center District PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District CENSUS TRACT: 42.10 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the entire site without imminent construction plans for the portion of the site containing 5.97 acres and five proposed lots. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a commercial cul-de-sac street. 3. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow lots with reduced street frontage for Lots 2 – 6. 4. An in-lieu contribution for storm water detention. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A preliminary plat was approved for the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision on March 15, 1993, which allowed for the creation of 6 lots. This 13.6 acre site was January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 2 shown on the approved preliminary plat as Lot 6 of the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision. Lots 3 and 5 of the Chenal Commercial Park have been final platted (August 31, 1995 – Lot 5 and July 24, 1998 – Lot 3). Lot 3 remains undeveloped, while Lot 5 was developed as a multi-family apartment complex. Wellington Hills Road, which bisects the commercial subdivision, has been constructed and currently provides access to the Villages of Wellington Subdivision located to the north. The applicant now proposes the subdivision of this 13.619-acre tract indicated as Lot 6 on the Chenal Commercial Park Subdivision into six lots, which are zoned C-2, Commercial Shopping District. One of the indicated lots contains 7.64 acres and the remaining 5.97 acres is to be developed as a five lot commercial subdivision, accessed by a proposed cul-de-sac off of Chenal Parkway. The seven-acre tract is proposed to have two access points. One access drive is proposed off of Chenal Parkway, and the other from Wellington Hills Road. The applicant has indicated a deceleration lane that begins east of the proposed cul-de-sac, with a full width turn lane extending uninterrupted to Wellington Hills Road. The plans also include development of the Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road intersection. The applicant is requesting the City provide and install signalization improvements at the intersection. The applicant has indicated the developer has immediate plans for the development of the 7.64-acre tract (proposed Lot 1) but does not have immediate plans for the remainder of the site. The applicant has indicated the 5.97 acre tract will be marketed as a single site or as individual lots not to exceed five lots. The applicant is requesting to perform earthwork throughout the 13.619 acres. The applicant has indicated the 7.64 acre tract consists of terrain that will result in excess cut material that is needed to fill the lower areas within the 5.97 acre or proposed five lot subdivision area. The applicant has indicated a 35-foot buffer along Chenal Parkway and a 40-foot buffer along Wellington Village Road. The applicant has indicated the intent is to retain existing trees throughout both buffers, except they propose to remove underbrush, and 8 inch and smaller caliper trees from within the buffers. The applicant is seeking three variances from existing City ordinances. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site. The applicant has indicated the cut material from proposed Lot 1 will be utilized to fill proposed Lots 2 – 6. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 31-285 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The ordinance states cul-de-sac streets shall not be permitted as termination devises for commercial streets. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow lots with a reduced street frontage. The site is zoned C-2, Shopping Center District. The ordinance requires C-2, Shopping Center District zoned properties to have lots with not less than three hundred feet of district frontage on at least one January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 3 abutting street, whether for single or multiple building/lot development. The applicant is also requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required storm water detention. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located on the corner of Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road. Chenal Parkway is a divided roadway with the westbound lanes located adjacent to the site. A traffic light and median break are proposed for the intersection however, there is not currently a break in the median to allow eastbound travel at this location. There is a large multi-family complex located to the northeast of the site and Parkway Village Retirement community is located further to the east. To the north of the site is a vacant tract zoned O-3. To the west of the site across Wellington Hills Road is a tract zoned PDC to allow the development of the Saturn automobile dealership. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The abutting property owners along with the St. Charles Property Owners Association, the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association and the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of a right-turn lane per ASHTO standards will be required for Wellington Hills Road and Dietz Road. Turn lanes may need to be lengthened depending on future drive locations. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances and the Master Street Plan. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for more information. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 4 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for Lots 2, 3 and 6. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: A ten-foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required around the perimeter of the property and adjacent to the interior street. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. 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 comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff stated they had previously met with the applicant and provided them with comments, which needed addressing. Staff stated due to a scheduling conflict the applicant was unable to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting after the meeting was rescheduled. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 5 Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating the request was for the subdivision of a tract into six lots. Staff stated the area was previously approved as a preliminary plat for a single lot but neither development nor final platting had occurred. Staff stated the site was currently zoned C-2, Shopping Center District which typically required a minimum lot size of five acres. Staff stated through an overall development plan, lots less than five acres could be established and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff noted comments from the various reporting departments and agencies and there was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The proposed site plan includes the placement of a turn-around on the existing drive located along the eastern property line. The applicant has indicated the drive will not be extended through the platting of this site. The applicant has indicated the subdivision of 13.619 acres into six lots. The lots are currently zoned C-2, General Commercial District which typically requires a lot size of five acres except where a subdivision plan and plat proposing peripheral lots and multiple ownership is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant has indicated the lots range in size from 7.64 acres to 0.88 acres. The applicant has indicated Lot 1 will contain 7.64 acres and the remaining 5.97 acres will be subdivided into no more than five lots or held as a single tract. The proposed average lot size of Lots 2 – 6 is 1.15 acres. The applicant has also indicated a 40-foot building line adjacent to the street sides for the indicated lots. The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Chenal Parkway and Wellington Village Road per the City and Master Street Plan requirements. The developer is proposing to “punch through” the median of Chenal Parkway allowing for access to the eastbound lane. The applicant has indicated all improvements will be in roadway construction and is requesting the City install the proposed traffic signal at the intersection. The City is not currently prepared to install a traffic signal at this location. The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for storm water detention. The applicant has indicated the proximity of the Rock Creek to the site and states storm water detention would only hinder the peak flows rather than enhance the peak flows. The applicant has indicated storm water would be detained only to be released at the time the peak flows from the watershed reach the discharge site. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels the required storm water detention facilities should be placed on the site per ordinance requirement. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 6 The applicant has indicated the proposed driveway locations on the preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated shared drives in a few locations and individual drives in other locations. Staff would recommend drives be shared on the lot lines of Lots 2 and 3 and Lots 4 and 5 (as indicated). Staff would also recommend the drive on proposed Lot 6 align with the drive shared by Lots 2 and 3. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow lots to develop with a reduced lot frontage. The ordinance requires lots to have a 300-foot district frontage on at least one abutting street for each lot. The proposal includes the development of Lots 2 – 6 with less than the minimum district frontage required. Staff is supportive of this requested variance to allow a reduced lot frontage abutting a street. The proposal includes the placement of a cul-de-sac street 380-feet in length to serve Lots 2 – 6. The Subdivision Ordinance specifically states commercial streets must not terminate in a cul-de-sac street. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of the indicated cul-de-sac street as proposed. The street will be constructed to Commercial Street standard or 36-feet of paving in a 60-foot right-of-way. Staff is supportive of this requested variance. The applicant has indicated the roadway per commercial standard and staff does not feel the placement of a cul-de-sac street to serve the proposed lots will have any adverse impact on adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in two phases with proposed Lot 1 being constructed in the first phase. The developer is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of proposed Lots 2 – 6 with the development of proposed Lot 1. The applicant has indicated the site is such that the cut material from Lot 1 will be used as fill material for proposed Lots 2 – 6. The developer has indicated to allow the advanced grading will balance the cut-and-fill; reducing the amount of dirt to be hauled off the site only to reenter the site upon development of the future phase. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels the Land Alteration Ordinance was put in place to prevent scarring of lands, which would have a negative impact on adjoining properties. Staff feels without development plans for the indicated area, advanced grading should not be allowed. Staff is supportive of aspects of the proposed preliminary plat but is not supportive of the requested variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance or the requested in-lieu contribution for storm water detention. In addition, the City is not prepared to fund a traffic signal as requested by the developers at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road. At this time, there are too many outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for staff to January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-969-E 7 recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff will continue to work with the applicant prior to the public hearing to resolve as many issues as possible. At this time staff recommends denial of the request as filed. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated they were requesting the item be deferred to the February 3, 2005, Public Hearing to allow the item to be discussed with a Conditional Use Permit which had been filed for one of the proposed lots. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1423-A NAME: The Village at Colonel Glenn Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: Terraforma, LLC P.O. Box 13437 Maumelle, AR 72113 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 13.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District and C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow reduced driveway spacing. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for a large portion of this site on April 22, 2004. The applicant requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 12.8 acres into 12 non-residential lots zoned O-3, General Office District and C-3, General Commercial District. The applicant indicated driveways would be shared for the majority of the lots. Common access drives were to provide circulation between the various lots and the public streets. The applicant indicated street improvements would be constructed per the Master Street Plan and the lots would be final platted individually as the market demanded. The applicant indicated street construction would be placed on the entirety of the street when any lot abutting the street was final platted. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1423-A 2 The average lot size proposed for the subdivision was 150-feet by 300-feet or 1.3 acres. The minimum lot size proposed was 0.73 acres. The proposed preliminary plat indicated a twenty-five foot front building line on all lots. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved preliminary plat by changing the name of the proposed subdivision and adding a small sliver of property located adjacent to Colonel Glenn Road. The preliminary plat was originally filed as Colonel Glenn Center and the applicant now wishes to name the proposed subdivision the Village at Colonel Glenn. The applicant has indicated additional property located in the northeast corner of the proposed addition at the intersection of Colonel Glenn and David O Dodd Road. The proposed subdivision now contains 13.9 acres of commercially and office zoned properties. The average lot size proposed is 150-feet by 300-feet or 1.03 acres. The minimum lot size proposed is 0.73 acres. The proposed preliminary plat contains shared driveways and common private drives providing interior access to all the proposed lots. The applicant has indicated 26-foot interior drives and a 31-foot east/west drive. The applicant has indicated all the original plat conditions continue to apply to this request. The sliver of property that is being added to the plat is currently being rezoned to C-3, General Commercial District. There is also a Conditional Use Permit application that is currently being reviewed (a separate item on this agenda Item #F, File No. Z-6973-C) for the placement of a convenience store and carwash on proposed Lot 1. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Portions of the site are vacant and portions contain single-family homes scattered along Lawson Road. There is an existing grocery store located on the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, which is not a part of the proposed request. Areas along David O Dodd Road are primarily vacant and tree covered. The roads are unimproved roadways with open ditches for drainage and no curb, gutter or sidewalk in place. Other uses in the area include the Rave Theater and vacant C-3 zoned property located immediately to the east. There are other developed and vacant properties located further to the east, south of Colonel Glenn Road and west of I-430. To the north of the site is a site zoned POD which has developed as an office/warehouse development. West of the site is a PDC for Kinco Construction Company and also single-family homes located on tracts. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1423-A 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All abutting property owners, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Plans indicate developer will construct all boundary streets to Master Street Plan standards. This includes right-of-way widths of 30-feet to centerline on Lawson Road, 45-feet to centerline of David O Dodd and 55-feet to centerline of Colonel Glenn. Additional right-of-way required for turn lanes at intersections. Revise the plat to show the required right-of-way widths on all streets. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for more information. 5. A commercial street width of 24-feet does not meet the Master Street Plan requirement. Provide a 36-foot street width. 6. The Lot 7 driveway is significantly closer than the required 300-feet (166-feet provided). Drive access must be from Lot 8. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. Entergy: A ten-foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required adjacent to all lot lines. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. A water main extension will be required in January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1423-A 4 order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated in April of 2004, a preliminary plat was approved for a majority of the site. Staff stated the current request was a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat to add a small area. Staff stated a Conditional Use Permit was also being considered to place a convenience store and carwash on proposed Lot 1 as a separate item on this agenda (Item #F, File No. Z6973-C). Staff stated the indicated Lot 1 did not appear to match the site plan for the Conditional Use Permit application. Staff requested Mr. White verify the proposed lot lines and drive accesses on the preliminary plat. Public Works Comments were addressed. Staff stated all boundary street improvements would be required on Lawson Road, David O Dodd Road and Colonel Glenn Road. Staff stated a commercial street width of 24-feet for the internal drive did not match the Master Street Plan requirement. Staff stated a 36-foot wide access drive would be required. Mr. White questioned the driveway width. Staff stated they would support a 31-foot east/west connection and 26-foot internal drives. Staff noted a grading permit would be required prior to the start of construction and the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the property. Staff requested the storm water detention facility to be indicated on the proposed preliminary plat. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1423-A 5 Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has revised the plan to indicate the lot area of Lot 1 to coincide with the proposed lot area for the proposed Conditional Use Permit (Item #F, File No. Z-6973-C). The applicant has also indicated the internal drives as 31-feet for the east/west connection and 26-feet for the internal access easements. The applicant has revised the preliminary plat to provide the right-of-way for Church Street to arterial standard. The indicated driveway for proposed Lot 7 is approximately 166-feet from the intersection of Church Street. The ordinance typically requires driveway spacing at a minimum of 300-feet from the intersection. Staff recommends access to Lot 7 be taken from Lot 8. The applicant has indicated boundary street improvements will be constructed to the adjoining streets as development occurs. The applicant has also indicated storm water detention facilities on the proposed preliminary plat. The proposal includes the development of 13.9 acres currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District and O-3, General Office District with 12 lots. The minimum lot size proposed is 0.73 acres and the average lot size proposed is 1.3 acres. The indicated lots are adequate to meet the typical minimum ordinance requirement for each of the indicated zonings which both require a minimum lot area of 14,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 100-feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the revision of the indicated preliminary plat to change the name and to add a small “sliver” of property to the site should have minimal impact on adjoining properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends access to proposed Lot 7 be taken from proposed Lot 8. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1423-A 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of access to proposed Lot 7 be taken from proposed Lot 8. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1467 NAME: Tucker’s Replat of Tract 1, John D. Shackleford Acres Addition LOCATION: Located at 19001 Kanis Road DEVELOPER: Stephen R. Wilson 1013 Shobe Road Bryant, AR 72202 ENGINEER: James Farris, P.L.S. 1485 Southern Hills Drive Conway, AR 72034 AREA: 4.54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 21 – Burlingame CENSUS TRACT: 42.02 Variance/Waivers: A waiver of the required street improvements to Kanis Road and Stewart Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the subdivision of this 4.54-acre tract into two lots containing 1.37 acres and 3.32 acres. There is an existing home located on proposed Lot 1A and a new home (a multi-sectional manufactured home) will be added to proposed Lot 1B. (The Multi-sectional manufactured home is a separate item on this agenda; Item No. 11, File No. Z-7768). The applicant has indicated dedication of right-of-way for the two roadways, Kanis Road and Stewart Road but is requesting a waiver of the required Master Street Plan boundary street improvements to these roadways. The proposed plat indicates a building line of 35-feet. The applicant has indicated Central Arkansas Water will serve the lots. There is an existing home on the site with an existing septic system. A new septic system will be added to serve the new home. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1467 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single-family home located on the northwest portion of the site. The remainder of the site is relatively flat and cleared. Kanis Road and Stewart Road are unimproved roadways with open ditches for drainage. Both Kanis Road and Stewart Road are indicated as principal arterial streets per the Master Street Plan. Across Kanis Road is a row of single-family homes located on smaller tracts. Across Stewart Road is a mixture of uses including non-residential and residential uses. There is a temporary contactor’s materials yard located on the southeast corner of Kanis Road and Stewart Road being used by the contactor for Central Arkansas Water extending the waterlines in this area. Further east at the intersection of Kanis and Denny Roads is a tract zoned C-3, General Commercial District containing a commercial business. There is a church located east of the C-3, General Commercial District zoned site on R-2, Single-family zoned property. On the northern corner of the intersection is a C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District zoned site with a second hand store located on the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed right-of-way widths as shown on the plat are acceptable. 2. Provide the design of streets conforming to Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development or obtain a Board of Directors waiver for the proposed improvements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Located outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1467 3 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Approval of the City of Little Rock is required prior to service. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: 1. Driveway permits will be issued by Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department. Contact the Road and Bridge Department at 340-6800 for additional information. 2. Lots shall be developed with minimal waste. 3. Show width of paving for Kanis Road and Stewart Road. 4. Indicate right-of-way width of Stewart Road. 5. Provide a separate description for right-of-way dedication. 6. Provide an additional tie to a forty corner. 7. Show all building setback lines. 8. Provide the lot areas in acres and/or square feet. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff stated due to a scheduling conflict the applicant was unable to attend the rescheduled Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff stated they had met with the applicant prior to the Committee meeting and addressed the issues raised with the applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request to the Committee members present. Staff stated the request was to allow a lot split to place a second home on one of the proposed parcels. Staff stated the new home was a separate item on the agenda (Item #11, File No. Z-7768) being filed as a Conditional Use Permit, since the home was a multi-sectional manufactured home. Staff noted the additional items necessary to complete the plat review process. Staff stated the owner was working with his engineer to resolve the outstanding issues. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1467 4 Public Works Comments were briefly discussed. Staff stated street improvements would be required unless the Board of Directors approved a deferral or waiver. Staff noted historically they had supported a waiver of street improvements for a lot split for residential development. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised concerning the proposed request. The proposal includes the replatting of a 4.54-acre tract into two lots. The lots are indicated as 1.38 acres and 3.16 acres. The site is located outside the City Limits of Little Rock but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The applicant has indicated Central Arkansas Water will provide the water service to the site but wastewater will be collected and treated by a septic system. The existing homes is served by a functioning septic system and the applicant has provided an approval from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed new system. The proposed plat indicates a dedication of right-of-way for both Kanis and Stewart Roads of 45-feet from the centerline. The applicant has also indicated a 35-foot front building line adjacent to the indicated roadways per the Subdivision Ordinance for lots abutting an arterial roadway. The applicant has also noted Pulaski County Planning’s comment concerning a 40-foot setback from all property lines. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required Master Street Plan improvements to Kanis Road and Stewart Road. The applicant has stated the construction of the roadways (Kanis and Stewart Roads) to Master Street Plan standard is not economically feasible at this time and would create an undue hardship on the applicant. The applicant has stated the current use of the property is solely residential. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver for the residential lot split. Staff would recommend at the time of redevelopment, the required improvements be once again be considered. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels if developed as proposed, the development should have minimal impact on adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1467 5 Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the required street improvements to Kanis and Stewart Roads for this residential lot split. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested waiver of the required street improvements to Kanis and Stewart Roads for this residential lot split. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1468 NAME: West Heights Place Replat LOCATION: Located in the 3900 – 4000 Block of Foster Street DEVELOPER: M.E. Seckt Ltd. Company 608 Nan Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: James Farris 1485 Southern Hills Drive Conway, AR 72034 AREA: 0.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance to allow a reduced lot width (56-feet) for Lots A and D. 2. A waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements to Foster Street. 3. A request for an in-lieu contribution for required storm water detention. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 0.77-acre parcel into four lots. The original plat for the area indicated the area as a lot, an undeveloped tract and a 50-foot right-of-way for Foster Street. The Little Rock Board of Directors recently abandoned the right-of-way for Foster Street but maintained a portion of the right-of-way as a utility easement. The applicant is now proposing to include the previous right-of-way within the plat area. The proposal includes the development of four lots with an average lot size of 8,443 square feet. Two of the indicated lots have a proposed width of 56-feet January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1468 2 while the other two lots have an indicted lot width of 60.45-feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced lot width for proposed Lots A and D. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required street improvements to Foster Street. The applicant stated water was not located adjacent to the proposed lots and a water main extension was required to serve the lots. The applicant has stated with the expense of the water main extension and the required street improvements the overall development cost of the lots is too great to allow the project to be economically feasible. The applicant has indicated a 7.5-foot easement (15-foot total easement) on the common property line of proposed Lots B and C; a portion of the previously abandoned right-of-way, which was maintained as a utility easement. A ten-foot utility easement is also located along the rear property line of each lot. The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required storm water detention facilities. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and there are very few homes located along Foster Street in this area. There is one house located between West 38th Street and West 42nd Street on the west side of Foster Street and two homes located on the east side of Foster Street. There is an existing City Park located across Foster Street; the Kiwanis Park, containing 13.642 acres. West of the site along Weldon Street and West Street are also vacant properties with only a scattering of homes. The roads in the area are unimproved roadways with no sidewalks in place. West 40th Street within the proposed plat area was recently abandoned. Along the Kiwanis Park northern boundary, West 40th Street, east of the site, does not exist. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The abutting property owners along with the John Barrow and the Campus Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Prior to final platting, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan for a 26-foot residential street. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1468 3 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The property would qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of building permit. 3. In the abandonment of West 40th Street by the Board of Directors, all or part of the former West 40th Street right-of-way was retained as an easement. Provide verification that the proposed easement width of 15-feet is adequate. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Chuck Clifton was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was a replat of a previously platted lot, an area previously held as a tract and the incorporation of a right-of-way for West 40th Street which was recently abandoned. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide the total number of lots in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat, the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Staff also requested the applicant provide a note concerning the floodplain/floodway in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1468 4 Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated street construction would be required adjacent to the lot frontage. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the proposed site. Staff stated an in-lieu contribution would be acceptable at the time of building permit. Staff questioned the easement retained from the right-of-way abandonment for West 40th Street. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 29, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the total number of lots in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat, the source of water and the means of wastewater disposal. The applicant has also provided a note in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat concerning the floodplain/floodway for the proposed lots. The applicant is requesting the creation of four lots from a previously platted lot and a previously held tract. The applicant has indicated the total area of the site is 0.77 acres and the average lot size is 8,443 square feet. Lots B and C have been indicated with a lot width of 60.45 feet, adequate to meet the minimum lot width requirement per the Subdivision Ordinance. Two of the four lots will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of lots with less than the 60-foot minimum lot width requirement. Lots B and C are indicated as 56-feet in width. The property is zoned R-2, Single-family which typically requires a minimum lot width of 60-feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for a reduced lot width for proposed Lots B and C. Although the site is zoned R-2, Single-family there are several lots in the area, which are platted as 50-foot by 150-foot lots. Staff feels the indicated 56-foot lots should not have any negative impact on the adjoining properties since the indicated lot width is somewhat consistent with previously platted lots in the area. The applicant has indicated the source of water as Central Arkansas Water and the means of wastewater disposal as Little Rock Wastewater Utility. The applicant has also indicated the area is not located in a floodplain/floodway. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot front building line for each of the lots. The applicant has also indicated a 10-foot easement along the rears of the lots. There is an existing utility located along the common lot line of Lots B and C. The applicant has indicated a 15-foot easement (7.5-feet on each lot) per the request of Wastewater. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1468 5 The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the required storm water detention facilities. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required street improvements to Foster Street. Per the Master Street Plan, the creation of new lots typically requires abutting streets to be constructed to “standard”. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline but is requesting a waiver of the required Master Street Plan requirement of street construction and the placement of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels it is important to secure the required street improvements at the time of development or redevelopment. The redevelopment of the site involves the creation of four lots from a previously platted lot and a previously held tract. Staff feels the improvements are important in this case since there is an increase in density from the previously platted lot. Typically, when areas redevelop, the required street improvements are installed at the developer’s expense. Staff does not feel a waiver is warranted in this case since the request is not a lot split but the developer is increasing the number of building sites available to the area by three new home sites. Staff is supportive of the proposed lot layout but is not supportive of the applicant’s request for a waiver of the required street construction. Staff would recommend the proposed street be constructed to Master Street Plan standard as a part of the replat request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow lots A and D to development with a reduced lot width. Staff recommends Foster Street be constructed to Master Street Plan standard as a part of the replat request. Staff recommends approval of the requested in-lieu contribution for storm water detention. