HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_04 14 2005sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 14, 2005
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number.
II. Members Present: Gary Langlais
Jeff Yates
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Pam Adcock
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the March 3, 2005 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
APRIL 14, 2005
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Ranch West Office Park Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1441-B), located on the East
side of Ranch Valley Drive, West of Patrick Country Road.
B. Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1477), located on the East end
of Isbell Lane, West of County Farm Road, North of Two Rivers Park.
C. Bellevue Addition Replat Tract 1 (S-1478), located at 7700 Cantrell Road.
D. Yarberry Place Addition Preliminary Plat (S-1479), located South of Yarberry Lane,
East of Kerry Road.
E. Sage Meadows Apartments Revised Site Plan Review (S-1229-B), located on
John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive.
F. Fletcher Short-form PCD (Z-6985-A), located at 8121 Jamison Road.
G. Skyhawk Circle Long-form PD-C (Z-7787), located at 4500 Skyhawk Circle.
H. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-20-03), in the Pinnacle Planning District at
the Northwest Corner of Highway 10 and the entrance to Little Rock Christian
Academy from Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial.
H.1. Muewly Long-form POD (Z-6079-F), located at the Northwest corner of Highway
10 and the entrance to Little Rock Christian Academy.
I. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-04-01), located in the Heights Planning
District in the 700 Block of North University Avenue from Office to Mixed Use.
I.1. University Park Short-form PD-R (Z-7563-A), located at 715 North University
Avenue.
Agenda, Page Two
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLATS:
1. Hannahville Subdivision Preliminary Plat (S-1480), located at 2915
Beauchamp Road.
II. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
2. Indiana Avenue Revised Short-form PD-R (Z-6090-B), located at 7208 and
7212 Indiana Street.
3. Dairyland Revised Long-form PCD (Z-6318-B), located at 16105 Chenal
Parkway.
4. Centennial Bank Revised Short-form PCD (Z-6406-A), located at 12211
West Markham Street.
5. Cantrell Loops Lot 2 Revised Long-form PCD (Z-7022-C), located on the
North side of Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop Road.
6. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-20-04) in the Pinnacle Planning District
at the northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road
from Single Family to Suburban Office.
6.1. Ludwig Complex Long-form POD (Z-7771-A), located on the Northwest
corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road.
7. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU05-01-02) in the River Mountain Planning
District on the south side of Cantrell Road near the 15000 block from
Transition to Mixed Use.
7. 1. Miracle Development Short-form PD-C (Z-7783-A), located at 14929
Cantrell Road.
8. Harvey Short-form PCD (Z-7810), located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike.
9. Thomas Long-form PD-R (Z-7811), located on the North side of Cantrell
Road at the West end of Mooser Lane.
10. Pintura Subdivision Long-form PD-R (Z-7812), located on the North side of
Kanis Road, just West of Kirby Road.
11. Faithland Properties Short-form POD (Z-7813), located at 1720 North Grant
Street.
12. Winstead Long-form PD-R (Z-7814), located at 6 River Mountain Road.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1441-B
NAME: Ranch Highlands West Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on Valley Ranch Drive, North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
FCC Grass Farms Partnership
Suite 300, Financial 3 Building
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 28.1154 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 1000 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 - Pinnacle
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow the development of Lots 7
and 8 as double frontage lots.
BACKGROUND:
A preliminary plat for 5.68 acres of O-3, General Office District zoned property was
reviewed and approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their July 15, 2004,
Public Hearing. A revision to expand the previously approved preliminary plat area to
include 13 office zoned lots was filed for review by the Little Rock Planning Commission
at their October 7, 2004, Public Hearing. The applicant withdrew his request prior to
final action by the Commission.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a preliminary plat application for properties
currently zoned O-3, General Office District. The applicant has indicted the
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-B
2
development of 28.11 acres with eleven (11) lots. The applicant has indicated an
average lot size of 280-feet by 280-feet or 1.79 acres. The applicant has also
indicated 1,000 linear feet of street will be added as a result of the development.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates Lots 7 and 8 as double frontage lots.
The applicant is seeking a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of the lots as indicated. The developer has stated the justification
for the variance is the primary access to these lots will be from Valley Ranch
Court and a no right of vehicle access will be platted along the rear of the lots
abutting Patrick Country Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and grass covered with a scattering of trees. Valley Ranch
Drive is newly constructed without sidewalks in place. Other uses in the area
include a commercial node to the east including two auto repair businesses,
liquor store, a restaurant, a printing company and a church. The area to the west
is also vacant.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners, the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association, the
Maywood Manor and the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association were
notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. 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.
2. The standard conditions shown on the plans as "Public Works Notes" apply to
the project.
3. Public Works does not support a continued deferral of street improvements to
Patrick Country Road.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Valley Ranch Drive and Valley Ranch Court.
6. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
7. Any alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-B
3
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is
required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414
for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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. 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
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
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 near the Highway 10 Express CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat included the subdivision of an
O-3, General Office District zoned tract into 11 lots. Staff stated the proposal
would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of
double frontage lots. Staff requested the applicant provide the proposed
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-B
4
driveway locations and include a 50-foot building setback adjacent to the
northeastern single-family lots. Staff stated the single-family lots were shallow
lots. Staff stated they felt an additional buffer would be required in this area.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Staff also
stated a 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way would be required at the
intersection of Valley Ranch Drive and Valley Ranch Court. Staff noted a
continued deferral of street improvements to Patrick Country Road would not be
supported. Mr. Daters stated when a final plat for one of the lots abutting Patrick
Country Road was requested, the roadway would be constructed to commercial
street standard if the issue related to Patrick Country Road was not resolved.
Mr. Daters stated he and the owner were working on a proposal to remove
Patrick Country Road from the Master Street Plan and re-route the collector
street to Valley Ranch Drive.
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 preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the proposed driveway locations on the preliminary plat.
The applicant has also indicated a 30-foot undisturbed buffer and a 50-foot
building setback adjacent to the northeasterly lots currently indicated and zoned
for single-family.
The proposed preliminary plat includes the subdivision of 28.11 acres into eleven
office zoned lots. The applicant has indicated a 30-foot building line adjacent to
Valley Club Drive; more than adequate to meet the typical minimum ordinance
requirement (25-feet for properties zoned O-3, General Office District). The
applicant has also indicated an average lot size of 280-feet by 280-feet or 1.79
acres. The lots proposed are more than adequate to meet the minimum lot size
required for the current zoning or 14,000 square feet.
The applicant has also indicated a new cul-de-sac street will be added. The
applicant has indicated 1,000 feet of new street will be constructed to commercial
street standard.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
the development of double frontage lots. The applicant has indicated Lots 7 and
8 will be accessed from the new cul-de-sac street but will also have frontage on
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-B
5
Patrick Country Road. The applicant has indicated Patrick Country Road will be
developed when one of the lots abutting the roadway is final platted. Staff is
supportive of the indicated variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
development of double frontage lots and the applicant’s indicated phasing of the
street construction to Patrick Country Road.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. 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 applicant’s request to allow the creation of
double frontage lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a
request dated March 2, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005,
Public Hearing. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the Commission’s
By-laws with regard to the time frame for the deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the applicant’s requested deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. 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 noes
and 1 absent. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the
Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant is still working to resolve issues related to concerns raised at the
Subdivision Committee meeting held February 10, 2005. Staff recommends this item
be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1441-B
6
the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s
request to allow the creation of double frontage lots.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1477
NAME: Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the East end of Isbell Lane, West of County Farm Road, North
of Two Rivers Park
DEVELOPER:
Charles Hinson
24 Isbell Lane
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Civil Design Incorporated
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 9.66 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 2563 LF (Private)
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
Variance/Waivers:
1. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private street.