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Chuck Clifton was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested preliminary plat but with a recommendation of denial of the applicant’s request for a waiver of the required street improvements. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1468 6 The Commission questioned the current condition of Foster Street. Staff stated the roadway was a chip seal road with approximately 18-feet of pavement and open ditches. Staff stated if developed the road would be an island of curb and gutter until additional development occurred in the area. Mr. Clifton addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the area was not a subdivision under development but a subdivision under redevelopment. He stated the area was previously platted with a lot and a tract or two building sites. He stated water was not located in the area and his firm had paid the expense to extend the waterlines into the area, which would allow for additional development. He stated the water was located four blocks away, which was an expensive undertaking. He stated with the expensive of the water and the required street improvements the development cost of the lots was too expensive to allow for new homes to be constructed in the market range for the area. Commissioner Floyd stated in his opinion when curb and gutter were put in place and there was no other curb and gutter there was a potential to created drainage problems for the areas. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request including a deferral request verses a waiver request for the required street improvements. Staff stated a deferral request was not an option since the developer would sell the lots and there would be no way to hold him responsible for the improvements. Staff stated in addition the applicant was not requesting a deferral but a waiver of the required improvements. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat and the requested variances. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made to waive the required street improvements to Foster Street. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1470 NAME: Carter No. 1 Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 12500 Arch Street Pike DEVELOPER: Rocky M. Carter 12500 Arch Street Pike Little Rock, AR 72206 ENGINEER: Edward Lofton, RLS 15415 Oak Court Little Rock, AR 72206 AREA: 2.59 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: Area not zoned PLANNING DISTRICT: 28 – Arch Street South CENSUS TRACT: 40.06 Variance/Waivers: A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Arch Street Pike. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site was created as a result of an illegal subdivision. The applicant is now requesting a review by the Little Rock Planning Commission to allow the site to become a legal subdivision so that the applicant may receive water service for future development. The applicant plans to construct a building to house a pawnshop. The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way to meet the Master Street Plan requirement but is requesting five-year deferral of the required street improvements. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1470 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located outside the City limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction in which the City exercises subdivision control only. The site is vacant with a scattering of trees. Little Rock Tool is located to the north of the site and Mechanics Limited is located to the south of the site. The area contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses. There are both site built and manufactured homes scattered throughout the area. Arch Street Pike is a State Highway, which is a two lane rural roadway with open ditches for drainage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one visit from an adjoining property owner concerning the proposed request. The abutting property owners along with Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Arch Street Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required. 2. With final platting, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. Public Works would support a five- year deferral of the required improvements. 3. This plat is outside the corporate limits but within the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. No grading permits or storm water detention is required by the City of Little Rock. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1470 3 Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: 1. Survey must meet minimal standards. 2. Verify AHTD does not require dedication of additional right-of-way. 3. Indicate basis of bearing and basis of elevation. 4. Driveway permit should be issued by AHTD. 5. Setbacks should be shown and should conform to all applicable requirements. 6. Identify the purpose of the easement shown along the south line. 7. Specify intended use for this proposed addition. 8. Indicate adjoining parcel owner(s) and current uses. 9. Make the boundary line darker, more distinguishable. 10. Identify all monuments found and set during the course of the survey. 11. Surveyor shall make an additional tie to a forty corner. 12. Please indicate the area in acres and/or square feet. 13. Will there be a Carter No. 2 Addition? 14. Erosion control plans and details should be submitted to this department before any clearing. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Ed Loftin and Mr. Rocky Carter were present representing the request. Staff stated the proposed plat was a single lot plat located outside the City Limits but within the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the City did not exercise zoning jurisdiction in the area but did exercise subdivision control. Staff noted the lot was created as a result of an illegal subdivision and the applicant was requesting a preliminary plat to resolve the illegal subdivision issues. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1470 4 Staff requested Mr. Lofin provide additional information on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested he provide the names of owners of all abutting lands. Staff also requested information concerning the proposed wastewater collection system. Staff stated the owner would also be required to submit a letter from the area volunteer fire department stating their ability to serve the proposed lot if developed. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Arch Street Pike was classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. Staff noted a dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from the Centerline would be required as indicated on the proposed plat. Staff also noted street improvements would be required unless a deferral was approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the development will contain one lot consisting of 2.59 acres. The site is located outside the City limits of the City of Little Rock but within the City’s Exterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The City does not exercise zoning jurisdiction in the area only subdivision control. The lot is the result of an illegal subdivision and the applicant is requesting a review to “clear-up” the subdivision and allow the owner to receive water service. The applicant has provided documentation from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed septic system and has provided a letter from the area volunteer fire department concerning their ability to serve the site with fire protection. The applicant has indicated dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline per the Master Street Plan. The applicant is requesting a five-year deferral of the required street improvements to Arch Street Pike. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant has indicated there is not sufficient development in the area to warrant the required street construction at this time. The applicant has indicted if there are significant changes in the area the roadway will be constructed at the end of the five-year deferral period. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for a five-year deferral of street improvements to Arch Street Pike. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1470 5 The applicant has indicated the names of owners of abutting landowners on the proposed plat per staff’s request. The applicant has also indicated a 40-foot building setback on the proposed plat. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for a single lot plat. The request is to allow an existing lot, which was created as the result of an illegal subdivision, to come into compliance with the City of Little Rock’s Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The indicated lot is adequate to provide an on site septic system for wastewater collection. Staff does not feel if approved as a single lot plat, there will be any adverse impact on the adjoining properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a five-year deferral of the required street improvements to Arch Street Pike. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a five-year deferral of the required street improvements to Arch Street Pike. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-1471 NAME: Chenal - Kanis Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road DEVELOPER: Jim Lasley 5110 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 4.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 Variance/Waivers: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developer proposes to develop three commercial lots on 4.1 acres located at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. The lots will front on Chenal Parkway with common driveways providing access within the development and to Kirk Road. The common drive to the north will be constructed over an existing 39-inch raw water line in a 50-foot right-of-way owned by Central Arkansas Water. The applicant states the proposed roadway will create a similar situation as Target, Home Depot, and Parkway Mazda, which were allowed to construct access drives within the water line easement. The proposed driveway would also serve the property to the north by providing access to Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road. The applicant has indicated right-of- way dedication per the Master Street Plan along Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road. The site plan indicates a deceleration lane will be constructed adjacent to the proposed lots. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1471 2 The proposal includes the development of three lots ranging in size from 1.17 acres to 1.46 acres with an average size of 1.36 acres. The applicant has indicated front building lines of 25-feet. A 40-foot access and utility easement is proposed along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3 and access to the site is proposed along the northern boundary of Lot 1. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered. There is an electrical transmission line located along the northern perimeter of the site. Chenal Parkway is a four lane median roadway constructed with curb and gutter but no sidewalk adjacent to the site. There is a convenience store located to the east of the site at the intersection of Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. Kirk Road has been improved at the intersection with Chenal Parkway but is a narrow two-lane road adjacent to the proposed site. North of the site is vacant property also zoned C-3, General Commercial District as is the property located West of the site, across Chenal Parkway. Other uses in the area include retail, automobile sales and a golf driving range. North of the site is a mixed-use development which includes office, retail and a Post Office. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. The abutting property owners along with the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association and the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Right-of-way width is acceptable, however the right-of-way width and turn lane improvements must extend the full length of the property frontage on Chenal Parkway. 2. The standard conditions shown on the plat as “Public Works Notes” apply to the property. 3. Then new Commercial Street located on the north side of the plat should line up with the existing commercial street to the east. Street widths at all locations must meet the Master Street Plan standard of 36-feet in width. 4. Street lighting is required. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code of ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for additional information regarding street lighting requirements. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1471 3 5. Provide a grading plan showing existing and proposed street grades. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: A ten-foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required adjacent to all lot lines. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Coordination of this development with the raw water line and 50-foot wide right-of-way owned by Central Arkansas Water is needed. Protection of the raw water line is of primary concern. Contact Central Arkansas Water to discuss requirements for this development. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1471 4 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the proposed request was a preliminary plat to subdivide this 4.1-acre parcel currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District into three commercial lots. Staff stated there were several issues related to the proposed request most specifically related to Central Arkansas Water’s comments. Staff stated the proposed site plan indicated a roadway along the northern perimeter of the site, which was not located on the applicant’s property. Staff stated CAW had concerns with the protection of the raw waterline, which was located under the proposed roadway. Staff also requested the applicant provide a preliminary storm drainage analysis and preliminary storm drainage plan for the proposed site. Staff stated the note concerning right-of-way dedication should not include names of staff members and staff requested the applicant provide the proposed driveway locations. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the right-of-way width and turn lane improvements should be extended the full length of the proposed property frontage along Chenal Parkway. Staff stated the indicated turn lanes were not practical from a traffic safety standpoint without continuing the entire length of the parkway. Staff also requested the proposed driveway location along the northern boundary align with an existing drive located across Kirk Road. Staff stated the street width at all locations should be a minimum of 36- feet in width. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The northern drive is located within a 50-foot right-of-way owned by Central Arkansas Water. The applicant has indicated they will purchase from Central Arkansas Water the 50-foot right-of-way and grant Central Arkansas Water an easement for the existing raw water line. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant must secure the property prior to final platting. The applicant has also provided a preliminary storm drainage analysis and preliminary storm drainage plan for the site. The applicant has indicated the proposed driveway locations on the preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1471 5 two drives from Chenal Parkway and indicated a 40-foot access easement on the shared property lines of Lots 2 and 3. The applicant has indicated a continuous right turn lane along Chenal Parkway as requested by Public Works. The applicant has also indicated they do not own the property adjacent to Kirk Road to allow the proposed drive extending from the site to align with an existing drive on Kirk Road. Staff is supportive of this configuration since the applicant does not own the property and is unable to secure the property to allow for the driveway alignment. The applicant has indicated a 25-foot front building line for the lots abutting Chenal Parkway. The site is zoned C-3, General Commercial District which typically requires a 25-foot front building line. The indicated front building line is adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. The proposal includes the development of this 4.1-acre tract with three commercially zoned lots. The lots average 1.36 acres and range in size from 1.17 acres to 1.46 acres. The indicated lot sizes are more than adequate to meet the minimum lot size requirement of existing City ordinances. The applicant has indicated the street improvements will be constructed at the time of final platting and the development will be phased based on market demand. Staff is supportive of the phasing plan provided the street improvements are constructed in a manner as to not cause traffic conflicts or safety concerns. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. As indicated staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the applicant securing the area currently indicated as the northern drive from Central Arkansas Water prior to final platting. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. The applicant must secure the 50-foot utility right-of-way from Central Arkansas Water and grant the utility an easement prior to final platting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also stated the applicant must secure the 50-foot utility right-of- January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1471 6 way from Central Arkansas Water and grant the utility an easement prior to final platting. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S-1473 NAME: Griffin Preliminary Plat LOCATION: located on the Southwest corner of West 24th Street and Walker Street DEVELOPER: Griffin Construction Company 1914 Calgary Trail Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: Lemons Engineering Consultant, Inc. 204 Cherry Street Cabot, AR 72023 AREA: 1.12 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park CENSUS TRACT: 24.03 Variance/Waivers: 1. A waiver of the required street improvements to West 24th Street and Walker Street. 2. A variance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots A – D of the proposed subdivision. The applicant failed to provide staff with the required additional information from the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the March 3, 2005, Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to provide staff with the required additional information from the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the March 3, 2005, Public Hearing. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8. FILE NO.: S-1473 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S-1472 NAME: Pavilion in the Park Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: 8201 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Pavilion in the Park, LLC 11001 Executive Center Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 501-227-8700 ENGINEER: Development Consultants, Inc. 2200 N. Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 501-221-7880 AREA: 4.59± Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 ALLOWED USES: General Commercial PROPOSED USE: Mixed Office and Commercial with addition of drive-thru bank facility VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Parking variance; 239 required, 211 proposed BACKGROUND: To meet the 285 space parking requirement at the time Pavilion in the Park was constructed, a detached parking lot was constructed across Andover Court, to the east. A new, commercial development was later constructed at the site of this detached parking lot. The loss of this detached lot left Pavilion in the Park with only 201 on-site parking spaces which encircled the building. It was the applicant’s contention that the change in the use mix of the occupants of Pavilion in the Park substantially reduced the parking requirement. By calculating the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1472 2 parking requirement based upon the occupancy percentages presented by the applicant, a total of 229 on-site spaces were required. This number was considerably closer to the 201 spaces actually provided on-site. On December 27, 1994, the Board of Zoning Adjustment granted a parking variance subject to the square footage of leasable retail space not exceeding 39% of the gross floor area or 25,087 square feet; and the square footage of leasable restaurant space not exceeding 10% of the gross floor area or 6,432 square feet. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The proposal before the Planning Commission is a request to add a bank drive- thru facility in the southwest portion of the site. The area is presently used as parking and would be remodeled to provide three teller lanes, an escape lane, a 330 square foot building and a canopy over the teller lanes. Parking on the site would be reconfigured to provide a total of 211 parking spaces. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a three story, 65,078 square foot mixed-use building and an 800 square foot detached building. A 201± space parking lot encircles the main building. A single driveway provides access off of Andover Court. A secondary access is provided through the adjacent property on the west to Cantrell Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and the Andover Square Neighborhood Association. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Extensive replacement will be needed. Provide appropriate handicap ramps with sidewalk construction. 2. Storm water detention will not apply to the proposed development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1472 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Water: There is a private fire hydrant in this vicinity. Approval of the Little Rock Fire Department will be required, determining whether access to this fire hydrant and access to the building for fire protection are impaired. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. The Hwy. 10 Express Route does pass in front of the site. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comments. Landscape Issues: No Comments. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff had previously met with the applicant and had discussed the issue. Staff informed the Committee of the requested parking variance. Staff had requested a signage plan and elevations of the proposed teller building. Public Works and Utility Comments were presented. The Committee determined these were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1472 4 H. ANALYSIS: The C-3 zoned tract located at 8201 Cantrell Road is occupied by a 65,078 square foot; three-story mixed use building; a separate 800 square foot building; and associated parking and drives. The applicant proposes to construct a free- standing bank teller facility on the back of the property, southwest of the large building. The new facility will contain a 330 square foot teller building and a canopy which will cover two teller lanes and an ATM lane. The facility will be constructed over an existing paved parking area. The teller facility will be built of brick and precast concrete with a 10/12 pitched, shingled roof. Signage will consist only of a wall sign on the east elevation, facing the large building, and a wall sign on the north elevation, at the entry to the teller facility. The architectural drawing submitted by the applicant appears to show a roof sign on the north elevation. Only a wall sign which complies with City Code standards will be permitted. The site has a ground-mounted, tenant sign on the Cantrell Road Frontage. Some minor changes will be made to the existing parking on the site; resulting in a total of 211 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a parking variance and is committing to the following uses: x 45% office; 29,793 square feet @ 1/400; requiring 74 spaces. x 45% commercial; 29,794 square feet @ 1/300; requiring 99 spaces. x 10% restaurant; 6,621 square feet @1/100; requiring 66 spaces. The 211 proposed parking spaces represent 88% of the required number of 239 spaces. This ratio is the same as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment under a 1994 parking variance. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections D, E and F of the Staff Report. 2. Uses on the site must adhere to the use mix proposed by the applicant (45% office, 45% commercial, 10% restaurant). 3. The two signs on the proposed teller building must be wall signs which comply with City Code standards for wall signs. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1472 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the “Staff Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusing (Williams). January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-4555-C NAME: Lot 1, Ardoin Industrial Subdivision Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION: NW corner of Clearwater Drive and Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: Pete Ardoin 7400 Enmar Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick #10 Otter Creek Court, Suite “A” Little Rock, AR 72209 501-455-8899 AREA: 2.5± Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-1 ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial PROPOSED USE: Office/Showroom/Warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. 40-foot setback from R-2 zoned property to the north; 100 feet required. BACKGROUND: In 1986, an 8.6± acre tract including this site was rezoned from MF-18 to I-1. In 1995, a two-lot plat was approved along with a zoning site plan to build a 30,000 square foot light industrial building on Lot 2. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: I-1 is a zoning site plan review district. The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for Lot 1 which includes a 19,800 square foot warehouse building, a 27 space parking lot and a truck loading/unloading area. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4555-C 2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is cleared and undeveloped. The property is located in an industrial park setting that currently contains several office/warehouse buildings. Properties along this portion of Shackleford Road are zoned I-1, PID and R-2. Many of the properties, including those to the north and east are undeveloped. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and the Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Shackleford Road and Clearwater Drive. 2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one- half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Match curb line to the south. Show the improvements on the plan. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The detention facilities as shown on the plan appear to be too small. Provide calculations that demonstrate adequate area is provided. 6. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and leaving the property and existing contours. 7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. Contact Traffic Engineering at January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4555-C 3 (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Locate drive 300’ from the adjacent Clearwater Drive right-of-way. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of 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. 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 hydrant per code. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comments. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4555-C 4 Landscape Issues: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. Interior landscape islands are 529 square feet less than the 1,213 square feet required by the landscape ordinance. A twenty-four (24) foot wide land use buffer is required to separate the proposed development from the residential property to the north. Seventy percent (70%) of this buffer is to remain undisturbed. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern perimeter of the site. An automatic irrigation system to water the landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 29, 2004) Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed on signage, building design, use mix, fencing and dumpster location. The applicant was instructed to redesign the parking lot to provide minimum stall and driveway dimensions, to provide approval from Central Arkansas Water for use of the private access drive and to provide a completed owner authorization form. Staff noted that Lot 1 had not yet been final-platted. Staff informed the Committee of a variance to allow a 40-foot setback on the north. It was felt that the adjacent property, although zoned R-2, would not develop as residential and the variances was appropriate. It was noted that the lot was platted with a 25 foot building line on Shackleford Road, which superceded the ordinance requirement of a 70-foot setback. Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were all noted. Staff stated the proposed driveway on Clearwater Drive was allowed since it was shared with the property adjacent to the west. The applicant was directed to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, January 5, 2005. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes the construction of a 19,800 square foot office, showroom and warehouse building on this I-1 zoned, 1.92 acre tract. The I-1, Industrial Park District, requires site plan review by the Planning Commission. The proposed development also includes a 27 space parking lot and a truck January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4555-C 5 loading/unloading area. Access is from a driveway onto Shackleford Road and a shared driveway off of Clearwater Drive. The building will be sectioned-off into as many as 8 units with loading bays in the rear of the building. The building will be 22 feet in height and will be constructed of concrete tilt walls with a flat metal roof. Hours of operation for the businesses within the building are proposed to be 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week. On January 5, 2005, the applicant responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. A 6-foot tall, wood privacy fence has been shown along the north property line. Three dumpster locations are shown at the rear of the building. They are to be screened to comply with code requirements. Interior landscaping has been increased and the parking lot has been redesigned to meet minimum stall depth and maneuvering area. A single, ground-mounted sign is shown at the southeast corner of the site. The sign will comply with ordinance standards for industrial districts; 30 feet in height and 72 square feet in area. Wall signage will comply with ordinance standards. Although the I-1 district typically requires a 70-foot front yard setback, this lot was platted with a 25-foot building line. The building is set at 58 feet. The Ordinance requires a 100-foot setback from buildings on I-1 zoned properties to any residentially zoned property. The property to the north is zoned R-2 and the proposed building has a setback of 40 feet. That adjacent R-2 zoned property is vacant and it is staff’s opinion that the property will not develop as residential. Also, since the adjacent property is zoned R-2, a 24-foot land use buffer is required. The applicant has proposed an 18-foot buffer and the installation of a 6-foot tall, wood privacy fence. The driveway locations have been addressed. The applicant has not yet addressed Public Works’ concerns about storm water detention and improvements to Shackleford Road (Public Work Comments 2, 5 and 6). Staff is supportive of variances from the building setback and land use buffer requirements. The proposed building is to have a use mix of 60% warehouse, 30% office and 10% showroom. Use of the building must comply with allowable uses in I-1, including the definition of office, showroom and warehouse. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed 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 Staff Report. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow a 40-foot building setback on the north and to allow an 18-foot buffer on the north. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4555-C 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined the “Staff Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7768 NAME: Wilson Multisectional Manufactured Home – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 410 Stewart Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Elmer Tucker/Stephen Wilson PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for placement of a multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned, 1.38 acre tract. This proposal is associated with a proposed preliminary plat to create a two-lot subdivision (S-1467, Tucker’s Replat). 1. SITE LOCATION: The site is located at the southwest corner of Kanis and Stewart Roads. The property is outside the city limits but within Little Rock’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The site is located in an area that is more rural than urban in nature. There is a variety of housing types in the general area; including site built and manufactured homes. Most homes are on larger tracts. Large areas of undeveloped woodlands and pasture are also located in the general vicinity. A scattering of smaller, non-residential uses is located along Kanis Road to the east. Placement of a multisectional manufactured home on this 1.38 acre tract appears to be compatible with uses and zoning in the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Parkway Place Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. As of this writing, staff has received several informational telephone calls. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: A single driveway is to be provided, providing access from Stewart Road. One on-site parking space is required. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No Comments. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7768 2 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: (Comments from plat review; S-1467, Tucker’s Replat) 1. The proposed right-of-way widths as shown on the plat are acceptable. 2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development or obtain Board of Directors waiver for the proposed manufactured home. 3. Street improvements required unless a board waiver is obtained. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comments. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Approval of the City of Little Rock is required prior to service. Fire Department: Outside service boundary; provide written comments from local volunteer Fire Department which serves this area. County Planning: 1. A driveway permit should be obtained from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department 340-6800. 2. The proposed driveway is too close to the property line. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff had met with the applicant earlier and had gone over any issues. Staff presented the item and noted additional information January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7768 3 was needed on the proposed home. The applicant had been asked to provide the means of wastewater disposal and approval from the local volunteer fire department. Public Works, Utility and County Planning Comments were noted. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for placement of a multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned, 1.38 acre lot. This C.U.P. request is associated with a preliminary plat request to subdivide a 4.54 acre tract into two lots (Tucker’s Replat, S-1467). An existing single family home is located on what will be Lot 1A. The proposed manufactured home is to be located on what will be Lot 1B. The proposed manufactured home is comprised of three (3) sections totaling approximately 2,327.5 square feet. The home will have a vinyl siding exterior and a 4/12 pitched, shingled roof. The home will be set back approximately 150 feet from the front (Stewart Road) property lines. All other setbacks exceed ordinance requirements for R-2 zoned properties. A single driveway will provide access from Stewart Road. Required right-of-way dedication and proper building lines have been shown on the associated plat. Health Department approval for a septic system for the new lot has been provided. The West Pulaski Volunteer Fire Department has provided a statement confirming they will provide fire service. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. The applicant has responded to issues raised by staff and reflected in the analysis above. Staff believes the proposed use is compatible with uses and zoning in this 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 noted in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. 2. Compliance with the following siting standards from Section 36-254(d)(5) of the Code: January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7768 4 a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. c. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the “Staff Recommendation” above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-4213-H NAME: Bowman Plaza Revised Long-form POD LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: Boen Enterprise, LLC 10600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Parkway Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 16.366 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: POD and O-3 ALLOWED USES: 30% Commercial, 20% Office, 30% Warehouse and 20% Showroom PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD and O-3 PROPOSED USE: 30% Commercial and Combination of 70% Office, Warehouse, Showroom without limits placed on each use VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On March 4, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat (4 lots) and a POD (Lots 1 and 2) for this property at the northwest corner of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads. On April 6, 1999, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,974 approving a POD for Lots 1 and 2. The approved POD included the construction of two (2) office/showroom/warehouse buildings (one per lot) and associated parking areas. The following site specifics were approved: January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 2 1. Lot 1 - 63,575 square foot building and 79 parking spaces. 2. Lot 2 – 111,000 square foot building and 202 parking spaces. 3. Driveway from Bowman Road to serve Lot 1 and a shared driveway from Colonel Glenn Road (with access easement) to serve Lots 1 and 2. 4. A 50-foot undisturbed buffer along the north property line. 5. An in-lieu contribution for the future traffic signal at the intersection of Bowman and Colonel Glenn Roads. 6. Hours of operation – 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday – Friday. On June 22, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Revised POD application for a modified site plan design for Lot 2 only. The applicant subsequently decided to not pursue the revision to the POD and it was not taken to the Board of Directors. In December of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Revision to the POD to incorporate Lot 3 into the POD. The area of Lot 3 was used for additional parking to serve the development. The applicant was also granted a 5-year deferral of street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road along the frontage of Lot 3. The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 4 (zoned O-3, General Office District) to serve as overflow parking for Lots 2 and 3. The applicant proposed two parking lots with a total of 200 parking spaces. The future plan for Lot 4 included the addition of an office building. On May 9, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for approval a request to revise the previously approved POD to allow additional uses to be considered as allowable uses for the site. The applicant proposed to revise the allowable uses for Lot 2 to include specific C-3, General Commercial type uses as well as the previously approved uses of office, showroom and warehouse activities. The proposed C-3, General Commercial uses to be considered allowable for the Planned Development were as follows: Animal clinic; Antique shop (with repair); Auto parts and accessories; Bank or savings and loan office; Cabinet and woodwork shop; Camera shop; Catering, commercial; Church; Clinic (medical, dental or optical); Clothing store; College, university or seminary; Custom sewing and millinery; Duplication shop; Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization; Furniture store; Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork; Hardware or sporting goods store; Hobby shop; Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting; Laundry, domestic cleaning; Lawn and garden center, enclosed; Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use; Lodge or fraternal organization; Medical appliance fittings and sales; Office (general and profession); Office, showroom with warehouse (with retail sales, enclosed); Office equipment sales and service; Optical shop; Paint and wallpaper store; Photography studio; Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education; Recycling facility, automated; Retail uses not listed (enclosed); School (business); School (commercial, trade or craft); School (public or denominational); Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors); Studio broadcasting and recording; Tailor; Taxidermist; Travel bureau; Auto parts, sales with limited motor January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 3 vehicle parts installation; Home Center; Landscape service; Mini-warehouse; Office warehouse; Swimming pool sales and supply. The applicant also proposed to revise the percent mix of the development and the hours of operation. The applicant proposed the hours of operation to be 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday. The applicant proposed the use mix to be 30% Commercial, 30% Warehouse, 20% Office and 20% Showroom. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,694 on June 4, 2002, establishing the revision to the Bowman Plaza Revised Long- form POD. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved POD to allow for a use mix change to the site. The applicant is now requesting the use mix to contain 30 percent commercial uses as identified above and to allow 70 percent office, office/showroom/warehouse or office/warehouse. The previous approval allowed for 30 percent commercial, 20 percent office, 30 percent showroom and 20 percent warehouse. The applicant has indicated the marketing of the site is difficult with the approved percentages. The site plan includes 364 parking spaces and 111,000 square feet of leaseable space. This would result in the site being allowed 33,300 square feet of retail, as listed above, and the remainder (77,700 square feet) as any combination of office, office/showroom/warehouse or office/warehouse. The hours of operation are proposed as 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an office/showroom/warehouse building on Lots 1 and 2, which appears to be fully occupied. The parking areas for the development including Lot 4 have been constructed. The general area has a mixture of uses, including a mobile home park to the north and a few residential structures on large tracts to the west. A large office building is located at the northeast corner of Colonel Glenn and Bowman Roads. There is an automobile dealership and a new automobile dealership under construction to the south across Colonel Glenn Road. There is a convenience food store and a contractor’s office and storage yard located at the southeast and southwest corners of Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads. To the east is the Baptist School of Nursing and further east site work has begun for the development of new commercial building sites. There is also a large amount of January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 4 vacant property in the general area zoned C-3, General Commercial District and O-3, General Office District. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the John Barrow and Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment regarding change of use of the existing building. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Any restaurant constructed must have a grease trap installed to Little Rock Wastewater Utility standards. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to an approved long-form POD (Planned Office Development). This revision will not be changing any building footprints or allow any addition of commercial activities to the site. This request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 5 Master Street Plan: Bowman and David O’ Dodd Roads are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan and Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. A Class II bikeway is shown on Bowman Road from Colonel Glenn Road to Executive Center Drive. A Class II bikeway is located on the street as either a five-foot shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required. 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 Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to revise the allowable use percentages for the site but the developer was not requesting any additional commercial uses for the site. Staff stated the applicant was requesting the office, showroom, warehouse percentages be allowed at seventy percent maximum or a combination of the three. Staff stated there were few technical issues related to the proposed application. Staff noted the total building square footage was stated incorrectly in the general notes section of the site plan. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the total building square footage as 111,000 square feet and the total number of parking spaces as 364. The applicant is requesting a change in the allowable use mix of the site to include thirty percent commercial and seventy percent office, office/showroom or office/showroom/warehouse. The typical minimum parking required compared to the available parking indicates parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand. If the use mix of the site January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 6 were developed wholly with thirty percent commercial and seventy percent office, the most intense uses for the site, the typical minimum parking required would be 305 parking spaces. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. Staff does not feel the change in the use mix of the site will have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties. Parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand based on the most intense use of the site or seventy percent office and thirty percent commercial uses. Staff feels it is unlikely this will be the development pattern of the site since there are large areas of development constructed as warehouse space. In addition staff does not feel when a new office building is constructed on Lot 4 the increased percentages allowed for this site will have any adverse impact on the available parking for the new building. The applicant is requesting the hours of operation be approved as 8:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has indicated the commercial activities located on the site have extended hours. Staff is supportive of this request. There are commercial activities in the area, which operate with hours in excess of the hours being requested for the development. The applicant has not requested any change to the previously approved commercial uses for the site. The allowable 30-percent commercial uses are listed in the Background section of this report. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow up to seventy percent of the site to be utilized as an office, office/showroom or office/showroom/warehouse or any combination of the three with the remaining thirty percent to be commercial uses as listed in the Background Section of this report subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to allow up to seventy percent of the site to be utilized as an office, office/showroom or office/showroom/warehouse or any combination of the three with the remaining thirty percent to be commercial uses as listed in the Background Section of the above report subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4213-H 7 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-4411-D NAME: Coulson Oil Company Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road DEVELOPER: Coulson Oil Company, Inc. c/o Eddie Martin P.O. Box 68 North Little Rock, AR 72115 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 0.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Convenience Store PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Convenience Store – Allow a reduced rear yard buffer and landscape strip VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 20, 1994, through Ordinance No. 16,808, the City Board of Directors approved a PCD that would allow the development of a mixed use “Neighborhood Commercial” shopping center and an accompanying office development. The site was a 12.83 acre-tract and of the area, 11.48 acres was proposed to be developed as the shopping center. The proposed structure was 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking spaces were indicated. A 1.35-acre tract was to have 10,000 square feet of office building space with an additional 50 parking spaces. The uses proposed for the shopping center were all by-right C-2 and C-3 zoning district, except that there were to January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D 2 be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car washes within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office building were all uses by right in the O-2 and O-3 zoning district. The applicant proposed the development of this 0.27-acre tract as a convenience store with gas pumps. On January 9, 1997, the Commission reviewed a request for a change in the right-of- way dedication and street improvement requirement to Fairview Road. The developer requested all right-of-way dedication and street improvements be taken from the property located to the east of Fairview Road. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,331 on December 3, 1996, which allowed a five-year deferral of street improvements (or until development of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD) to Fairview Road. The Little Rock Planning Commission granted a three-year time extension for the proposed submission of the final development plan at their December 22, 1997, Public Hearing. The applicant submitted a Final Development Plan for the Pleasant Ridge Square Long-form PCD, which was approved on February 1, 2002. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,233 on November 9, 2004, establishing a revision to the Please Ridge Town Center PCD. The development is proposed as a 300,000 square foot retail center with restaurant space developed as a “Life-style Center”. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a revision to the existing PCD for Coulson Oil to add an additional driveway to the site and adjust the southern property line. The site plan indicates the drive will be added to the southwestern corner of the property to adjoin to the proposed driveway for Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The applicant has indicated with the adjustment, the existing Coulson PCD will function more appropriately with the approved Pleasant Ridge Town Center site plan. Coulson Oil is also proposing the sale of a portion of their lot to the Pleasant Ridge Town Center. The area proposed for sale is a portion of property along the south line. The sale of the property will result in a rear yard buffer and landscape strip that are less than the typical minimum required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Initially, the Coulson PCD abutted residential property. The applicant has stated with the approval of the Pleasant Ridge Town Center PCD, the reduced rear yard buffer appears more reasonable since PCD zonings abutting one another. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing convenience store with gas pumps. There is a fast food restaurant located within the convenience store. A retaining wall is located near the southern perimeter of the site appearing to be four to five feet in height. Located to the south and west of the site; is property recently approved as the Pleasant Ridge Town Center, a future mall development. The mall site consists of vacant land and single-family homes, which will be removed at the time of development of the mall site. There is a single-family home located across Woodlands Edge on R-2, Single- family zoned property. There are office uses located on O-3, General Office District zoned property to the east and north of the site. There is a church located on R-2, Single-family CUP zoned property to the northeast and a City of Little Rock fire station to the northwest also zoned R-2, Single-family. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area Neighborhood Association. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Walton Heights-Candlewood Property Owners Association, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Piedmont Property Owners Association and Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed driveway access is acceptable, however, because of the proximity to the signalized intersection, left turns into and out of the Coulson site will not be allowed from the northern-most driveway on Pleasant Ridge Town Center Drive. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: A ten-foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required adjacent to Cantrell Road. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D 4 Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10 Express Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to an approved PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to update property lines and redefine driveway connections to adjoining properties. This revision will not change any building footprints or uses on the site. This request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and the adjacent portion of Woodland Heights Road is shown as a Collector. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. 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 River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Sustainable Natural Environment Goal listed action statements of 1) Preserve the Highway 10 Overlay District, 2) Vigorously enforce the ordinance for hillside protection, and 3) Vigorously enforce the ordinance for the preservation of trees. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated there were few issues related to the proposed request. Staff noted the proposed driveway access was acceptable, however, because of the proximity to the signalized intersection, left turns into and out of the Coulson January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D 5 site would not be allowed from the northern-most driveway on Pleasant Ridge Town Center Drive. Staff noted there were few comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies but indicated if the applicant had any questions he should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the drive located nearest Cantrell Road as a right-turn in and out drive only. The applicant has indicated when the drive for the Pleasant Ridge Town Center is constructed, a median will be extended to direct traffic and not allow the motorists to enter the site at this drive location. Staff feels this is appropriate. Staff feels if motorists are allowed to enter the site on the drive located nearest Cantrell Road there is a potential for traffic conflicts and stacking onto Cantrell Road. With the extended median and the direction of traffic to the southern drive, these concerns should be minimized. The applicant is also requesting approval of a reduced landscape strip along the southern property line. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires a twenty-five foot landscape strip and in no case less than seven feet when located adjacent to a right-of-way. The development is located at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Woodlands Heights Road and along the rear is an access easement for the Pleasant Ridge Town Center. Although the landscape strip appears to be three feet at the narrowest point there are larger areas of landscaping located near Woodlands Heights Road and the access drive into Pleasant Ridge Town Center, which would increase the overall average of the landscape strip on the site. In addition, there is additional landscape which will be located on the Town Center property which will be combined with the Coulson’s landscaping strip, which will be give the appearance of an increased landscape strip. Also, per the Zoning Ordinance, buffering is not required when like zones are adjacent. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff does not feel the reduced rear yard landscape strip will have any adverse impact on adjoining properties. When the existing landscape strip was approved, the property located to the south was zoned R-2, Single-family. The zoning has since changed and is currently zoned PCD for the development of a shopping center. In addition, the strip will be combined with the landscaping for the Pleasant Ridge Town Center and give the appearance of a larger landscape strip. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4411-D 6 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs -West Planning District Location: North side Mabelvale West Road, half mile west of I-30 Request: Office to Mixed Use Source: Charlie Best, John Williams, JW, and Associates PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs -West Planning District from Office to Mixed Use and Public Institutional. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include areas east of this property to recognize existing Public Institutional operations. The Mixed Use category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three. The Public Institutional category includes public and quasi public facilities which provide a variety of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility substations, and hospitals. The applicant wishes to construct forty eight single family homes on the north side of the property, and unspecified office and commercial uses on the south portion of the property nearest Mabelvale West Road. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant, partially cleared of trees, and currently zoned O-3 Office and is 20.99 acres ± in size. North of the property is a large industrial operation in an area zoned I-2 Light Industrial District. Further north is additional I-2 land hosting industrial operations. Northeast and east of the site is an area zoned R-2 Single Family District consisting of the River of Life Church at the northern end, and single family homes on large lots paralleling the site’s eastern edge. The homes at the east vary in age and size ranging from early 1900’s construction to larger 1970’s era construction. About a quarter mile east of the site is a single family subdivision not accessible from the immediate area. East of the site and along Mabelvale West Road are parcels zoned O-3 General Office District occupied by a Jehovah Witness Freedom Hall, R-2 land with a Missionary Baptist Church, additional R-2 land with an in-house daycare operating under a CUP, undeveloped O-3 and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, an I-1 Industrial Park District for a chemical business, and vacant I-1 land. Additionally there is a tract of undeveloped land paralleling the local creek zoned OS -Open Space. Immediately south is zoned C-3 General Commercial District partially developed with a Post Office and remaining mostly vacant. Diagonally southwest of the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 2 property is R-2 occupied by the Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, and further south and west is undeveloped I-2 land. Also to the west are multiple vacant C-3 Commercial parcels and developed I-2 along Otter Creek East Boulevard. West of the property is a large area of R-2 remaining mostly undeveloped, and O-2 developed with the 30-acre Southwest Regional Medical Center. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: August 4, 2003, a change was made from Light Industrial to Commercial about three quarters of a mile northeast of the property at the southwest corner of I-30 and Mabelvale Pike for proposed and future development. April 2, 2002, a change was made from Single Family to Public/Institutional about a half mile to the west at the southeast corner of Mann Road and Cochran Street to recognize existing conditions. On September 19, 2000, a change was made from Mixed Use to Commercial about one quarter of a mile east north of Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Main Street to recognize existing conditions and allow for future development. The applicant’s property is shown as Office. To the north is Light Industrial and northeast of the property is Public / Institutional. Immediately east of the property is a strip of Park / Open space to recognize the floodplain along the adjacent creek. Further to the east is land shown as Single Family, Mixed, and Public / Institutional. Southeast and south of the property is shown as Mixed Commercial and Industrial. Also south and southeast of the property are Public/Institutional to recognize a Post Office and Magnet Middle School, and an area shown as Commercial. To the west of the property is land shown as Public / Institutional and Office. Northwest of the property is an area shown as Commercial fronting the I-30 Frontage Road. MASTER STREET PLAN: Mabelvale West Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The Little Rock 2004 Master Street Plan shows the proposed South Loop, a Principal Arterial with special design guidelines, immediately adjacent to the western edge of the property. The development of the South Loop section adjacent to the applicant’s property is not seen in the immediate future. Funding sources and design have not been identified. The section extending south from Mabelvale West Road to Alexander Road is funded and construction is anticipated to begin in 2006. Construction of this portion of the South Loop will create a two lane road with wide shoulders build to Principal January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 3 Arterial standards, in the future, additional lanes will be added. This section will be developed as a multiple lane controlled access Principal Arterial directly linking the area to the I-430/I-30 Interchange creating a link from outlying areas to two major interstates heading into Little Rock’s major Business Districts. A proposed Class I Bikeway is shown on the proposed South Loop from Mabelvale West Road South to Arch Street Pike. A Class I Bikeway is constructed separate from, or alongside a road. This application will not affect the proposed bikeway. PARKS: The property is about a quarter mile west of Pinedale Cove Park, a five acre neighborhood park featuring a playground and picnic area. However, accessibility is limited to this park due to the street patterns in the adjacent area. Walking distance to the park from the site is over one mile. Morehart Park is located about a half mile to the southeast of the site and is a 43 acres Community park with a variety of amenities including basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, a pavilion, playground, picnic areas, and restrooms. Due to the street patterns in the area walking access to this park is just under a mile. The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 show a “potential greenbelt” along the flood plain of the creek adjacent to the property’s eastern edge. Development of the study area will need to respect the integrity of the drainage system located in the 100-year flood plain of the creek as well as the integrity of the “potential greenbelt” shown in the plan. The applicant’s addition of residential will be able to utilize the existing greenbelt making the residential development more attractive and reinforce the Parks Master Plan’s greenbelt system. Staff encourages a connection or property dedication so the connection can be established in the future. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. 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 Infrastructure goal is to “have an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems, within the area, which is designed, and works to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment.” The plan listed several objectives to support this January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 4 goal: “Provide sidewalks on major roads near schools and “Construct the proposed South Loop.” Since this development is adjacent to the proposed south loop and kitty corner to a junior high school additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks may be required. Furthermore, the Traffic and Transportation Goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, around, and through the area,” with an action statement: “Install a caution light on Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Jr. High.” The additional traffic added to Mabelvale West by the addition of R-2 and C-4 may warrant this type of traffic mitigation. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal indicates a desire for “new single-family growth.” Several housing objective related to this case is to “Encourage the construction of new single family housing. Site built homes are preferable to manufactured homes,” and “Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area.” The action statement, “Encourage the City of Little Rock to provide incentives to spur private investment in the single-family residential market,” indicates a high desire for new single family housing in the area. Development of single property homes on this site would be consistent with the housing aspect of the neighborhood action plan. The Economic Development goal states: “Provide a mixed commercial/residential environment that will promote the safety, attractiveness, and value of the area while creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that encourages investment and diversity of employment opportunities.” Several objectives are relative to this case: “1) Attract better restaurants. (There is a need for sit-down restaurants.) 2) Attract neighborhood oriented businesses. 3) Attract a grocery store to the area.” The change to Commercial could be utilized for these types of businesses. ANALYSIS: The area is developed in both the rural and urban context. Various properties alongside Mabelvale West Road have developed with intense uses while other properties have lower intensity uses or remain vacant. In the area new construction has been minimal. Within the last five years new development has occurred about a half mile east on Mabelvale West Road in the Commercial area adjacent to the Mabelvale town center for a car wash. However, recently completed in the area is the new Interstate 30, Mabelvale West Road, and Otter Creek Road Interchange about a half mile west. The new roadway alignment, roadway improvements, and ease of access, could serve as a catalyst for new development in the area. The City of Little Rock Public Works has noted that land east of the applicant’s property will facilitate the proposed “South Loop,” consistent with the City of Little Rock 2004 Master Street Plan. The City has purchased the right of way on both sides of Mabelvale West Road at the proposed intersection and has a long term goal of securing additional land to the north. The design guidelines for the South Loop will have it intersecting with I-430 and I-30 less than a half mile northwest of January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 5 the development. Special design guidelines for this Principal Arterial have been adopted to regulate construction of the South Loop that will limit access to development adjacent to it (City of Little Rock Ordinance # 17,183) and create an at grade and elevated roadway alongside parts of the applicant’s property. Presently the City has some property set aside for the portion of the South Loop between Mabelvale West Road and I-430 and lacks funding for further land acquisition, design, and construction for this segment of the proposed South Loop. The design of the South Loop from Mabelvale West Road south to Alexander Road is anticipated to be completed soon with construction beginning in 2006. This section of the South Loop will be designed to Principal Arterial Standards and be constructed as a two-lane road with wide shoulders. An elevated crossing is anticipated at the nearby railroad tracks possibly making this a preferred route for area residents, and could also absorb traffic from nearby Sardis and Alexander Roads since an elevated crossing will provide faster movement from Saline County to Interstate 30. Since this site is located at what will be a high volume intersection in the future attention must be made concerning access to activities in the Mixed Use area, as well as the Mixed Commercial Industrial on the south side of Mabelvale West. Stacking distance alone will account for at least 400 feet (75%) of the Mixed Use area’s frontage onto Mabelvale West. Additionally the area will be land locked by the elevated South Loop to the West and the Creek to the west. If a use or uses were added to the area that would create hundreds of trips daily to or from this site traffic could be negatively impacted at the Mabelvale West - South Loop intersection. In order to avoid traffic conflicts on Mabelvale West any access to activities in the Mixed Use and southern Mixed Office Commercial should be located at least 400 feet west of the South Loop intersection. With the completion of the South Loop from Mabelvale West Road to Alexander Road additional area traffic will be likely. At the present time 15 acres of land zoned Commercial exists at the southeast intersection of the proposed South Loop and Mabelvale West Road. This land is also shown on the Land Use Plan as Mixed Commercial and Industrial. Furthermore, less than one tenth of a mile west, is an additional 10 acres zoned C-3 and partially shown as Commercial. At this time both areas remain mostly vacant with the exception of a Post Office at the corner of Mabelvale West Road and the proposed South Loop. The Land Use Plan shows the northern half of Mabelvale West Road as Mixed and Public Institutional with the southern half Commercial and Public Institutional. Adding Mixed Use to this area could introduce higher intensity and a mixture of uses immediately adjacent to a future high volume intersection. Furthermore, the Mixed Use designation require that developments utilize a planned zoning process bringing potential developments to both staff and public review, minimizing negative design impacts. The introduction of potential commercial and residential could compliment the non-developing office at this intersection, and would allow for developments set back from Mabelvale West Road possibly January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 6 encouraging non-strip development. With the planned zoning district requirement the typical pattern of development intensity, with higher intensity developments focused on Mabelvale West Road, could be preserved. Immediately southwest of the property is the Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, which serves over 600 students between the sixth and eight grades, and to the east and west of the site are multiple churches. The introduction of a potential commercial activities adjacent to several churches and a large school could lead to uses of conflicting interests. Generally, the Planning Staff’s philosophy is to separate uses of low and high intensity with uses of medium intensities and not place a Commercial area adjacent to areas shown as Public/Institutional or Single Family. However, this application would be buffered from the area shown as single family to the east by an existing Park/Open Space strip. Since the applicant is applying for a change to Mixed Use any development on the property can be better controlled by way of design and use types, because of the planned zoning district requirement. The mixed use aspect will allow the applicant’s property’s use intensities to be compatible with adjacent development, and allow intensification based on market demand. The Mixed Use category also allows residential development adjacent to Light Industrial, which might not be desirable. In the event that residential development occurs adjacent to the Light Industrial, the planned zoning district could help identify potential problems and identify solutions. Residential development on the site could range from single family homes to multi family dwelling units. Increased buffers may need to encouraged with the close proximity of the nearby Light Industrial area and the proposed South Loop to the property’s west. However, any residential development would be able to utilize the proposed greenbelt trail alongside the adjacent creek to the east indicated in the Parks Master Plan. Staff encourages a connection or a property dedication to the proposed greenway. Utilization of the greenbelt would be ideal, because it would reinforce the Parks and Recreation 8-Block Strategy to make every home accessible to recreation. The Parks 8-Block strategy is to create a city- wide linkage system providing everyone to parks and recreation within an 8-block radius of their home. Even though Morehart Park and Pinedale Cove Park are within 8-blocks of the site, accessibility will be limited by the South Loop, Mabelvale West, and alignment of area streets. Utilizing the greenbelt identified in the Parks and Recreation Plan could more realistically fulfill the 8-Block Strategy because it would be accessible to users in the Mixed Use area and the neighboring Single Family to the east. The Mixed Use category will also allow for redevelopment of any residential aspect into other uses in relative to market forces. The expanded area east of the site is intended to recognize an existing church. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 7 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Oxford Valley Homeowners Association, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, West Baseline Neighborhood Association, Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Pinedale Neighborhood Association, Santa Monica Neighborhood Association, Allendale Neighborhood Association, Town & Country Estates Neighborhood Association, Shiloh Homeowners Association, Chicot Neighborhood Association, Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, and Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association. Staff has received no comments on the proposed change. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate because it introduces a variety of uses into the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Donna James made a presentation of item 14.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 14. See item 14.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Valley Oaks Court Long Form Planned Office Development. Charles Best, speaking for the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. Commissioner Norm Floyd stated that the neighborhood action plan did state that there was a desire for new homes in the area but not in that context. Janet Berry spoke in opposition to the single family in relation to the South Loop arterial. She was objecting to the land use plan amendment because of the residential component. Mrs. Lynda Smallings objected to the small houses but would prefer office and commercial uses. Mr. Perry James was against the residential component and small lots. Margie Knowles spoke in opposition to the proposed change. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-15-01 8 John Williams, owner of the property, stated that he spoke with several area residents and indicated that there would be buffers between his property and the adjacent residential area east of the property. Commissioner Jerry Meyer spoke in favor of a variety of housing stock for the public and touched on economic reasons for needing such. Commissioner Pam Adcock perceived that the small houses would become rentals in a short time, and stated that she would be voting against the amendment. Commissioner Jeff Yates asked why the applicant would want to downzone his property. Mr. Williams responded that he thought he had a market for new homes. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 4 ayes, 7 noes, and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 14.1 FILE NO.: Z-4768-B NAME: Valley Oaks Court Long-form POD LOCATION: Located on Mabelvale West Road, just East of Southwest Hospital DEVELOPER: JW and Associates P.O. Box 59 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: Hurricane Valley, Inc. 1506 Prickett Road Bryant, AR 72022 AREA: 20.99 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 FT. NEW STREET: 2542 LF CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: Commercial, Office and Single-family Residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2004, the applicant withdrew a request to rezone this 20.99-acre tract from O-3, General Office District to R-2, Single-family and C-3, General Commercial District. The applicant proposed the North 14.9 acres with R-2, Single-family zoning and the South 6.19 acres fronting Mabelvale West Road with C-3, General Commercial District zoning. The rezoning was proposed for future residential and commercial development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing the rezoning of this 20.99-acre tract currently zoned O-3, General Office District to POD to allow the development of the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 2 property with a mix of single-family, office and commercial uses. The single- family portion contains 14.2 acres and is proposed with 47 lots. The applicant has indicated development of the single-family lots will be similar to lot development criteria established in the R-3, Single-family Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance. The office and commercial portion contains 6.19 acres and is proposed with 6 lots. The applicant has indicated Lots 1 and 2 will contain the commercial aspect of the development and is requesting to utilize the allowable uses listed in the C- 3, General Commercial District. The applicant has indicated Lots 3 – 6 will be developed as office uses and has requested O-3, General Office District uses as allowable uses. The average lot size proposed is 37,066 square feet with a maximum buildable area of 24,873 square feet. The maximum lot size proposed is 46,942 square feet and the minimum lot size proposed is 29,311 square feet. The applicant has indicated an average lot size for the single-family lots will be 8,930 square feet; a maximum lot size of 18,512 and a minimum lot size of 6,600. The applicant has indicated the average buildable area is 5,439 square feet. The applicant has indicated the minimum lot width of 51.97 feet. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located on the North side of Mabelvale West Road, approximately 0.66 miles east of Interstate 30. The property is currently undeveloped. The south portion of the property is grass-covered, with the northern portion of the property wooded. The general area along Mabelvale West Road contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There are single-family homes on large tracts to the east along Nash Lane, with two churches located on Mabelvale West Road. There is another church, a single-family home and a hospital located to the west. Industrial uses exist along I-30 to the north. A post office and undeveloped C-3 property is located to the south across Mabelvale West Road, with a middle school located to the southwest. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the public hearing. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 3 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Mabelvale West Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. The right-of-way appears to be shown correctly on the proposed plat, however the existing centerline is not shown. 2. Provide design of Mabelvale West conforming to the Master Street Plan (29.5-feet from centerline to back of curb). Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. 3. The proposed new street intersects Mabelvale West only 153-feet from the south loop right-of-way. Traffic Engineering recommends the new street be moved to the east edge of the proposed plat. Contact Bill Henry at 379-1816 for additional information. 4. Provide a 36-foot street width and sidewalk on one side through to the intersection at Lot 38. The remainder of the plat would qualify as a minor residential street with a 24-foot street width and no sidewalk. 5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The property may qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building permit. 6. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for more information regarding street light requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 4 Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Routes 17 and 17A, the Mabelvale- Downtown and Mabelvale-UALR Routes. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a POD (Planned Office Development) for commercial, office, and single-family home development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 14, File No. LU05-15-01). Master Street Plan: Mabelvale West Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The Little Rock 2004 Master Street Plan shows the proposed South Loop, a Principal Arterial with special design guidelines, immediately adjacent to the western edge of the property. The development of the South Loop section adjacent to the applicant’s property is not seen in the immediate future and funding sources and design have not been identified. The section extending south from Mabelvale West Road to Alexander Road is funded and construction is anticipated to begin in 2006. Construction of this portion of the South Loop will create a two-lane road with wide shoulders built to Principle Arterial standards. A proposed Class I bikeway is shown on the proposed South Loop from Mabelvale West Road South to Arch Street Pike. A Class I bikeway is constructed separate from, or alongside a road. This application will not affect the proposed bikeway. 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 Infrastructure goal is to “have an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems.” The plan listed several objectives to support this goal: “Provide sidewalks on major roads near schools” and “Construct the proposed South Loop.” Since this development is adjacent to the proposed South Loop and diagonally adjacent to a junior high school infrastructure January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 5 improvements such as sidewalks may be required. Furthermore, the Traffic and Transportation Goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, around, and through the area,” with an action statement: “Install a caution light on Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Jr. High.” The additional traffic added to Mabelvale West by the addition of single family and commercial uses may warrant this type of traffic mitigation. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal indicates a desire for “new single-family growth.” One housing objective related to this case is: “Encourage the construction of new single family housing.” Development of single-family homes on this site would be consistent with the housing aspect of the neighborhood action plan. The Economic Development goal states: “Provide a mixed commercial/residential environment that will promote the safety, attractiveness, and value of the area while creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that encourages investment and diversity of employment opportunities.” Several objectives are relative to this case: “1) Attract better restaurants. (There is a need for sit-down restaurants.) 2) Attract neighborhood oriented businesses. 3) Attract a grocery store to the area.” Any Commercial aspect of the development could be utilized for these types of businesses. Landscape: A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern and western perimeters of the site. However, since the property to the east is located within the floodway, the land use buffer and screening requirements may be deemed unnecessary. A land use buffer with an average width of twelve feet is required on both the eastern and the western perimeters of the proposed sites. Utility easements cannot count towards fulfilling the land use buffer area requirement. North of Lots 5 and 6 will require an average land use buffer width of eleven (11) feet; however, the proposed plan shows a utility easement in this area. Utility easements cannot be counted in satisfying the land use buffer requirement. Along Mabelvale Road the on site street buffer must be an average of twelve (12) feet in width. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Trees that are to be preserved will need protective fencing placed around the critical root zone areas prior to the beginning of any construction. This will need to be noted on the landscape plan. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 6 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Charles Best was present representing the request. Staff briefly explained the proposed development to the Committee members present stating the developer was requesting a mixed-use development containing a mixture of single-family, office and commercial uses. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the developer provide the lots to be designated as office and the lots to be designated as commercial in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. Staff also requested a more specific list of requested uses as listed in the Office District and the Commercial District of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff stated the average size of the lots and the minimum lot size should be included in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested a maximum build area be provided on the proposed site plan for the single-family and the non-residential properties. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Mabelvale West Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and dedication of right-of-way and street construction would be required. Staff also stated the proposed street to serve the subdivision intersected Mabelvale West only 153- feet from the existing City owned South Loop right-of-way. Staff stated the new street should be moved to the east to allow for additional spacing of the two intersections. Staff stated a commercial street would be required adjacent to the proposed non-residential lots. Staff stated a minor residential street could serve the interior portion of the proposed development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed non- residential portion of the development would require screening. Staff stated this could be accomplished through a fence or evergreen plantings along the eastern and western perimeters. Staff noted adjacent to the floodway the screening may be deemed inappropriate by the Commission. Staff noted utility easement could not count as fulfilling the buffering requirements. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the average lot size of the proposed lots, the maximum January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 7 buildable area and the requested uses for the non-residential portion of the development. The applicant has also met with Public Works staff to resolve issues which were raised concerning the proposed street location. The revised site plan has relocated the proposed entrance to the subdivision to the eastern property line and included the placement of a sidewalk along the commercial portion of the development. The proposal includes a request to rezone this 20.99- acre tract currently zoned O-3, General Office District to POD to allow the development of the property with a mixed use development containing single-family, office and commercial uses. The single-family portion contains 14.2 acres and is proposed with 47 lots. The applicant has indicated development of the single-family lots will be similar to lot development criteria established in the R-3, Single-family Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has indicated an average lot size for the single-family lots will be 8,930 square feet, a maximum lot size of 18,512 and a minimum lot size of 6,600. The applicant has indicated the average buildable area is 5,439 square feet. The applicant has indicated the minimum lot width of 51.97 feet. Staff is supportive of the indicated residential portion of the development. The office and commercial portion contains 6.19 acres and is proposed with 6 lots. The applicant has indicated Lots 1 and 2 will contain the commercial aspect of the development and is requesting to utilize the allowable uses listed in the C- 3, General Commercial District. The applicant is not requesting driveway locations along Mabelvale West Road. The applicant has indicated all access will be taken from the new street proposed to enter the development. The applicant has indicated Lots 3 – 6 will be developed as office uses and has requested O-3, General Office District uses as allowable uses. The average lot size proposed is 37,066 with a maximum buildable area of 24,873 square feet. The maximum lot size proposed is 46,942 square feet and the minimum lot size proposed is 29,311 square feet. Each of the lots will be reviewed as development occurs on each of the indicated lots through a revision to the POD. Staff is supportive of the proposed lot configuration and the applicant’s requested uses for each of the individual lots. The applicant has indicated the future South Loop roadway adjacent to the western perimeter of the site, which should alert potential buyers of the proposed roadway. The applicant has indicated the non-residential development adjacent to Mabelvale West Road. Staff feels the indicated location is appropriate for non- residential uses and with the indicated buffering of uses staff feels the impact on the residential uses will be lessened. The proposed site plan indicates green spaces to the north and east of the residential area, which in staff’s opinion will also aid in buffering the non-residential zoned properties to the north. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 8 Staff feels the development is appropriate for the site. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the development of the site with the indicated mixed-use development as proposed should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. All surveys for lots at the western side of the residential portion of the POD must indicate the presences of the proposed South Loop. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff noted all surveys for lots at the western side of the residential portion of the POD must indicate the presences of the proposed South Loop to alert potential homebuyers of the presence of the roadway. Commissioner Floyd stated he was concerned with the development of single-family homes adjacent to an elevated roadway, which was a principal arterial. He stated he felt the development of the homes in this area would not lead to a stable single-family neighborhood. He stated he felt the location would better serve office and commercial uses. Ms. Janet Berry addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she felt the area was not suited for single-family development since there was industrially zoned property to the north of the site and the proposed roadway to the west of the site. She stated the proposed development was not consistent with development in the area since most of the homes were located on larger lots or on acreage. She stated the neighborhood was interested in the development of single-family homes but did not feel this was the appropriate location. Ms. Linda Smalling addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her objection was to small homes on the property. She stated her ownership was to the east of the proposed development and she did not want to back up to a large number of small homes. She stated her preference would be commercial or office development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-B 9 Mr. Perry James addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he felt there was too much development on this small site. He stated he felt the site should be developed as currently zoned. Ms. Margie Knowles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the development would cause a huge influx of families into the area and a large number of children. She stated the indicated lots were not adequate to allow play area for children. She stated she felt a commercial development with residential tucked in behind was not the appropriate development for the area. Mr. John Williams addressed the Commission on the merits of the application. He stated he owned the property and felt the residential would be an asset to the area. He stated the plat would indicate the proposed roadway on the abutting lots and there was a buffer located along the eastern perimeter of the site. Commissioner Meyer stated not everyone could afford to live on large lots and acreage. He stated there was a demand for smaller homes on smaller lots. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the proximity to the proposed principal arterial. Commissioner Yates questioned the developer as to the reasoning behind the residential aspect of the proposal. He stated the felt the area was in need of starter homes ranging from 1100 to 1500 square feet. A motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment request. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 7 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made to approve the POD zoning request. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5654-B NAME: South Square Revised Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: South Square LLC 2851 Lakewood Village Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 11.17 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Retail and Restaurant with two buildings PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Retail, Restaurant and add an additional building to the site VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,415 dated May 4, 1993, established the Pilgrim Road Long-form PCD. The proposal included the placement of a Home Quarters facility on the site with 104,000 square feet of building and 30,000 square feet of garden center. The development also included the placement of 507 parking spaces with access provided off both Bowman Road and Hermitage Road. Two streets were closed as a part of the action, Alhambra Court and Pilgrim Road, both of which were streets bisecting the site. On September 19, 2002, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the placement of a second building on the site. The applicant proposed to add a single-story 5,662 square foot restaurant building in addition to the existing tenant Garden Ridge, which occupied 104,450 square feet of January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 2 building space. The applicant proposed 491 parking spaces as a part of the development. A single ground mounted sign was proposed as a part of the development located adjacent to Chenal Parkway. The sign was proposed to be a ground mounted monument style sign and 72 square feet or a maximum of 7’-1” x 9’-10” in area. In addition, building signage was proposed on the front and sides of the building. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved the request by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,761 on October 15, 2002. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the placement of a 12,000 square foot retail building or 7,500 square foot restaurant along Chenal Parkway in the northern portion of the site. Additional parking is proposed along the north side of Garden Ridge adjacent to the existing greenhouse. The site plan includes the placement of a total of 442 parking spaces on the site. The developer is requesting C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The developer is requesting a sign be added to the site. The developer has indicated the sign will be consistent with signage allowed in the Chenal Design Overlay District or a maximum of eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. Building signage will be placed on the front and rear of the building. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains two buildings containing Garden Ridge and an On the Border Restaurant along with an abundance of hard surface parking. The land area has a slight elevation change from the Hermitage/Bowman area falling to the east toward the Parkway at Autumn Road. The area around the site is a major commercial node that has developed intensely with a mixture of uses. Directly across Hermitage Road is an office/mini-warehouse development and a strip center faces Bowman Road. Wal-Mart and Sam’s are across Bowman Road to the west of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. The Birchwood, Parkway Place, John Barrow and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations along with all property owners January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 3 within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The new parking area on the north side of the existing building should not connect through to the truck entrance on the west side of the building. The driveway on Bowman was approved for truck access only. 2. No boundary street improvements are required, however, additional right-of- way is required at the corner of Bowman and Chenal Parkway for intersection improvements; City funded improvements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: A ten foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required all street sides. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. . Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. 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 at 918-3700 for additional information. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 4 County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #5, the West Markham Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PCD for addition of a building to the site. This request does not require a change to the land use plan. Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial, Bowman Road is shown as Minor Arterial, and Hermitage Road is shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas and the purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Entrances and exits are encouraged to remain on the adjacent Local Street to minimize negative effects on Principal and Minor Arterials. 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 Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. The Community Redevelopment (Land Use) Goal states, “Maintain and reinvigorate existing retail areas to provide active retail for local residents.” This application could complement and strengthen the existing retail uses in the area. Landscape: Property lines need to be clarified and elevations shown. Additional screening of the proposed structure from Chenal Parkway is recommended. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 5 G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating a third building was being sought for the existing site. Staff stated the applicant was also proposing the placement of additional striping in the parking lot and additional paving in the rear of the building. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if a new dumpster would be added to serve the new building. Staff also questioned if additional signage would be added to the site. Staff stated if building signage was to be located on both sides of the building this would also need to be a part of the approval process. Staff requested the applicant provide the treatment of the rear of the proposed building including openings, mechanical placement and construction materials. Staff stated the rear of the building would need to be attractive from the parkway as well as the interior of the site. Staff commented on the proposed uses verses the indicated parking. Staff stated the site plan included 474 parking spaces and 446 would be required based on the existing uses and uses. Staff stated if the new building were proposed as commercial activity, parking would be sufficient. Staff noted if a restaurant were proposed, the parking would be inadequate based on the indicated square footage of the new building. Staff stated clarification was needed for the proposed activity of the new building. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the new parking area on the north side of the existing building should not connect through to the truck entrance on the west side of the building. Staff stated the driveway on Bowman Road was approved as truck access only. Staff also stated a dedication of right- of-way was required at the intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway. Staff stated no boundary street improvements would be required. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated it was unclear as to the existing property line. Staff stated the property line needed clarification and elevations shown. Staff stated additional screening of the proposed structure from Chenal Parkway was recommended. Staff noted irrigation would be required to water landscaped area and a detailed landscape plan would be required at the time of building permit. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 6 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the proposed dumpster location, the right-of-way at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road and the rear of the building treatment and proposed building materials. The applicant has also indicated the property line and removed the driveway access from the truck access provided from Bowman Road. The applicant has indicated the dumpster near Chenal Parkway within the parking lot area. The applicant has indicated the dumpster will be screened on three sides to match the architecture of the proposed building. Staff is supportive of the proposed placement and the proposed screening of the indicated dumpster. The applicant has indicated a new sign will be added to Chenal Parkway to advertise the business. The applicant has indicated the sign will be a ground mounted monument style sign consistent with signage allowed in the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District or a maximum of eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. The applicant has indicated signage will be placed on the front and rear of the proposed building. The applicant has indicated signage will comply with signage allowed on commercial zones or no more than ten percent of the façade area will contain signage. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage plan. The applicant has indicated the site will contain a total of 442 parking spaces. The development contains a retail building with 104,450 square feet and a restaurant building with 5,662 square feet. The typical minimum parking required for the existing buildings is 279 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to add a 12,00 square foot retail building or a 7,500 square foot restaurant building to the site. If the building were constructed with general commercial uses the typical minimum parking required would be 40 spaces. If a restaurant is constructed the typical minimum parking required would be 75 parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for the three buildings would be 377 parking spaces or 412 parking spaces, respectively. The indicated 442 parking spaces provided is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a development of three buildings with the proposed uses indicated. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s parking plan. The applicant has indicated the rear of the proposed building will be constructed to match the architectural style of the entire building. The applicant has also indicated the mechanical equipment will be screened either on the roof or adjacent to the building and will not be visible from Chenal Parkway. Staff feels January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 7 the development should be attractive from the roadway as well as internally. Staff recommends the applicant provide the final elevation and the final building materials plan to staff prior to be building permit being issued to ensure compatibility and design from the adjoining roadway. The applicant is requesting a variance from the internal landscaping requirement for the new parking area. The applicant has indicated with the dedication of right-of-way at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road, providing additional landscaping is difficult. In addition, the applicant has indicated if the landscaping is installed near the existing greenhouse and along Chenal Parkway the service drive to the new parking area will be reduced. Staff is supportive of the request. When sites are redeveloped, it is difficult to comply with new ordinance requirements. In addition, the developer is dedicating additional right- of-way to the City needed to construct intersection improvements to Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road, which greatly reduces the available land area dedicated for landscaping. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. Staff feels the addition of a third building to the site should have minimal impact on the existing site and on adjoining properties. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the applicant provide the final elevation and the final building materials plan to staff prior to the building permit being issued to ensure compatibility and design from the adjoining roadway. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5654-B 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation the applicant provide the final elevation and the final building materials plan to staff prior to the building permit being issued to ensure compatibility and design from the adjoining roadway. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LU05-12-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – 65th Street West Planning District Location: Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads Request: Light Industrial to Mixed Office Commercial Source: Kevin Huchingson, Dickson Flake Partners After further review of the site and meetings with the applicant to further clarify the zoning application, it has been determined that a Land Use Plan Amendment for this site at this time is not necessary. Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 16.1 FILE NO.: Z-5703-B NAME: Shackleford Commercial Revised Long-form POD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: Shackleford and Colonel Glenn LLC c/o Dickson Flake Partners P.O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 11.4 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: POD ALLOWED USES: General Commercial and Office/Showroom/Warehouse PROPOSED ZONING: POD PROPOSED USE: General Commercial and Office/Showroom/Warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage (Lot 4). BACKGROUND: In June of 1993, the applicant filed a request for the consideration of a plan to construct a mini-storage complex in two phases on a portion of this site. The Little Rock Board of Directors at their September 21, 1993, Public Hearing approved a Planned Commercial Development by the adoption of Ordinance No. 16,491 to allow the proposed January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 2 development. There was no development within the allotted three years and the ordinance expired on September 21, 1996. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,760 at their July 7, 1998, Board of Director’s meeting repealing the PCD zoning classification and restoring the R-2, Single-family District. A POD was recommended for approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission on June 30, 2004, to allow the creation of a two lot plat with office/showroom/warehouse uses as allowable uses on proposed Lot 2 and a future retail development on proposed Lot 1. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,137 on July 20, 2004, establishing Shackleford Commercial Long-form POD. The applicant’s original request was the creation of a two-lot plat and the rezoning of 1.58 acres at the hard corner of Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads to C-3, General Commercial District (proposed Lot 1). The applicant indicated both streets were proposed as arterial streets on the Master Street Plan and stated this would be an appropriate location for commercial zoning. The applicant also requested a Planned Office Development involving 9.85 acres with frontage on both streets (proposed Lot 2). The proposed development would provide 128,000 square feet of office/showroom/warehouse space in three buildings. The applicant indicated 133 parking spaces on the proposed site plan. Prior to the June 30, 2004, Planning Commission Public Hearing, the applicant amended his request to allow the development of the entire site as a POD with immediate plans for the development of office/showroom/warehouse in three buildings totaling 128,000 square feet on proposed Lot 2. The applicant indicated when development plans were secured, a revision to the POD would be filed to allow the development of proposed Lot 1 as a commercial use utilizing C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The proposed site plan indicated a shared thirty-six foot access and utility easement to serve the development. The proposed site plan also indicated a single sign on each of the proposed lots consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved POD to allow previously proposed Lot 2 to develop as three individual lots; one lot without public street frontage. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 will remain as a future commercial development and proposed Lots 2 – 4 will contain office/showroom/warehouse uses as allowable uses for the site. The applicant indicates the building layout has been slightly modified to decrease the size of the buildings. The applicant has indicated Lot 2 will contain a 40,000 square foot building, Lot 3 will contain a 27,500 square foot building and Lot 3 will contain a 47,500 square foot building. There are 191 parking spaces proposed with the development. The proposed buildings on Lots 2 – 4 will be served with loading docks in the rear. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 3 The applicant has indicated the development will be phased with Lot 2 being the first proposed lot for development. With the first phase, improvements will be constructed on Colonel Glenn Road across Lots 1 and 2 including the intersection. As Lot 3 is developed the street improvements across Lots 1 and 3 on Shackleford Road would be constructed to the intersection. The applicant has stated if Lot 1 is the first to develop, only the improvements adjacent to Lot 1 will be constructed on each road. The developer is requesting a grading permit for the entire development with phase one. According to the applicant, this will eliminate the need to haul fill material in or out of the development with each phase of construction. Fill material will be hauled into the site, but completed initially. The applicant has indicated the remainder of the site will be seeded to eliminate erosion concerns and help soften the scarring with the advanced grading. The proposed site plan also indicated a single sign on each of the proposed lots consistent with signage allowed in commercial zones. The indicated signage for proposed Lot 1 is a maximum of thirty-six feet in height and one hundred sixty square feet in area. The applicant has indicated signage for proposed Lots 2 – 4 will be consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of proposed Lot 4 as a lot without public street frontage. The lot will be access by a common access and utility easement. The developer is also requesting Lot 1 to develop utilizing C-3, General Commercial District as allowable uses for the site as was previously approved. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site was a non-conforming junkyard, with vehicles and vehicle parts scattered over the site. There are trees and high grass over the site. Property to the north, east, and west is zoned I-2, Light Industrial. Part of the property to the north is zoned R-2, Single-family. The property to the south is zoned I-1. Other uses in the area included a lawn service to the west of the site and a tree service to the northeast of the site. There is a scattering of single-family homes located along Colonel Glenn Road both northeast and northwest of the site. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 4 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Tall Timber Neighborhood Association, the Stagecoach Dodd Neighborhood Association and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The developer proposes on the plan to dedicate right-of-way and build to Master Street Plan requirements. 2. In addition to the improvements indicated, turn lanes are required at arterial intersections. On Shackleford, provide ½ of a 70-foot street to accommodate dual left hand turns, plus a right-turn lane with additional 10-feet right-of-way dedication. Revise plans to show improvements and right-of-way. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 5. Clarify which lots will be final platted with Phase I of the development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. The manhole shown on the plan is a private manhole and not a part of the Little Rock Wastewater Utility’s System. Required main extension must tie into the Utility’s System and not the private sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: A ten-foot underground or 15-foot overhead easement is required adjacent to all lot lines. Contact Entergy at 945-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water’s material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 5 of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. 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. 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 at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on a CATA Bus Route #14, Rosedale. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the 65th Street-West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Light Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for offices and warehouse uses. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 16, File No. LU05-12-01). Master Street Plan: Colonel Glenn Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial while Shackleford Road is shown as a Minor Arterial. Both Colonel Glenn and Shackleford Roads are built as rural two-lane roads with open drainage ditches and would need improvement to conform to the Master Street Plan specifications. The cross sections recommended by the Master Street Plan call for a right-of-way width of 110 feet for Colonel Glenn Road and 90 feet for Shackleford Road. The Master Street Plan does not show a bikeway for Colonel Glenn Road. A Class II Bikeway is shown for Shackleford Road, which may require additional right-of-way, lane markings, and signage for bike lanes on both sides of the road. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Stagecoach-Dodd section of the Pecan Lake / Westwood / Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Action Plan. The opening paragraph of the Zoning and Land Use chapter recommends that non-residential developments be encourage to locate in the area bounded by I-430, Shackleford, Colonel Glenn, January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 6 and David O-Dodd Roads. The Goal listed in the Zoning and Land Use chapter recommends maintaining and encouraging single family and low-density residential developments for most of the study area while placing non-residential uses in areas already shown for non-residential uses on the Future Land Use Plan. The objective listed supports a separation of uses and buffering between non-residential and residential uses. An action statement relevant to this case encourages non-residential development to take place west of Shackleford Road and north of David O’ Dodd Road near the area where the applicant’s property is located. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet with ordinance requirements. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant was requesting an amendment to the existing POD to allow the development of additional lot lines and a request to rezone the hard corner to C-3, General Commercial District. Staff noted previously they were not supportive of the hard corner being zoned C-3, General Commercial District and they did not feel anything had changed so it was unlikely they would support the “straight commercial zoning” at this point either. Staff noted the site was shown as Light Industrial on the Land Use Plan, which would typically not support a “straight commercial zoning”. Staff stated the previously approval would allow for some form of commercial development on the corner but a review of the development would be required. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated dedication of right-of-way was acceptable and the indicated street construction was also acceptable. Staff stated turn lanes would be required at the arterial intersections. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to construction and the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the site. Staff noted comments from the Wastewater Utility Department. Staff stated the indicated manhole on the site was a private manhole and the developers would not be allowed to connect as indicated on the plan. Staff stated a sewer main extensions would be required to provide service to the development. Staff suggested Mr. White contact the Wastewater Utility for additional information. There was a general discussion concerning the required street improvements. Mr. White stated the development would be phased with Lot 2 being the first January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 7 proposed lot for developed. He stated with the first phase, improvements would be constructed on Colonel Glenn Road across Lots 1 and 2 including the intersection. Mr. White stated as Lot 3 was developed the street improvements across Lots 1 and 3 on Shackleford Road would be constructed to the intersection. Mr. White stated if Lot 1 were the first to develop only the improvements adjacent to Lot 1 would be constructed on each road. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the indicated buffers and landscaping appeared to meet with the minimum ordinance requirements. Staff stated irrigation to water landscaped areas would be required. Staff noted a detailed landscape plan would be required prior to a building permit being issued. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the “hard corner” as POD indicating C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for proposed Lot 1. The applicant has also indicated dedication of right-of-way per the Master Street Plan and indicated street construction per arterial standards. The applicant has indicated the development will be phased with Lot 2 being the first proposed lot for development. With the first phase, improvements will be constructed on Colonel Glenn Road across Lots 1 and 2 including the intersection. As Lot 3 is developed, the street improvements across Lots 1 and 3 on Shackleford Road would be constructed to the intersection. The applicant has stated if Lot 1 is the first to develop, only the improvements adjacent to Lot 1 will be constructed on each road. The applicant has indicated a development with four lots ranging in size from 1.81 acres to 3.50 acres. The average lot size proposed is 2.85 acres. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of a lot without public street frontage (Lot 4). The applicant has indicated a 40-foot cross access and utility easement to serve the development along each lot line. Staff is supportive of the requested variance. The applicant has indicated the development of three buildings, each on individual lots. The proposed buildings will contain 40,000 square feet, 27,500 square feet and 47,500 square feet. The total building coverage for each is 25.16 percent, 25.87 percent and 29.71 percent respectively. The site plan January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 8 includes the placement of 191 parking spaces. The proposed site plan includes the placement of 50 parking spaces on Lot 2, 69 parking spaces on Lot 3 and 72 parking spaces on Lot 4. The indicated parking would be adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand provided sixty percent of the gross floor area is designated as warehousing activities. Based on sixty percent the typical minimum parking required would be 40 spaces for Lot 1, 66 parking spaces for Lot 2 and 57 parking spaces for Lot 3. Based on the available parking staff would recommend the site develop with no more than fifty percent office uses to allow for sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking required. The applicant has indicated signage for proposed Lots 2 – 4 will be consistent with signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty- four square feet in area. The applicant has requested a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site. Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels grading should coincide with development. Staff feels the grading activities should take place with the issuance of a building permit for the indicated lots to limit an unnecessary clearing and/or potential scaring of the site. Staff is supportive of the overall merits of the proposed request but staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance. Staff feels the development of the site as an office/showroom/warehouse development for Lots 2 – 4 and the development of proposed Lot 1 with C-3, General Commercial District uses should have minimal impact on adjoining properties. Lot 1 to will be reviewed as an amendment to the POD when development is proposed. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the site develop with no more than fifty percent office uses to allow for sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking required. Staff recommends grading of the site coincide with development of the indicated lots. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5703-B 9 the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation the site develop with no more than fifty percent office uses to allow for sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking required. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant’s request for advanced grading of proposed Lot 1 with the street construction. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-6120-K NAME: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue DEVELOPER: Jay DeHaven 10650 Maumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 31.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PD-R, Planned Development - Residential ALLOWED USES: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R PROPOSED USE: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre – construction of covered parking VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 20, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone 42.58+ acres from R-2, Single-family to MF-12, Multi-family. The rezoning request was associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi-family was located in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue), south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The application was the third version of proposed multi-family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates. The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 2 proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, which is adjacent to the south. The applicant at the Planning Commission Public Hearing later withdrew the application. The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed multi-family property was in two tracts, a 27+-acre tract lying south of the arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard) and a 7+-acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi-family property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street (Rushmore Avenue) and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center with their concern of locating the 7+ acres of Multi-family property adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors’ agenda and filed a third version of the proposed rezoning request. The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue) from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a “reserved” tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2 to MF-12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer improvement district, expansion or the existing sewer improvement district or some other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property zoned MF-12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty (20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 3 Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regraded area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50) percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12 and Tract C, 14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12. Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres). The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on 11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of 5.3 units per acre.) On July 11, 2002, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development – Residential to allow the development of a 528-unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed for a property zoned MF-12 and located to the east of the PD-R site. The request to rezone the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20, 2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the western MF-12 property to PD-R and Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the eastern MF-12 site to R-2. The applicant proposed the PD-R development to be constructed in three phases with 156 units being constructed in Phases One and Two and 216 units in the third and final phase. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been constructed to allow access to the site as a part of the Phase I portion of the PRD. Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003, approved a revision to allow the creation of a three-lot plat following the previously proposed phasing lines. The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take access through a cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan did not changed from the original submission. The applicant revised the building placement slightly to allow for landscape strips between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access parking agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking demand for multi-family development. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,963 on October 21, 2003, revising the PD-R to allow the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The applicant indicated a private contractor would service the compactors once a week. The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should allow the driver January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 4 easy access and minimal disturbance to the residents in the early morning hours when the compactors were serviced. The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request included a restoration plan for the buffer areas. The restoration plan included plantings in the area previously designated as the land use buffer area be replanted at double the plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the south and the west on Lot 1 of the development. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch caliper and additional 30-feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation easement and the 30-feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be maintained in the future. On January 29, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request by the applicant to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of the site until Lot 3 was developed. The site was originally approved as a single tract development and was later revised to allow three lots to develop following previously approved phasing lines. The applicant stated since the PD-R for Capitol Hills Apartments was revised to allow the creation of the three lots a deferral of street improvements was customary until the lot abutting the roadway was developed (Lot 3). The applicant withdrew the request from consideration and the roadways were constructed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a revision to the existing PRD to allow the development of covered parking and a clubhouse with a pool within the Phase II portion of the proposed development. The applicant has indicated covered parking will be added to various locations throughout the phase. The applicant has indicated there has not been an increase in the number of units. The parking has been increased by roughly 60 parking spaces. The phase line on the east side has changed slightly, which is partially the reason for the increased parking. The remainder of the parking has been added to the northern portion of the site. The developer has indicated there will be 72-units of one-bedroom apartments, 60-units of two bedroom apartments and 24-units of three bedroom apartments for a total of 156 units. The applicant has indicated the clubhouse will contain 2,222 square feet of gross floor area. The site plan includes 165 open parking spaces, 7 handicapped spaces, 62 carport spaces, 6 garage parking spaces and 1 maintenance garage space for a total of 240 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated covered parking will be added to the Phase III portion of the development as well. The parking will be constructed in a similar fashion as the proposed parking for the Phase II portion of the development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 5 The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is currently zoned PD-R with the remainder of the area being zoned R-2, Single-family. The Oasis Renewal Center is located northeast of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located south of the site. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been constructed adjacent to the site. Phase I of the development has been completed. There are new single-family homes currently under construction to the north of the proposed site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association along with all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment regarding the addition of carports to the site plan. Some boundary street improvements remain to be completed with future phases of the development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. Capacity Analysis required on all phases. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 6 CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Residential Development to add carport structures. This request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Capital Hills Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial and Rushmore Avenue is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Presently these streets are built to standards and may not require additional dedication of right-of-way and require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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. Landscape: The 30 foot wide undisturbed land use buffer is required to extend along the entire southern perimeter of the site. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the developer was requesting the addition of carport January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 7 structures and a clubhouse with a pool to the site previously approved site plan for multi-family housing. Staff stated the phasing line had been adjusted slightly but was not a significant change. Staff requested the applicant provide details concerning the proposed construction materials for the proposed carport structures. Staff requested the roof treatment and a proposed building elevation for the structures. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the 30-foot wide buffer was required along the entire southern perimeter of the site. Staff also stated screening would be required along the southern perimeter of the site. Staff stated this could be accomplished through a fence or wall or with evergreen plantings. After a general discussion it was determined the indicated 30-foot buffer and the adjacent tract were adequate to meet the buffering requirement. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the roof treatment and proposed building elevations per staff’s request. The applicant has indicated the structures will be constructed to match the existing apartment buildings on the site. The applicant has indicated siding and cement board will be used on the structures and the roofing material proposed is composition shingles. The developer has indicated the color of the parking structures will compliment the color scheme of the Phase I portion of the development. The applicant has indicated the structures that will be added to Phase III will also be constructed in a similar manner. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The development consists of adding covered parking, a clubhouse and pool and adjustment of the phasing line within the Phase II portion of the previously approved apartment development. The applicant has indicated Phase II of the development will consist of 156 units with a bedroom mix as follows: 72 – 1 bedroom units, 60 – 2 bedroom units and 24 – 3 bedroom units. The applicant has indicated 165 open parking spaces, 7 handicap spaces, 60 covered carport spaces, 6 garage spaces and 1 garage space to be used as a maintenance garage. The site will have a total of 240 parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for a multi-family development containing 156 units would be 234 parking spaces. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-K 8 To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff does not feel the revision to the PRD to add covered parking, a pool and clubhouse and adjust the phasing line will have any adverse impact on the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the construction materials and roofing materials be similar materials as provided by the applicant and outlined in Section H of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation the construction materials and roofing materials be similar materials as provided by the applicant and outlined in Section H of the above report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-7022-B NAME: Catfish City Restaurant Long-form PCD LOCATION: Located at 14800 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Ken Lightfoot d/b/a Catfish City 1817 South University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: Andrew Hicks Architects 3200 South Shackleford Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 2.048 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District ALLOWED USES: General Commercial Uses PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Restaurant VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and approved a proposed three lot preliminary plat and recommended approval of a proposed rezoning request proposed Lot 1 at their May 31, 2001, Public Hearing. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,516 on July 3, 2001, establishing Cantrell Loops Subdivision (Lot 1) Short-form PCD. On April 6, 2004, the Little Rock Board of Directors rezoned Lot 2 from C-3, General Commercial District and R-2, Single-family District to PCD by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,073. The rezoning included the development of 4.265 acres through a Planned Commercial Development with a strip retail center containing C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed the request and made a recommendation of approval at their March 11, 2004, public hearing. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-B 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting a rezoning of Lot 3 from the current C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow the site (Lot 3) to develop with a reduced rear yard landscape buffer. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the rear yard and side yard landscape buffer to average twenty-five feet from the property line, independently of easements. (Typically utility easements are not allowed to count toward fulfilling the buffering requirement.) The applicant has indicated Entergy secured a 30-foot utility easement along the northern property line at the time of final platting. Currently, Wastewater is the only utility located within the easement. The developer has requested from Entergy a release of all or a portion of the easement to no avail. The developer is therefore requesting approval of the proposed rezoning to allow the northern landscape buffer to be contained entirely within a 30-foot easement. The applicant has indicated the landscape buffer would be planted intensely to screen the residentially zoned properties to the north. The developer has indicated the reduced buffer is required to allow the development of an additional row of parking to serve the future restaurant facility. The on-site parking is adequate to meet the typically minimum parking requirements for a restaurant use. The applicant has indicated in reality the additional parking will be necessary to satisfy customer demand. The developer has indicated to develop the site as required would be a hardship since they are trying to accomplish the development of the site without taking up 55-feet of the rear of the property of which 30-feet is an existing easement and 25-feet additional for a landscaping strip. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, under construction on Lot 3 of the Cantrell Loops Subdivision, is a restaurant building for Catfish City. There is a Wal-Greens located to the west of the site on Lot 1 of the Cantrell Loops Subdivision and although plans have been approved for Lot 2 no construction has commenced. Across Cantrell Road is the Taylor Loop Road intersection, which is a signalized intersection aligning with a drive that accesses this site. To the east of the site is a strip center containing a mix of commercial and office uses. To the north of the site is vacant R-2, Single-family zoned property and to the Northeast of the site is a parcel currently zoned PCD (recently cleared of all vegetation), which is to be developed as an office/warehouse facility. South of the site is an antique mall and branch bank facility. Further west of the site is a single-family home located on a large tract. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-B 3 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Westchester/Heatherbare Neighborhood Association, the Westbury Neighborhood Association and the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment regarding the proposed change to the rear yard setback. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Existing sewer main on site. No storm water piping or any other Utility allowed within five feet of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: A ten-foot utility easement is required along the western property line extending from Cantrell Road to the northern property boundary. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10 Express. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD zoning to allow a reduced rear yard landscape strip. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-B 4 The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and parts of Taylor Loop Road are shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan. Cantrell Road is built as a five-lane road through the area and Taylor Loop Road is not built to standards. The primary function of the Principal Arterial, Cantrell Road, is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and though an urban area and their primary function are to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area not to provide access. Dedication and street improvements may be required. Landscape: A perimeter landscape buffer strip with an average of twenty-five (25) feet is required to comply with the Highway 10 Overlay District. A portion of the northern landscape buffer is located within a utility easement area. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year-around requirement. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Tim Dowty of Andrew Hicks Architects was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request to the Committee members present indicating the applicant had indicated the rear yard buffer was not achievable without removing a row of parking and greatly reducing the number of parking spaces on the site. Staff stated the site without the row of parking did allow for sufficient parking to meet the minimum ordinance requirement but the owner of the restaurant desired the additional parking. Staff also noted the site to the west was also approved with a reduced rear yard buffer and a portion of the buffer would be contained within an easement. Staff stated there were plantings that could be placed in the easement to provide the required screening and the applicant would work with the Plans Development Administrator to ensure proper screening if the rezoning were approved. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-B 5 H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised request to staff addressing the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates screening will be added to the rear property line adequate to meet the year around screening requirement. The applicant has indicated he will work with the Plans Development Specialist of the Department of Planning and Development to provide plantings in the rear yard landscaped area which will be low growing such as red bud trees or crape myrtles and allowable under the proposed power line. Typically within the landscape area a tree is required every 30-feet and a shrub is required every 10-feet. Staff feels with the placement of the plantings within this area the intent of the landscape ordinance will be met. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires the rear yard and side yard landscape buffer to average twenty-five feet from the property line, independent of easements. With the required 30-foot utility easement along the rear property line, which was secured at the time of final platting, the rear yard area is greatly reduced. Currently, Wastewater is the only utility located within the easement. A request was made to Entergy for a release of all or a portion of the easement to no avail. Staff does not feel the use of the easement as the required buffer will have a significant impact on the adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated screening will be provided either through a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings to screen the adjoining R-2, Single-family zoned property. The site plan indicates parking will be placed nearest the property line and no dumpster is proposed in this area. Staff feels this will also mitigate any potential adverse impacts on adjoining undeveloped properties. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to rezone the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow the site to develop with a reduced rear yard landscape buffer. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site to PCD and to allow the 30-foot easement to function as the required landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Tim Dowty was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-B 6 request to rezone the site to PCD and to allow the 30-foot easement to function as the required landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-7668-B NAME: Chardeaux Court Revised Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 12900 Hinson Road DEVELOPER: Rodney Chandler P.O. Box 22021 Little Rock, AR 72221 ENGINEER: Central Arkansas Surveying Company 1012 Autumn Road, Suite 1 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 3.68 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 163 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD-R ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Patio Zero Lot Line Single-family Residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow the development of a 1.85-acre tract with ten single-family patio homes at their July 15, 2004, Public Hearing. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved the request by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,162 at their August 17, 2004, Public Hearing. Chardeaux Court was proposed as ten upscale residential patio homes. The proposed homes consisted of three bedrooms, great room, two full baths, formal dining, kitchen with breakfast area and attached double garage. All homes were to have a French European exterior elevation with an accented décor and feature amenities that were standard for upscale patio homes of this style. Interior amenities included granite slab January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 2 kitchen countertops, flooring of wood, stone, tile and carpet, marble baths, raised ceilings with stacked crown molding and recessed can lighting to provide elegant interior features. Exterior features included masonry with structural accents and details such as brick on all four sides, precise keystones, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof shingles, landscaped lawns with zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler systems. Roof pitch elevations were proposed as a minimum of 12/12 to enhance the aesthetics of the development. Patio homes were to have a minimum front setback of eighteen feet and a rear setback of ten feet with wooden privacy fencing was planned for each home to promote an upscale environment and enhance street scene. Patio homes in Charadeaux Court were proposed to range in square footage from 2,500 to 1,600 heated and cooled space. It was anticipated that homes would sell in the $120.00 to $130.00 per square foot price category given that Chardeaux Court was proposed as a gated upscale patio home development. A bill of assurance was proposed to maintain and to protect the values of properties in and around Chardeaux Court. The entrance to Chardeaux Court was proposed as a brick entrance with wrought iron railing, accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green space to promote an appealing environment that complimented the development. Additionally, all lawn and all common areas were to be maintained by the Property Owners Association. The common maintenance of all the residences in Chardeaux Court reinforced the quality that was planned, and would continue to be stressed throughout the residential development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST – APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant has now acquired an adjacent 1.86 acres and is now proposing to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow the development of 17th Century European architecture homes with 21st Century construction to consist of 13 zero lot line patio homes. The proposed homes will consist of three or four bedrooms, great room, media room, two full and one-half bath, dining area, kitchen with breakfast area, double attached garage and full compliment of built-in stainless steel appliances. All the homes will have a French European exterior with accented décor and feature amenities that generally are standard for an upscale development. Interior amenities will include travertine tile, hardwood flooring, granite slab kitchen counter tops, marble bathrooms and raised ceilings with stacked crown molding and recessed can lighting. Exterior features include masonry, natural stone with structural accents and details such as brick on all four sides, precast keystones, brick quoins, arched windows, architectural roof shingles, landscaped lawns with zoysia turf and automatic sprinkler systems. Roof pitch elevations will be a minimum of 12/12 to January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 3 enhance the aesthetics of the development. A wooden privacy fence is planned for the east and north sides of the development. The developer has indicated the homes will range in square footages from 2200 to 3500 square feet of heated and cooled spaces. The developer has indicated the homes will range in price from $138.00 to $145.00 per square foot. The development is proposed as a gated upscale patio home community. Entrances to the development will have an old world European guard house, rock entrance with wrought iron railing, accent lighting and extensive landscape with substantial green space to promote an appealing environment that compliments the development. The property owners association will maintain all lawns and common areas. The common maintenance of all the residences in the development reinforces the quality that has been planned, and will continue to be stressed throughout the residential development. The proposed site plan indicates an average lot size of 7,689 square feet or 0.18 acres with a minimum lot size of 6,944 square feet or 0.16 acres. As previously stated, the applicant has indicated the development will consist of one side yard being a zero lot line setback with the remaining side yard setback of five feet. The applicant has indicated the rear yard setback will be 20-feet for proposed Lots 1 – 7 and 30-feet for proposed Lots 8 – 13. The applicant is requesting a Zero Lot Line plat per Section 31-234 of the City of Little Rock Subdivision Ordinance and per the ordinance requirement has indicated the maximum buildable area specifying the zero lot line for each lot. The applicant has also indicated building lines per Section 31-256(4), which allow for residential lots defined as “Contemporary Lots” to designate building lines. Per these two sections of the ordinance, there are no variances for lot development standards being requested. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and relatively flat with a major drainage channel running along the southern portion of the site, near Hinson Road. There is an unimproved driveway located along the eastern boundary of the site with single-family homes located to the east, north and west of the site. Pleasant Valley Estates Subdivision, a gated subdivision, is located to the west of the site and the Pleasant Valley Subdivision is located to the north and northeast of the site. Other uses in the area include Pulaski Academy School and the Fellowship Bible Church to the Southeast. A zero lot line subdivision with attached units (in the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 4 Chelsea Square Addition) is located to the west of the site and the Carmel Valley Subdivision is located to the northwest of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, Staff has received one phone call from an area resident. The Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association, the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, the Hillsborough Property Owners Association, all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. From a traffic safety standpoint, the new street entrance should line up with Martha Drive to the west. 2. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required (shown on the plan). 3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 prior to construction. For lots located in the floodplain, a minimum finish floor elevation must be shown on the plat. 6. 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 boundary as shown on the plan. 7. Alteration of the floodway for street construction will require flood map revisions. Obtain conditional approval from Public Works and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A permanent crossing must be constructed prior to start of any work on the subdivision. 8. Alteration of the watercourse will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to the start of work. 9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 for additional information regarding street light requirements. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 5 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements is service is required for the project. Relocation of existing eight-inch sewer main required at Developer’s expense. Six inch and eight inch service lines shown are not a part of the Little Rock Wastewater Utility System and cannot be used to provide service to any part of this development. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: A ten-foot under ground or a 30-foot overhead easement is required along the lot fronts adjacent to the proposed street. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. There is an existing 8-inch (not 6- inch) water main and fire hydrant in an existing waterline easement in this area. (Instrument No. 2000062944) A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. 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. Maintain a 20-foot gate opening into the site. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a previously approved PRD for a construction of additional single-family homes on recently acquired land adjacent to the approved residential development. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 6 The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Hinson Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. A Class I Bikeway is shown alongside Hinson Road. A Class I Bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development Goal listed an objective of “Develop neo-traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependant on automobiles) in areas that have not yet developed. It also listed action statements of 1) “Enforce the construction of sidewalks with all types of development”, 2) “Insure that physical continuity of sidewalks so that sidewalks built on the same side of the street connect without gaps and that sidewalks built on opposite sides of the street are connected with ADA accessible crosswalks”, 3) “Require developers to install underground utilities in all new subdivisions, and 4) “Require street lighting to be in place in new subdivisions at the time streets are opened. The additional development of the site should be sensitive to the action plan’s residential development goals. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) The applicant’s representatives were present representing the request. Staff stated the developer was previously approved for the development of a smaller area with fewer homes but additional land to the east and north had been secured. Staff stated the proposal now included 3.68 acres and 13 new homes and the previous approval included 1.85 acres and 10 homes. Staff stated the developer was proposing zero lot line homes in the development. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated since the proposal included the development of the site with a zero lot line homes, the plat needed to include the maximum buildable area of each lot with the zero lot line specified. Staff also stated if the development were to be phased, a phasing plan was necessary. Staff requested details of any proposed fencing including height; construction material and location. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the new street entrance should align with Martha Drive, located south of Hinson Road. Staff also stated January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 7 dedication would be required on Hinson Road to satisfy the Master Street Plan requirement. Staff noted there were concerns with the floodway areas. Staff stated all floodways should be indicated as an easement or be dedicated to the City. Staff also stated alteration of the floodway for street construction would require flood map revisions and approval from Public Works and Federal Emergency Management Agency. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has met with Public Works staff to resolve their concerns related to the street entry point and the floodway issues. The applicant has indicated the roadway will be constructed outside the floodway as was previously proposed and a map revision is no longer needed. The developer has indicated a dedication of the floodway and a 25-foot easement adjacent to the floodway per the City’s request. The applicant has also indicated a dedication of right-of-way along Hinson Road per the Master Street Plan requirement. The proposed site plan indicates the maximum buildable area for each lot with the zero lot line specified. The applicant has also indicated the development will be constructed in one phase. The site plan includes the placement of fencing along Hinson Road. The fence is proposed as a six-foot wrought iron fence. Fencing along the eastern, western and northern property lines are also proposed as six feet in height and to be constructed of wood, brick, masonry or wrought iron. The applicant has indicated the development will be gated and has indicated a guard shack and call box on the proposed site plan. The call box is located 71.5 feet from the property line, per the request of Public Works. The applicant has also indicated the gates will be constructed at 16.0 feet in width. Staff recommends the gates maintain a 20-foot gate opening to allow for emergency access. The applicant is requesting a Zero Lot Line plat per Section 31-234 of the City of Little Rock Subdivision Ordinance and per the ordinance requirement has indicated the maximum buildable area specifying the zero lot line for each lot. The applicant has also indicated building lines per Section 31-256(4), which allow for residential lots defined as “Contemporary Lots” to designate building lines. The applicant has indicated a generalized site plan showing the proposed locations and dimensions of all buildings, accessory uses and other improvements. The platted building lines are shown on all sides of each lot for January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7668-B 8 the purposed of delineating the maximum buildable area of each lot and the zero lot line yard has been specified. The ordinance also requires a minimum lot width of 35 feet and 4,000 square feet in area. The applicant has indicated the average lot size as 7,689 and the minimum lot size as 6,944. The minimum lot width proposed is 50-feet. The indicated lot area and lot widths are more than adequate to meet the typical minimum ordinance requirement. The applicant has indicated a single development sign with a maximum height of six feet and a total length of fourteen feet. The sign letters are proposed as six inches. The sign is proposed with brick and rock columns and a pre-cast cap and spheres. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested signage. There are single-family homes located to the north of this site currently accessing their homes through an access easement located on the site. The applicant has indicated access will be provided to properties located to the north of the site through the proposed subdivision. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The applicant is proposing a single-family development at a density of 3.5 units per acre. Single-family per the City’s Future Land Use Plan allows development of single-family homes at a density not greater than five units per acre. Staff feels the proposed development have should minimal to no adverse impact on adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff recommends the proposed gates maintain a 20-foot gate opening to allow for emergency access. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation the proposed gates maintain a 20-foot gate opening to allow for emergency access. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: LU05-08-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Central City Planning District Location: 1715 South Summit Street Request: Single Family to Low Density Residential Source: Clay Cullum, Castle Investment Properties Staff has reviewed this application and since it is within an existing structure, does not change the building’s footprint, can be converted back to its original use, is not clearly noticeable by the casual observer, will be filed through the Planned Zoning District process, and has minimal impact on the City’s Land Use Plan as a whole, Staff has determined that a land use plan amendment is not necessary at this time. Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 20.1 FILE NO.: Z-7769 NAME: Castle Investments Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 1715 South Summit Street DEVELOPER: Castle Investment, LLC 12725 I-30 Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Donald W. Books, RLS 20820 Arch Street Pike Hensley, AR 72065 AREA: 0.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Multi-family Triplex VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST – APPLICANT’S STATEMENT: The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site located at 1715 South Summit Street from R-3, Single-family to PD-R to allow an existing structure to be converted into a three-unit dwelling. The developer has indicated his company is a real estate investment company which purchases distressed homes, often in foreclosure, and re-furbishes the homes for sale, rent or lease-purchase. The developer states the refurbished homes provide owners and renters with a quality home at a market-affordable price. In the developers’ statement and proposal the developers indicate they are particularly committed to the downtown Little Rock neighborhoods. The January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 2 developers state they purchased the home at 1715 South Summit Street at a foreclosure auction earlier this year. At the time of purchase the structure was in absolute distress. The developers state since the purchase, they have improved the property’s general appearance and the site is no longer an eyesore. The developers state their intent is to restore the property at 1715 South Summit Street and upon completion of the restoration and renovation of the property, they will then offer three families a proper home at an affordable cost. The proposed site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces at the rear of the site to be served off an existing alleyway. The applicant has indicated seven feet of landscaping along the property lines adjoining the proposed parking pad. The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is zoned R-3, Single-family and contains a single-family structure located mid-block. There is a functioning alley located behind the home. The homes located to the north of the site are vacant homes with one burned and the other in a severe state of disrepair. The homes located across the street and to the south of the site appear to be occupied and in good repair. There is a mixture of housing types in the area including single-family, duplex, triplex and multi-family homes, although the structure is located in a block that appears to be single-family. There are a number of vacant and boarded homes located in the area. The indicated block contains two vacant homes; neither of which are boarded. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received one phone call from an area resident stating concerns about the proposed request. All property owners located within 200- feet of the site along with all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified and the Central High Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. No comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 3 Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) to convert an existing building into a triplex. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 20, File No. LU05-08-01). Master Street Plan: Summit, 17th, and 18th Streets are all shown as local streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may require dedication of right-of- way and street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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. Landscape: Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings are required along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 4 Prior to construction it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Clay Culver was present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to convert an existing structure into a triplex. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff questioned if any signage would be added to the site. Mr. Culver stated there would not be any signage. Staff also questioned if a dumpster would be placed on the site. Mr. Culver stated a dumpster would not be utilized. Staff questioned if a cover would be added to the parking in the future. Mr. Culver stated he did not think so but he would provide staff with an updated cover letter indicating the future plans for covering on or before January 5, 2005. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies, indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated screening adjacent to the parking pad but is requesting a waiver of the required screening along the entire property line. The applicant has indicated a 7.5-foot landscape strip adjacent to the parking pad, which will be planted with a screening material. The applicant is requesting the waiver to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and has stated a fence along the property lines would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage placed to identify the development and has indicated a dumpster will not be utilized on the site. The applicant has indicated garbage collection will be provided by the City of Little Rock. The applicant has indicated the proposed parking will not initially be covered but is requesting to option to add covered parking in the future. The applicant has indicated the covered parking will be stainless steel tubing with a galvanized roofing material. Staff would recommend if a cover is placed over the indicated parking the construction materials be consistent with architectural elements and architectural designs in the area. The applicant has indicated the development will consist of three units. The site plan includes the placement of four parking spaces. The indicated parking is adequate to meet the minimum parking required for a multi-family development containing three units. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 5 Staff is not supportive of the proposed density of the site. The applicant is requesting the development of the existing structure with three multi-family units resulting in a density of 18.75 units per acre. Staff feels the redevelopment of the site with three units is too intense for the area. There are multi-family uses located in the area most of which are carriage type homes or were constructed or converted several years previously as multi-family units. On the immediate block, all the uses appear to be single-family. Staff would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Staff feels with the size of the structure, if it were converted into a duplex unit, this would encourage families to locate in the new homes. The total lot area is 7,609 square feet. Based on lot area required for multi-family development, or 2,400 square feet per family, the required lot would be 7,200 square feet. The available lot area of 7,609 square feet is adequate to meet this minimum lot area requirement but staff feels the development of three units is too intense. Staff feels with the development of two units, there would be additional area both inside the structure and outside the structure to encourage families to locate to the site. As previously stated, staff is not supportive of the redevelopment of the site as a triplex development. Staff feels the development is too intense for the area. The area is a fragile neighborhood with redevelopment taking place throughout the area but not so much in the homes immediately adjacent to the site. Staff feels the introduction of a triplex will not encourage families to move into the area. Staff feels with the use of the structure as a duplex, one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs, will encourage families to move into the area and help to add stability to the area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request for a triplex but stated they would support the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Mr. Clay Cullem addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm’s desire was to transform this existing derelict structure into a home for three families at a reasonable price. He stated he felt the transformation of the home would make the home an anchor for the community. He stated if approved the home would be one of the nicest homes in the area. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 6 Mr. Bruce Cook addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated his firm bought the structure at a foreclosure sale. He stated they were not able to gain entry prior to the sale and only after the home was purchased did they gain entry. He stated the home was being renovated for a triplex unit and currently there were five meters in place. He stated the pervious owner was conducting the renovations without permits or approvals from the City. He stated the home contained 2966 square feet and was a two-story home. He stated the cost to renovate the home as a single-family unit was too extensive to allow for a recoup of the cost and the increased number of units was necessary to make the project cost effective. He stated he would amend his application to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex. Ms. Ethel Ambrose addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood had created a diverse neighborhood by encouraging persons to join the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood also appreciated persons who came into the neighborhood and asked the community what the goals and visions for the area were instead of telling the neighborhood what was going to happen. She stated the area was redeveloping as single-family by the conversion of previous multi-family structures into single-family homes. She requested the Commission deny the request to convert the structure into any use other than a single-family home. Ms. Terri Hollingsworth addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the area currently had a disportional number of renters. She stated the proposed use did not comply with the Neighborhood Plan established for the area and she felt the structure should be converted to single-family. Mr. Sterling H. Piggee, Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the structure had been a problem for him for several years based on the use of the site as multi-family. He stated he had to place a fence along the property line to keep residents from driving through his yard. He stated with the placement of three units on the site this would only cause increased traffic into the area and parking would become a problem for residents. He stated all the homes in the area were single- family homes and the area did not need any additional rental units. Chairman Mizan questioned if the neighborhood wanted a house that was falling down or no development. Ms. Ambrose stated any development was not better than no development. She stated the site had potential for good development as a single-family home. She stated a triplex was too intense for the area. Mr. Cook stated the development would be a quality development and an asset to the area. Staff questioned the proposed covered parking material. Mr. Cook stated if the covered parking were placed on the site they would comply with staff’s recommendations and be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials. Commissioner January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7769 7 Rector questioned if this was an amendment to the application. Mr. Cook stated this was an amendment. A motion was made to approve the request as amended to include the redevelopment of the site as a duplex unit and the covered parking materials to be architecturally compatible both in design and construction materials to the area. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-7770 NAME: 300 Third Building Short-Form PR-D LOCATION: 300 East Third Street DEVELOPER: Moses Tucker 200 S. Commerce Little Rock, AR 72201 501-376-6555 ENGINEER: White-Daters 24 Rahling Road Little Rock, AR 72223 501-821-1667 ARCHITECT: AMR 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-0378 AREA: .894 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: UU ALLOWED USES: Residential, Office and Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: PR-D PROPOSED USE: 17-story building containing retail, parking deck and residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Off premises sign to be incorporated into the north façade. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A PR-D is proposed to allow for construction of a seventeen (17) story building containing one (1) floor of retail space, three (3) floors of parking for 180 vehicles and thirteen (13) floors with approximately 100 residential condominium units. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a three-story, brick building and a small parking lot. The building is occupied by an office furniture business. A two panel, off-premises sign is located on the roof of the building. The property is located in the densely developed urban core of the City. The River Market District is located to the north; I-30 and the Presidential Library are to the east; the Historic Arkansas Museum is to the west and loft apartments are to the south. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown, River Market and MacArthur Park Neighborhood Associations. As of this writing, staff has received only informational inquiries. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Provide appropriate handicap ramps as required. 2. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of 3rd and Cumberland. 3. Provide street lighting with proposed development. Prepare letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Existing sewer main outfall located on site must be relocated at developer’s expense prior to construction of new building. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Entergy: 10’ underground, 20’ overhead utility easement required on north, south and west perimeters. Call Entergy for layout/specifications for transformers. Contact Mike Cearley at 954-5151. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. 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). Please submit four copies of the 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 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. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. 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 located one (1) block from the CATA transfer station. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Downtown Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) for a mixed use building containing residential units and ground floor commercial incidental to the residential development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Third Street is shown as a Minor Arterial and parts of Cumberland Street are shown as a Collector and Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Immediately north of this property is access to Interstate 30 from Cumberland Street, which is shown as a Freeway. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials. Cumberland Street and Third Street may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. 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. Landscape Issues: Trees are required in conformity with the Urban Use District Standards. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 29, 2004) Joe White was present representing the application. Staff presented the item and requested the applicant provide a site plan that more clearly showed all property lines and the building envelope. Staff requested that building setbacks be labeled and the various elements on the site plan be identified. Staff asked that the applicant specify the proposed retail uses and provide days and hours of January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 5 retail operation. Staff asked that the applicant provide more information on the proposed billboard and an overall signage plan. Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted. Mr. White stated he would pass the comments on to the applicant who would then respond to staff. The Committee forwarded the item on to the full Commission. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, January 5, 2005. H. ANALYSIS: The applicants propose to raze the existing three-story building located on the UU zoned property at 300 East 3rd Street and build in its place, through the PRD process, a 17-story building containing a mixture of retail, residential and parking. The proposed building will contain 295,000 gross square feet and will have a total height of 218 feet. The ground floor will contain a lobby area and 10,000 square feet of leasable retail space. Current plans are utilize a portion of the retail space for a grocery store with a wine shop, deli, bakery and coffee shop. C-3 uses are requested for the 10,000 square foot retail area. Floors 2, 3 and 4 will contain a parking deck with parking for up to 180 vehicles. Floor 5-17 will be developed as up to 100 residential condominium units. The rooftop will contain a community room and outdoor deck. Entrance to the parking garage, lobby area and retail space will be on the south (3rd Street) side. The elevation of the structure will be composed of concrete with a glass curtain wall to be architecturally fitted with copper and zinc panels. The base of the structure will contain materials to include concrete, glass and limestone with a covered driveway and landscaped perimeter. Hours of operation for the proposed retail space are 7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week. Signage is proposed to consist of building identification – wall signage on each façade and wall signage for the retail space on the south and west facades. Signage on the south and west perimeters will be at the ground floor level. The other wall signs, on the north and east perimeters, will not be located above the 4th floor (parking deck). The applicant has agreed to comply with all Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments. On January 4, 2005, the applicant submitted responses to staff issues raised at Subdivision Committee and reflected in the analysis above. There is currently a nonconforming off-premises sign (billboard) on the roof of the Innerplan Building. When that building is razed, the billboard will be removed. The applicant, in cooperation with Lamar Outdoor Advertising, is proposing to place a 9’ X 20’, electronic billboard on the north façade of the new building. The January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 6 billboard is to be located at the 3rd floor (parking deck) elevation and will be visible from the Markham Street – Cantrell Road entrance ramp onto I-30. The proposed electronic billboard will have mechanically produced drawings of products and images which will not change more frequently than every 8 seconds (the ads will remain static for 8 seconds). The billboard will be oriented toward the River Market district, across the interstate ramp and will be visible to persons accessing downtown, including the Clinton Library. The applicant has indicated the possibility exists of the billboard having some use in presenting public informational – tourism messages. Staff is supportive of allowing this electronic billboard as long as locating it at this site does not violate any Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department or Federal Highway Administration regulations or place in jeopardy any funding received from the state or federal government. The height of the building is such that compliance with airport zoning or FAA approval is required. The Historic Arkansas Museum campus is located across Cumberland Street, to the west. This proposed building has a setback of 33 feet from the west property line. The tower element, beginning at the 5th floor, has a setback of an additional 74 feet for a total setback of over 100 feet from the west property line. Staff feels the proposed design mitigates the impact on the Historic Arkansas Museum campus. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested PRD subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections D, E and F of the Staff Report. 2. Compliance with airport zoning and FAA requlations regarding the height of the structure. 3. Allowing the proposed electronic billboard must not violate any State Highway Department or Federal Highway Administration regulations or place in jeopardy any funding received from the state or federal government. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7770 7 outlined in the “Staff Recommendation” above. One letter had been received from the Historic Arkansas Museum. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and recommended for approval by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: LU05-20-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District Location: Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Drive and County Farm Road Request: Single Family to Mixed Use Source: Gene Ludwig, White-Daters and Associates, Inc. PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category provides for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three. The applicant wishes to utilize the land for a law office, a private residence, and concrete pump truck storage. Staff is not expanding the application because any reasonable expansion could be viewed as premature since the area is rural in nature. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is located in the city’s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, undeveloped, zoned AF (Agriculture and Forestry District), and is 38 acres ± in size. R-2 (Single Family District) and AF land represents a majority of the land zoned around this property, and is developed with several single family homes and ranches on large, rural, lots. Less than a mile north on Pinnacle Valley Road at the intersection of Beck Road is an area zoned C-1 that was a law office but is now a burned out structure. Further north is a more dense housing pattern consisting of several single family homes fronting Pinnacle Valley Road near the entrance to Maumelle Park on R-2 land. West of Maumelle Park and adjacent to the Arkansas River is an area of land zoned C-3 (General Commercial District) and MF-12 (Multifamily District) for the Little Rock Yacht Club. Immediately south of the property is a single family home with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for operation of a guest house. About a half mile southeast of the property and on the opposite side of the Little Maumelle River is land shown as R-5 (Urban residence District) developing with large lot single family homes surrounded by land mostly vacant R-2 zoned land. Immediately southwest of the property is undeveloped land zoned R-2 followed by OS (Open Space District) representing the Little Maumelle River floodway and additional AF lands. Also southwest of the property is a recently constructed group of fourplexes zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). West and northwest of the property lies a large amount AF and R-2 lightly developed with several farms, ranches, and homes on large lots. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: No Land Use Plan amendments have been approved within the last five years within a 1-mile radius of the application area. The applicant’s property is located in an area January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-01 2 shown as Single Family at the intersection of pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road and is surrounded by land shown as Single Family with an area shown as Park/Open Space immediately west of the property recognizing the Little Maumelle River and its floodway. Northwest of the property is a small area shown as Commercial at the Northwest corner of Beck and Pinnacle Valley Roads. MASTER STREET PLAN: Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and County Farm Road is shown as a Collector. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets will require dedication of right- of-way and will require street improvements. This intersection is currently a 90 degree intersection. Any improvements to the intersection should enhance the through movement of Pinnacle Valley Road. A Class III Bikeway is shown on Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. A Class III Bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. PARKS: Less than a mile north of the property is the Corps of Engineers Maumelle Park. Maumelle Park is 100 acres ± in size and located on the banks of the Arkansas River. Also nearby is Pinnacle Mountain State Park which attracts many visitors daily. The City and County jointly operate the lightly developed Two Rivers Park approximately two and a half miles east of the application. The level topography and rurally developed land in the area has made this area a popular for bicyclists whose destinations are these parks and the rural countryside. Less than a quarter mile north of this property is a proposed Sports Complex. This sports complex would be a private facility not open to the general public. The project is currently scheduled to go in front of the Planning Commission. 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. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-01 3 ANALYSIS: The area is in the city’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and generally characterized by a scattering of single family homes on large lots and an abundance of undeveloped land and pasture land. The property in question is low in elevation and is located in the 100 year flood plain for both the Little Maumelle and Arkansas Rivers. FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps Map indicate that this property is in the A12 Flood Zone which characterize the area as an “area of 100-year flood, base flood elevations, and flood hazards are determined.” The Future Land Use Plan has shown the property and surrounding property as Single Family and Park Open Space mainly to recognize existing conditions and partially because of the elevated flood risk for the area. A change to Mixed Use in this area could result development that would increase the flood risk for both the property in the area. A change to the Mixed Use category would require a review of the development on this property through the PZD (Planned Zoning District) process which could minimize effects of development and assure scale and massing that would be compatible with adjacent properties. The area surrounding the property has an abundance of park acreage. Combined the Corps of Engineers Maumelle Park, and the city and county Two Rivers Park contain almost 370 acres of parkland. Furthermore, about three miles northwest of the site is Pinnacle Mountain State Park, approximately 2000 acres in size. The rural character and collection of large parks in the area attracts numerous visitors to the area for recreational activities. This property is adjacent to a popular recreational bicycle loop that accesses Pinnacle Mountain State Park via Pinnacle Valley Road. Addition of increased use intensity at this site could jeopardize the bicycle route and lead to expansion of higher intensity uses, possibly causing a decline in the area’s rural and park-like nature. Currently the WWAC (Water/Wastewater Advisory Committee) is looking for a suitable location for a wastewater facility due to the lack of sewer infrastructure in the Little Maumelle watershed area. All developments’ sewer in this watershed must be pumped to an adjoining watershed. Showing 35 acres ± of land in this watershed as Mixed Use could result in dense development that is premature for the area and result in more sewer pumping which would overburden the existing sewer infrastructure. The Mixed Use classification allows for uses such as multifamily, low density residential, commercial, and office. At this moment it is advised that development in the area continues its rural development style to prevent negative effects from an over burdened sewer system. Southwest and south of the property areas shown as Single Family and Low Density Residential have been developing with single family homes, higher density homes, and several fourplexes. This development has been happening on Rummel Road and off of Pinnacle Valley Road, south of the railroad tracks and the Little Maumelle River. Part of the reason for the development southwest of the property is because of the difficulty of running sewer lines across those barriers. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-01 4 In the west Little Rock area intense areas are shown at improved Arterial intersections. In this case Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road are unimproved Minor Arterials and Collectors, respectively. In order for this to be a fully functional area of high intensity uses, road improvements would be necessary, including increased turning radii at the intersection. Currently Pulaski County is in the final planning stages of improving and realigning Pinnacle Valley Road from Cantrell Road to the railroad tracks southwest of the property. These improvements cover just under one mile and may be a catalyst for development along that section of Pinnacle Valley Road. Although new development at the applicant’s side would result in additional road improvements continuing on Pinnacle Valley Road, it may create a leapfrog effect causing development to jump the Little Maumelle River prematurely. Furthermore, infrastructure costs would be increased and the rural character of the area may decline. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Walton Heights- Candlewood Neighborhood Association and River Valley Property Owners Association. Staff has received five comments from area residents. One is in support, three are opposed to the change and one was neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate because an increase of use intensity in the area is premature due to the rural character and lack of infrastructure in the area at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Dana Carney made a presentation of item 22.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 22. See item 22.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Ludwig Long Form Planned Commercial Development. Commissioner Mizan Rahman asked what was shown on the land Use Plan to the south of the application. Mr. Minyard answered PK/OS and SF. Commissioner Floyd asked if the PK/OS was representative of the floodway or floodplain. Dana Carney answered that it was floodway. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-01 5 Commissioner Rahman asked about the recommendation of the item being premature. Mr. Minyard responded that staff did think the possible intensity allowed in the Mixed Use category, was indeed premature. Mr. Gene Ludwig, the applicant, spoke in favor or the amendment and stated that he has support of 13 of the 14 contiguous property owners. Gary Aday, a resident of the area, stated that he would rather have the proposed development than other things that could go into the area. Brenda Norwood, a longtime resident of the area, gave a history of the area. She stated that the quality of life that is enjoyed by the valley residents would suffer with the proposed development. She continued to speak in opposition to the development. Christian Harris, an attorney for Mr. George Dyer, a local property owner, spoke that they no longer were in opposition to the application. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 22.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771 NAME: Ludwig Complex Long-Form PCD LOCATION: NW corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads DEVELOPER: Gene Ludwig 8501 Pinnacle Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72223 501-868-7500 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 501-821-1667 AREA: 37.2± Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: AF ALLOWED USES: Single Family, Agricultural uses and recreational uses. PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Single Family, Office and concrete pump truck company VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. 5-year deferral of street improvements A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A PCD is requested to allow for development of a complex containing four (4) buildings and associated parking and drives. The proposed buildings are as follow: 1. 9,000 square foot, two-story law office 2. 8,000 square foot, two-story single family residence 3. 6,600 square foot, service truck garage with 16’ tall side walls and five, January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 2 20-foot wide garage doors 4. 6,600 square foot, service truck garage with 24’ tall side walls and five, 20-foot wide garage doors A proposed land use plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-20-01) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and has been used in the past as pasture. The area around the site is rural in nature and contains single family homes and small farms. Three parks are located in the general vicinity; Two Rivers Park, Maumelle Corps of Engineers Park and Pinnacle Mountain State Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the River Valley Neighborhood Association. As of this writing, staff has received several telephone calls roughly divided between those of an informational nature and those in opposition to the proposal. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Furnish signed and notarized dedications with final Board approval of the rezoning request. 3. This property is outside of the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary. No grading permits or storm water detention facilities are required. 4. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one- half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development or obtain a Board of Directors deferral or waiver. 5. Obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County. The minimum Finish floor elevation of is required to be shown on plat for flood hazard areas. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 3 E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside service boundary. No Comment. Entergy: No Comments received. Reliant: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments 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 the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. 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 size to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Outside service boundary, submit comments from local volunteer Fire Department which serves this area. County Planning: 1. A driveway permit should be obtained from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department 340-6800. 2. A Permit for Development in the Floodplain and an Engineering “No Adverse Impact” Certificate should be obtained from Pulaski County Planning and Development. 340-8260 3. Show all proposed and existing drainage structures. 4. Provide copies of NPDES Permit and Clearing Permit for our records. 5. Indicate owners and use(s) of adjoining parcels. 6. Show the boundary. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 4 7. Where are the limits of the floodway in relation to this parcel. 8. Delineate wetland areas; if none, so state. 9. Provide construction details for the fence. A variance will be required for the construction of this fence due to floodplain/floodway issues. 10. Provide the finished floor elevation for all proposed structures. 11. Provide erosion control plan and details. 12. Contact the Corps of Engineers, if you have not done so. 13. Because of the nature of the proposed materials hauling business, this project will be subject to industrial standards for building setbacks and improvements. 14. Show building setback lines. 15. Survey must meet minimum standards. 16. Note: “Development shall meet the standards of the City of Little Rock and Pulaski County.” 17. All work in the right-of-way will require a permit from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family and Park/Open Space for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD for law offices, a private residence, and concrete pump truck storage. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 5 Master Street Plan: Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and County Farm Road is shown as a Collector. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements. A Class III Bikeway is shown on Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. A Class III Bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. 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. Landscape Issues: Compliance with City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8% of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 square feet in area. Building landscaping requirements are not shown. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Trees that are to be preserved will need protective orange fencing placed around the critical root zone areas prior to the beginning of any construction. This will need to be noted on both the grading/site plan and the landscape plan. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped area will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 6 The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree-covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 29, 2004) Joe White was present representing the application. Staff presented the item and requested additional information regarding signage, number of employees per business, days and hours of operation of each business, site lighting, fencing and phasing of the development. Staff asked the applicant to locate and label any outside storage areas and to more clearly define the requested uses. The applicant was asked to provide more details on the proposed concrete pumper truck operation. Staff noted that a neighboring property owner had raised questions regarding access to his property over an old path that went through Mr. Ludwig’s property. The applicant was asked to address the issue of continued access to that adjacent property. Public Works, Utility, Landscape and County Planning Comments were noted. The applicant was directed to meet with those agencies regarding their comments. The applicant was instructed to reply to staff issues by Wednesday, January 5, 2005. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission. H. ANALYSIS: The 37.21± acre tract located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road is currently zoned AF, Agriculture and Forestry. The property is undeveloped and has been used as pasture. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to allow for the development of a multiple-building complex containing a single-family residence, a law office and two buildings for a concrete pumper truck operation. The buildings are proposed to be built in a compound style around a parking lot courtyard. The buildings will have setbacks of 545 feet from Pinnacle Valley Road on the south, 530 feet from Pinnacle Valley Road on the east, 458 feet from the north property line and 150 feet from the west property bordering the Little Maumelle River. The four buildings are a two-story, 9,000 square foot law office;; a two-story 8,000 square foot single family residence; and two, 6,600 square foot, one-story buildings to be used as garages for the concrete pumper trucks. A series of screening walls and wrought iron fences will connect the buildings, creating a courtyard. Two separate parking lots will be located within the courtyard area. A 21-space parking lot will be accessed from the front of the compound. These spaces are for the law office and residence. A separate, January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 7 16-space parking lot and truck maneuvering area is to be accessed from the west side of the compound. This area will serve the proposed concrete pumper truck business. The truck parking lot will be screened entirely by the buildings and walls. The buildings will be white with green metal roofs; a style which is compatible with the “Kentucky Horse Farm” theme that has been used by other newer development in the area. Ranch style fencing will enclose the property as a whole as well as line the driveway and encircle the compound. A single driveway will provide access from Pinnacle Valley Road on the south. The applicant is requesting a deferral of street improvements for 5 years or until adjacent development. The applicant, on January 5, 2005, submitted responses to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. The site plan shows three ground mounted signs; one on each street frontage to be of a monument style, not to exceed 8 feet in height, 2 feet in length and 100 square feet in area; and an unspecified ornamental monument sign within the circular part of the driveway. The proposed uses include the single family residence for the owner’s family or management, the law office practice of Ludwig Law Firm, PLC, and the dispatch location for the pump truck business. Pump trucks are to be parked within the screened compound until they are dispatched. Other than parking, only light washing and light maintenance of the trucks would occur on the site. This business will also include some offices for management, accounting and telephone dispatching. The business is proposed to have up to 18-20 trucks. The law firm is proposed to employ 7 full-time and 2 part-time employees. If the pump truck business grows to 18-20 trucks, it would employ 19-20 drivers and 2- 3 office workers. Hours of operation are proposed as 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday for the law firm and 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday for the pump truck business with limited activity on some Saturdays. The site is proposed to be developed in one phase. Lighting is proposed to comply with dark-sky standards. A single dumpster location has been shown behind the compound. The dumpster will be screened to comply with Code. The owners of the property adjacent to the west have been using an undedicated access “road” through this site to their property for many years. Staff has been provided Geological Survey Maps dating back to 1961 which show some sort of access. The neighboring property owners have raised concern about maintaining that access. The applicant has committed to working with these persons to try to resolve their access concerns. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 8 Staff is not supportive of the project as proposed. Staff can support the proposed single family residence and law office, with the “Kentucky Horse Farm” enclosed compound design proposed by the applicant. Staff cannot, however, support the proposed concrete pumper truck business. This aspect of the proposal is very intense, bordering on industrial in nature. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to permit a business of this nature and intensity at this site. Additionally, staff is concerned about the impact of a proposed business that requires the use of multiple, heavy trucks on substandard county and city streets. The potential for damage to the streets and vehicle accidents would be increased with this proposed use. Additionally, staff does not support the applicant’s proposal to have three signs or to have the size signs requested. If approved, staff believes signage should be limited to one ground-mounted sign not to exceed the size and height allowed in office zones; 6 feet in height and 64 square feet in area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present. There were several supporters and one objector present. Staff had received a few telephone calls, one fax and two e-mails of opposition and one e-mail of support. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. The applicant, Gene Ludwig, spoke in support of his application. He stated he had the support of 99% of the residents and the majority of the property owners in the area. He showed a map indicating the location of those in support. He stated his proposed plan had more open space than developed area. Mr. Ludwig showed renderings of his proposed project. He stated the pumper truck business had been located on Cantrell Road near Pinnacle Valley Road for 30 years with no apparent ill effect. He described the trucks as narrower than a school bus and about the same length. Mr. Ludwig described the truck operation; stating the trucks run an average of 1 ½ times in the winter and less in the summer. He stated the trucks were cleaned at the construction site and only minor maintenance would occur at this site. Mr. Ludwig stated he had resolved the access issue with the Dyer family. He suggested a condition that he will execute an access easement to provide access to the Dyer property. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Ludwig confirmed that only light maintenance of the trucks and pumps would occur on this site and the trucks weighed 46,000 – 52,000 pounds. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771 9 During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Ludwig stated he was amending his application to have only two ground mounted monument signs not to exceed 64 square feet in area. Staff stated they would support allowing one sign on each street frontage. There was then a discussion of the requested street improvement deferral. Gary Aday, of 8112 Pinnacle Valley Road, spoke in support of the application. He checked off a list of several positive points. Mr. Aday stated he found the concept of “doing less on more” as very appealing. He stated the trucks would be screened and the proposed facility was beautiful. Brenda Norwood, of 7301 Hidden Valley, spoke in opposition. She stated she felt the development would have a negative impact and she was not aware of large-scale neighborhood support. Christian Harris, attorney for the Dyer family, stated their differences with Mr. Ludwig had been resolved and they no longer objected. Commissioner Yates asked how many trucks were currently in the fleet. Mr. Ludwig responded that he had 14 and had no problem with limiting his proposal to 17 to 18 trucks. In response to a question from Commissioner Williams, Director of Planning and Development Tony Bozynski stated he was still opposed to the truck aspect. He stated he could not support what he viewed as an industrial use at this location. Commissioner Rector asked if the business was not already in the area. Dana Carney of the Planning Staff stated there was a great difference between having the use at a nonconforming location on Hwy. 10 and expanding the business onto this site. In response to a question from Chairman Rahman, Mr. Ludwig stated he wished to proceed with his application. A motion was made to approve the application as amended subject to compliance with all staff comments and conditions, except the recommendation of denial. The vote was 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent; approving the motion. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: LU-05-19-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: Southwest corner of Highway 10 and Katillus Road Request: Transition to Mixed Use Source: Kevin Huchingson, Dickson Flake Partners On December 29, 2004, the applicant contacted Staff and asked to withdraw the application. Staff recommends withdrawal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 23.1 FILE NO.: Z-7772 NAME: Cantrell-Katillus Short-form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Katillus Road DEVELOPER: Dickson Flake Partners 1200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.94 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Office and Commercial Mix VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant submitted a request dated December 31, 2004, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated December 31, 2004, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7772 2 There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: Z-7774 NAME: Beck’s Replat of Lot 49 Scenic Heights Addition Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located at 29 Scenic Point DEVELOPER: Barry Beck 29 Scenic Point Place Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc. 1501 Market Street Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.719 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Lot Split Single-family Residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance – A variance to allow a reduced lot width for proposed Lot 49BR (20-feet). A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a lot split for proposed Lot 49 of the Scenic Heights Addition. There is an existing single-family home located on this existing lot and the applicant has indicated the proposed lot split will allow the development of a single-family home on the new lot. The proposed site plan indicates Lot 49AR will contain 19,534 square feet and proposed Lot 49BR will contain 10,920 square feet. The applicant has indicated a lot width of approximately 64.34-feet for proposed Lot 49AR and 20 feet for proposed Lot 49BR. The applicant has indicated a 20-foot front building line for Lot 49AR and has indicated a maximum buildable area for proposed Lot 49BR. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7774 2 The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this parcel of property. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing single-family home with a circular driveway. The topography of the lot is such that adjacent to the street, the lots are relatively flat dropping dramatically to the rear. Scenic Point Place is a cul-de-sac street with homes facing the cul-de-sac. Below the homes is Scenic Boulevard also with homes backing up to the homes on Scenic Point Place. The area is predominately single-family with homes located on large lots and areas of open space held in tracts. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the area residents, two of which stated opposition. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents located within 300-feet of the site who could be identified, along with the Heights Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required Per Section 29-186 (e). At a minimum, show existing and proposed final contours, wall locations and heights, and finished floor elevation. 3. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available on the site. Easement dedication required with replat. No construction within five feet of existing sewer main. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center-Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7774 3 Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water guidelines call for 20-foot minimum frontage on a water main in order to provide water service. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA bus route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PD-R for lot split. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Scenic Point Street is shown as local streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. The street may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. 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 Heights Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing Goal does not specifically address the indicated application of a lot split to allow the addition of a single-family home to the area. The Housing Goal more specifically addresses accessory dwellings, limiting the amount of parking and limiting the number of occupants in, size of, and scale of accessory dwellings. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff stated they had met with the applicant prior to the Committee meeting due to a scheduling conflict and the upcoming holiday. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request to the Commissioners present stating the applicant had indicated the issues raised would be addressed and resubmitted to staff on or before December 29, 2004. Staff noted they had addressed the comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7774 4 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 plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised prior to and at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the maximum buildable area for proposed Lot 49BR and has indicated a minimum lot width of 20-feet as requested by Central Arkansas Water. The applicant has indicated the storm water flow through the site. The applicant has indicated storm water flows through the site along the western perimeter of the site. The applicant has indicated the lot areas of 10,820 square feet for the proposed new lot and 19,534 square feet for the proposed lot containing the existing residence. The applicant has indicated a 20-foot building line adjacent to the existing cul-de-sac for the existing lot and the proposed new lot. The applicant has also indicated the maximum buildable area for the proposed new lot indicating an eight-foot setback from the side and rear yard property lines. The applicant has indicated on the existing lot a zero side yard setback adjacent to the proposed new lot. There is an existing deck and steps leading to a basement area, which is not located at grade along the proposed property line. Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. Staff has concerns with the proposed building of the new lot and feels the new development will be out of character with the existing homes. Staff feels the use is appropriate for the site, single-family, but staff does not feel the new home will be in keeping with the area. The existing homes in the area maintain the block face of the street. The new home will have a significant elevation change from the existing residences in the area. The new home is proposed to be below street level with the roofline being the visual aspect from the roadway. The lot appears to have a sixty-eight percent slope, which is approximately a one to one slope. The lower end of the proposed new lot will have a two to one slope. The development of the new lot will require the movement of a large amount of dirt and fill material, which leads staff to question the buildablity of the proposed lot. The indicated parking pad will be eighteen to twenty-four feet above the grade of the lot, which will also appear out of character with the existing homes in the neighborhood. The proposed lot has minimal setbacks proposed which staff feels is also out of character with the existing development pattern in the area. Although, the indicated lot sizes are more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, staff questions if the indicated lot is buildable. Staff feels if the site were buildable the lot would have previously been designated as a building lot. The indicated lot width does not meet the minimum January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7774 5 requirement to allow the sixty-foot minimum lot width requirement per the Subdivision Ordinance. The lot widths are indicated as sixty-four feet and twenty-feet. The addition of the second lot “crowds” the existing driveway and staff feels this also is out of character with the existing block face. The homes in the area have a circular drive or double car drive with lawn area on at least one side of the driveway. The proposal may include the placement of a single car drive extending into the site and flaring after the drive enters the lot. This would allow for green space on the side of the proposed driveway but the lawn area would not be in keeping with the other homes in the area since the area would be relatively small. Staff does not feel the request is appropriate as proposed. Staff feels the creation of an additional lot on the site will detract from the existing homes in the area and not be in keeping the existing character of the neighborhood. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 25 ACORD TREE HARVESTING APPEAL Name: Gary Acord Property, Request to Harvest Trees, Chap 29-166 Location: Undeveloped property at Baseline Road and Sibley Hole Road to I-430 and I-30 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Owner/Applicant: Mr. Gary Acord Request: A request to issue a grading permit to harvest trees on 80.63 acres. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Master Street Plan Baseline Road is a principal arterial street. This portion of Sibley Hole Road is a residential street. 2. Development Potential and Land Use This 80.63 acre property is zoned R2 and fronts Baseline Road, Sibley Hole Road, Interstate 430, and the Interstate 30 access road. Adjacent properties to the east across Sibley Hole Road are zoned industrial, office, commercial, and residential. Adjacent property to the east but west of Sibley Hole Road is zoned residential. Adjacent property to the north across Baseline Road is zoned residential. Adjacent properties to the north but south of Baseline Road are zoned industrial. I-430 and I-30 are located on the west and south, respectively. 3. Neighborhood Position Public Works has not received any inquiries. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is appealing the final decision of Public Works not to issue a grading permit for harvesting timber on the applicant’s property per Section 29-195. The applicant is requesting issuance of a grading permit to conduct a selective harvest of timber. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) ACORD TREE HARVESTING APPEAL 2 Grading permit issuance was denied by Public Works because construction following the harvesting activity is not imminent per Section 29-186(b). The applicant desires to harvest approximately 3000 trees on the 80.63 acre property as good forestry management with no construction to immediately follow. The land alteration regulation allows up to 7 trees to be harvested on a residential zoned property of this size without imminent construction to follow. The regulations do exempt properties zoned agriculture forestry to be harvested without a grading permit. The applicant has told staff, he does not wish to rezone the property. If the Planning Commission approves the issuance of a grading permit, Public Works requires compliance with the following conditions: 1.) Access the site from the specified access location after installation of a vehicular tracking pad; 2.) A 50 foot undisturbed buffer must be maintained around the property; 3.) Damage to off site property must be repaired by the applicant in a timely manner and; 4.) Treetops and debris generated from the harvest activity must be removed at the conclusion of harvest to reduce the potential fire hazard. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for further requirements and conditions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Staff met with owner’s representative. Staff requested a forestry plan and required no access to Sibley Hole Road. All traffic would be required to access Baseline Road. At time of this writing, staff has yet to receive a forestry plan and agreement on site access location. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Gary Accord was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the request was an appeal of staff’s recommendation of denial of a grading permit. Staff stated construction was not eminent. Staff stated the request was consistent with good forestry practice management and if construction was planned for the site or if the site were zoned “AF” the developer would be allowed to remove the proposed trees. Staff stated the applicant has submitted a Forestry Management Plan in compliance with ordinance requirements. Staff stated if they could issue a permit the plan met the minimum requirements with regard of tracking and buffering. Staff stated the applicant was proposing the placement of a forty-foot buffer around the perimeter of the site. Staff stated the proposal included the removal of twenty percent of the existing trees or roughly 2,800 trees from the site. Staff January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) ACORD TREE HARVESTING APPEAL 3 stated the harvesting plan indicated two access points; one to Sibley Hole Road and one to Baseline Road. Staff stated they had requested the applicant locate the access along the I-30 Frontage Road. Staff stated this would require State Highway Department approval and may not be a feasible alternative. Staff stated the applicant had satisfied the Fire Department’s concerns with regard to the removal of treetops and all permits would be obtained prior to burning. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, stated she did not feel the Commission had the authority to grant the applicant’s request. She stated in her opinion the Commission had no choice but to deny the applicant’s permit request. She stated the ordinance clearly stated no land alteration is permitted unless construction is eminent. She stated the request was contrary to City ordinances. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the Commission’s ability to forward the item to the Board of Directors for final action. Commissioner Mizan questioned why if there was no authority to approve the applicant’s request a Forestry Management Plan was requested. Ms. Dawson stated from a legal standpoint the Commission must follow the law they have, not the one they wished they had. Mr. Gary Accord addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated currently he was only able to harvest seven trees in a twelve month period without a grading permit. He stated twenty percent of the trees on the site was a small percentage of the total trees. He stated the site contained eighty plus acres and six trees would not allow him to clear the under brush on the site. He stated under good forestry management practices the older trees needed removal to allow for good timber management. He stated he did not have plans for development but the site would eventually develop based on the location. Ms. Janet Berry addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated the Commission should reward the applicant for his attempt to ask permission prior to clearing. She stated the ordinance had a provision for timber management in an earlier draft but was left out of the final ordinance adopted by the Board of Directors. She stated the ordinance needed amending to allow for timber management on site such as the applicant’s. There was a general discussion concerning the applicant’s request and how the Commission could aid him in his request. It was suggested the Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Directors who could amend ordinances to allow the timber management to be accomplished. A motion was made to recommend to the Board of Directors an ordinance amendment to allow the applicant’s request for timber harvesting. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) ACORD TREE HARVESTING APPEAL 4 The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 recuse (Commissioner Jerry Meyer). January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: Z-6611-A NAME: Lewis Short-form PCD Time Extension Request LOCATION: Located at 508 Bond Street DEVELOPER: Danny Lewis 913 Selma Street Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: Robert Bickerstaff, Inc. 1809 West 35th Street North Little Rock, AR 72118 AREA: 0.454 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Beauty Shop / Expansion of Catering Business VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Continued deferral of sidewalk improvements to Bond Street. BACKGROUND: On January 21, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the site which was zoned I-2, Light Industrial District to be used by the applicant as a catering business. As a part of the approval, the Commission approved a variance, for a reduced front and rear yard setback of 37 and 15 feet respectively. The applicant was also granted a deferral request, by the Board of Directors, for the placement of sidewalks on Bond Street by Ordinance No. 17,943 for a five-year period of time. The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow the development of the site as a catering facility on February 14, 2002, and made a recommendation of approval of the request to rezone the site from I-2, Light Industrial District to PCD. Ordinance No. 18,654 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on March 19, 2002, established Lewis Short-form PCD. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6611-A 2 The applicant proposed to close his existing catering business and lease the 600 square foot building to a prospective tenant to be used as a beauty shop. In 18 to 24 months, the applicant proposed to construct a 600 square foot addition to the existing structure, remove the beauty shop from the premise and re-enter the catering business with a sit-down restaurant. The sit-down restaurant would have a seating capacity of 15 in conjunction with the catering. The applicant proposed the addition of 9 parking spaces as a part of the future development. There were three parking spaces located on the site, which would give a total of 12 parking spaces when the development was complete. The applicant requested a continued deferral of sidewalk improvements to Bond Street. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now requesting approval by the Planning Commission of a time extension for implementation of the previously approved PCD. The applicant has indicated economic constraints have not allowed him to begin construction as anticipated. As a result, the applicant requests the Commission allow a two-year time extension of the previously approved PCD. The applicant is also requesting a continued deferral of the required sidewalk improvements to Bond Street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is zoned PCD and contains a single building used as a catering business. The area to the north is zoned UU but is vacant. West of the site are duplex units along East Capitol Avenue and Pepper Street on UU zoned property. To the south of the site there is a tire shop and car body shop. East of the site, on Bond Street, is single-family and duplex units located on R-4, Two- family zoned property. Other uses in the area include a liquor distribution center, a club, a church and a Little Rock School District maintenance center. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified, the East Little Rock Neighborhood Association and Hanger Hill Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6611-A 3 D. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a two-year time extension for the implementation of Lewis Short-form PCD. As per Section 36-454 (e), adopted May 6, 2003, “ … the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. The applicant may request and the Planning Commission may grant one extension of time of not more than two-years.” The applicant wishes to retain the option of developing the site as originally planned. If the extension is approved, the PCD will expire on March 19, 2007. The site may be subject to revocation action by the Commission if a development plan is not submitted and approved prior to the expiration date. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Danny Lewis was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for a two-year time extension for the proposed development subject to compliance with all previously approved comments and conditions. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: Z-7131 NAME: Polo Club in Chenal Valley Long-form PD-R Revocation LOCATION: Located on the West side of Chenal Valley Drive near Lamarche Drive DEVELOPER: Deltic Timber Corporation 7 Chenal Valley Drive Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.60 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PRD ALLOWED USES: Multi-family 8.33 units per acre VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,647 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 19, 2002, rezoned the site from MF-24 to PRD (Planned Residential Development), which would allow the applicant to develop the site as a multi-family development with an 8.33 units per acre density. The development was proposed with ten buildings of upper-end, low-density rental residences tailored to empty nesters, families waiting for homes to be constructed and business people living away from home for an extended period of time. A total of 80 units were proposed with the development. Each of the units was to have a garage unit, 12 garage spaces were proposed in a detached structure and 79 surface parking spaces were proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant submitted a request dated December 6, 2004, requesting the current zoning be revoked and the previous MF-24 district zoning classification be restored. The applicant has indicated the proposed apartment development January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7131 2 will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section 36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded and undeveloped as are the areas to the north, south and west. The area to the east was recently approved as a Planned Residential Development for the development of a retirement village with a nursing home and assisted living facility currently being proposed. Other uses in the area along Chenal Valley Drive include Ashbury Apartments to the south, near Rahling Road, and a city of Little Rock Fire station to the northwest, near Chenal Parkway. Single-family residences are located to the north of the site, on LaMarche Drive in the LaMarche Subdivision of Chenal Valley. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site along, all residents located within 300-feet of the site, who could be identified along with the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current PRD zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to MF-24. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for the revocation of the current PRD zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to MF-24. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 28 FILE NO.: S-285-MMM NAME: The Ranch Tract E-2 Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located on the North side of Cantrell Road, East of Patrick Country Road DEVELOPER: Financial Centre Corp. Ranch Properties, Inc. 900 South Shackleford, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 23.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 1900 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 - Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 Variance/Waivers: A deferral of street improvements to Patrick Country Road. BACKGROUND: On November 29, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a site plan for the development of a 260-unit apartment complex. The development included eleven buildings and a clubhouse/office building. The development was never constructed. Also approved by the Board of Directors was an Ordinance (Ordinance No. 16,814 dated December 20, 1994) to amend the Master Street Plan and to allow a waiver of the Subdivision requirements with regard to double frontage lots (S-285-S). A Master Street Plan amendment included the deferral of the requirement to provide Master Street Plan improvements on Patrick Country Road. The deferral was approved to allow the developer to construct the Master Street Plan required widening when one of the following occurred: 1) any additional development (exclusive of the apartment development on Tract G) which abuts or takes access to Patrick Country Road at the January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-MMM 2 southwest corner of the Ranch, Tract G; 2) any development within the Ranch along Patrick Country Road south of said creek; 3) development of over 50% of the office tract in The Ranch at the northeast corner of Patrick Country Road and Highway 10; 4) extension of any street from the Ranch to Patrick Country Road. On January 29, 2001, an application was filed for a 260-unit apartment complex to be located on this site. The application was withdrawn without prejudice at the March 8, 2001, Planning Commission Public Hearing. On May 2, 2003, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a request for the construction of 260 apartment units on a 15.1-acre site located on Tract G. The applicant proposed thirteen, two and three story apartment buildings, one community center complex, five detached garage buildings containing thirty spaces, one laundry facility and one mail center. No access was proposed from Patrick Country Road from the multi-family development. This development is near completion. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developers previously agreed to construct the required improvements to Patrick County Road, adjacent to Tract G, and from Tract G to Highway 10 (Tract E) as soon as any property in the Ranch was developed that would take direct access to Patrick Country Road. The developer is now requesting to revise the agreement to allow the development of Tract E-2 and allow the construction of an access drive onto Patrick Country Road along the north side of Tract E-2 without constructing the entire roadway. The developer is proposing to construct the required improvements adjacent to Tract E-2 as a part of the proposed final platting or approximately 250-feet from Cantrell Road. The developer has indicated various development scenarios for the property in the area that would result in a change in status of Patrick Country Road, north of the Baptist Church property located to the west of Tract E. The developer is requesting additional time for adjacent development to occur which would further dictate the need for the proposed roadway. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Tract E is a vacant tract bounded Chenonceau Boulevard to the east, Cantrell Road to the south and Patrick County Road to the west. There is a drainage way located along the northern boundary. There is a church located to the west of the site on R-2, Single-family zoned property. To the northwest of the site is a single-family home located on O-3, General Office District zoned property. North of the site is a new apartment development under construction nearing completion, with signs advertising leasing located on Tract E adjacent to Cantrell Road. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-MMM 3 East of the site within the Ranch Development are various office developments ranging in scale from small quiet office developments to a 24-hour telephone call center. There are also commercial activities located within the Ranch Development, located to the east of Tract E. There is also a school located to the northeast of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. The abutting property owners along with the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Patrick Country Road is shown on the Master Street plan as a collector street that serves large acreages to the north. Other landowners expect this road will one day be widened and improved. Public Works staff does not support a change in the previous agreements for improving Patrick Country Road. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: This item was not routed for additional comments since the request was only related to timing of the street development. F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff noted the request was related to the deferral of the development of Patrick Country Road. Staff stated previous agreements had indicated when a lot abutting the roadway would take access, the entire roadway would be constructed. Mr. White stated the request was for a continued deferral and not a waiver of the required improvements. There was a general discussion concerning the need for the roadway. Mr. White stated the developer was looking into options to reroute the collector street. He stated with the additional time, a determination could be made as to the future need for the street and the most advantageous location for the roadway. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. G. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant’s request is to revise the agreement previously made concerning the construction of Patrick Country Road and allow Tract E-2 to have January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-MMM 4 an access drive onto Patrick Country Road along the north side of Tract E-2. The developer is proposing to construct the required improvements adjacent to Tract E-2 as a part of the proposed final platting but not fulfill the previous agreement to construct the required improvements to Patrick County Road from Tract G to Highway 10 as soon as any property in the Ranch was developed that would take direct access to Patrick Country Road. The developer has indicated various development scenarios for the property in the area that would result in a change in status of Patrick Country Road, north of the Baptist Church property, which is located to the west of Tract E. The developer is requesting additional time for adjacent development to occur which would further dictate the need for the proposed roadway. Staff is not supportive of this request. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved a Master Street Plan amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 16,814 on December 29, 1994, which outlined specific guidelines as to when Patrick Country Road would be constructed. The deferral was approved to allow the developer to construct the Master Street Plan required widening when one of the following occurred: 1) any additional development (exclusive of the apartment development on Tract G) which abuts or takes access to Patrick Country Road at the southwest corner of the Ranch, Tract G; 2) any development within the Ranch along Patrick Country Road south of said creek; 3) development of over 50% of the office tract in The Ranch at the northeast corner of Patrick Country Road and Highway 10; 4) extension of any street from the Ranch to Patrick Country Road. Staff feels the developer agreed in 1994 to construct the roadway under certain conditions and now that development of a lot abutting Patrick Country Road is near, the developer is requesting an additional deferral. Patrick Country Road is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Staff feels the street should be constructed as was previously agreed. The developer has had ten years to construct the roadway and has not done so to this point. The developer has indicated they are evaluating options and it is possible, in the future, the classification of the street will be changed. The street is currently indicated on the Master Street Plan as a collector street and staff feels the street should be constructed as indicated on the Master Street Plan and as agreed by the Developer. A new collector street has been added to the Master Street Plan in recent years named Valley Ranch Drive. There is an existing Principal Arterial located to the west (Chenal Parkway), which is located approximately 3,450-feet from Valley Ranch Drive, Valley Ranch Drive and Patrick Country Road are spaced at approximately 2,200-feet. Chenonceau Boulevard, although constructed to collector standards, has not been designated on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. The spacing between Patrick Country Road and Chenonceau January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-MMM 5 Boulevard is 800-feet. The next nearest north/south connection is Pinnacle Valley Road, which is located approximately 11,604 feet from Chenonceau Boulevard. The Master Street Plan designates spacing criteria for each of the street design types. For collector streets the preferred spacing criteria is 1,320 to 2,640 feet. Minor arterial spacing criteria is at 1-mile intervals and principal arterial standards is set at 3-mile intervals. There are no minor arterial connects indicated on the Master Street Plan extending to the north of Cantrell Road in this area. There are limited principal arterial connections and limited collector street connections. With the limited number of connections, collector street connections become more critical and with limited access, can serve at a higher capacity. The applicant has not requested a Master Street Plan amendment at this time but has indicated they desire additional time to study the area and determine if Patrick Country Road should remain on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Staff does not feel they would support the amendment if one were being requested. Patrick Country Road is proposed to extend to the north, turn west and connect to Pinnacle East Road. There are large areas of land in the area, which have not developed and will need these critical north/south connections to facilitate traffic movement in the area. Staff feels regardless of the potential development pattern in the area, Patrick Country Road will provide a necessary access to properties located to the north and should be maintained on the Master Street Plan and developed. Since staff feels they will not support an amendment in the future, staff feels it is appropriate to construct the roadway as was previously agreed. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a two year deferral of the required street improvements to Patrick Country Road to allow them time to pursue a Mater Street Plan amendment request. Staff stated they were supportive of the two- year deferral request to allow the applicant time to pursue the amendment request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent. January 20, 2005 ITEM NO.: 29 FILE NO.: S-1313-H NAME: Woodlands Edge Phase IV Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Located West of Brodie Creek Subdivision DEVELOPER: Rocket Properties P.O. Box 3157 Little Rock, AR 72203 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 333 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 701 FT. NEW STREET: 43,161 LF CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 Variance/Waivers: None requested. BACKGROUND: Woodlands Edge was originally approved in August 2001, as a 214-acre subdivision with 466 residential lots and 28,500 linear feet of new street. In the applicant’s original cover letter he indicated “This new neighborhood would preserve approximately 70 acres of greenbelts and open spaces and would feature a neighborhood park with connecting trails, sidewalks and footpaths. The development plan and site engineering for the Woodlands would be done in such a way as to reduce the impact of development on the land.” The applicant indicated he was not only trying to preserve as many trees as possible in the development, but was also trying to reduce the amount of excavation and fill required to create roadways and buildings sites. The applicant stated the desire was to limit disruption of the site’s hydrology by allowing the surface runoff to continue to flow in undisturbed natural basins. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1313-H 2 The cover letter also indicated the basis for a request for a reduced design standard for Woodlands Trail. The principal roadway through the property was shown on the City’s Master Street Plan as a collector street. The applicant indicated no lots would front the roadway except for thirteen of the lots on the eastern end. The applicant also indicated the roadway would be lined with wooded green belts ranging from 25-feet to over 200- feet in width on each side. In addition, the applicant indicated three traffic-calming circles approximately 1200 to 1300 feet apart along the roadway. The circles, or roundabouts, were to be designed not only to slow traffic, but also to discourage through traffic. The applicant stated the desire was to preserve more trees by allowing them to remain close to the edge of the roadway. The proposal included along the collector street (Woodlands Trails), the sidewalks and trails, which were planned to meander within the green belts and open spaces. The property owners’ association would maintain these sidewalks and trails when located on commonly owned property. The applicant stated the desire was to create a neighborhood that looked and felt more like a wooded setting where residents could more fully enjoy the natural character of the land. The applicant also indicated by retaining more trees and minimizing the impact of development on the land, they would be able to create a higher quality neighborhood through environmentally responsible and sustainable site development and techniques. Through various ordinances adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors variances for the Woodlands Edge Preliminary Plat have been established. The developer has indicated a desire to continue the development as previously proposed and approved. On April 22, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for a revision to Phases 8, 9 and 10 of the Woodlands Edge Preliminary Plat. The applicant indicated upon completion, a total of 11 phases would exist. The proposal included a total land area of 118.6 acres and the creation of 235 single- family lots. The applicant indicated reduced rear yard setbacks would be sought adjacent to dedicated green spaces and a reduced building line for corner lots. The applicant also requested the continuation of a reduced design standard for the collector streets (Woodlands Trail). In addition, the applicant requested several variances to allow the development to occur. The developer indicated the property was extremely steep and the philosophy of the developer was to allow for large areas of green space and allow natural drainage ways to remain undisturbed behind the lots. The development was proposed to follow the natural lay of the land allowing for areas that would remain as natural areas as green space and park areas. In each phase of the development detention was provided per ordinance requirement. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1313-H 3 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The developers of Woodlands Edge Subdivision are now trying to create a regional storm water detention facility. The subdivision is located on a ridge that separates the Brodie Creek and Panther Branch Watersheds and is being developed with an environmentally conscious design concept according to the developer. Also according to the developer the development is low density with an emphasis on tree preservation. The developer has located roads, where possible, on ridges with existing waterways being preserved, greatly reducing increased run-off volumes, velocities and quality associated with traditional residential developments. According to the developer’s Engineer, small detention facilities were previously approved are a poor choice for mitigating increased run-off volumes. He states they function poorly due to the small discharge structure; are difficult to maintain due to their location and the number of structures; are difficult to construct due to their more remote locations; destroy native vegetation and ground cover due to clearing required to construct and provide access for construction; and often actually contribute to flooding problems due to the elongated peak discharge and the subsequent concurrent peaking with the receiving watershed. According to the developer’s engineering firm, large (regional) detention basins, especially those in the upper reaches of watersheds solve most of these problems and provide a real benefit in terms of reduced flooding for the entire watershed involved. The developer desires to construct a regional storm water detention facility on Payne Branch just upstream of its confluence with Brodie Creek. The location is that of a previously existing lake. The spillway and a portion of the dam failed in the late 1970’s. The preliminary figures indicate that the lake could provide storm water detention for between 1500 and 2000 lots. The developer has indicated the detention proposed is more than would be required for the Woodlands Edge Subdivision and the remaining capacity would be offered as an additional benefit to the City. According to the developer’s engineer, he has obtained the HEC-2 backwater data for both Brodie Creek and Panther Branch. The project engineer has decreased the flows to simulate the proposed lake to ascertain its effect on Brodie Creek and found that it will decrease the 100 Year Flood Elevation on Brodie Creek by between 0.2 and 0.3 feet for this watershed. The project engineer has also adjusted the flows for Panther Branch to simulate the 80 plus or minus acres that would flow into Panther Branch absent of the detention. The Project Engineer has stated this change does increase the 100 Year flows by about 0.03 to 0.04 feet. The project engineer has preformed the field investigation of the area around Panther Branch between Woodlands Edge and January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1313-H 4 the confluence of Panther Branch and Brodie Creek and he found no structures that would be a concern due to this change. He also states it is his understanding the City is doing some improvements to Panther Branch where the creek crosses Bowman Road. He states this improvement alone would more than likely compensate for this slight increase. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Portions of the Woodlands Edge Subdivision have been constructed and new homes have been constructed while other areas remain vacant and wooded. The entire subdivision has varying degrees of slope. For the most part roadways have been constructed on ridges retaining valleys for drainage and green spaces. The Cherry Creek Subdivision is located to the north of the Woodlands Edge Subdivision and Brodie Creek Subdivision is located to the east. Areas to the south and west remain undeveloped even though a preliminary plat has been approved for portions of these areas for the Woodlands Edge Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from the area residents. The abutting property owners along with the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Sandpiper Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The proposed regional detention facility in-lieu of the original proposed smaller detention basins is acceptable. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/ TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Staff did not seek comments from the various departments and agencies since the request was related to the proposed storm water detention facilities and no changes were being proposed related to utility easement. F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. Staff noted the request was to revise the previously approved storm water detention plan. Staff noted the applicant was requesting a regional detention facility in-lieu of various smaller detention facilities. Staff stated there were no technical issues outstanding related to the request. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. January 20, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1313-H 5 G. ANALYSIS: There were no issues raised at the December 29, 2004, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided staff with the HEC-2 data mentioned in the proposal section. According to the data provided, the detention facility would serve the area and provide excess storm water detention capacity for the watershed. The HEC-2 indicates a slight rise in the 100-year flow when adjusting the flows for Panther Branch to simulate the 80 plus or minus acres that would flow into Panther Branch absent the detention. Staff feels this is not a significant issue since the field investigation for the area around Panther Branch between the development and the confluence of Panther Branch and Brodie Creek found no structure would be a concern due to the change. Staff is supportive of the proposed request and to staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a regional detention facility in-lieu of the original proposed smaller detention basins. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s request for a regional detention facility in-lieu of the original proposed smaller detention basins. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item on the consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent.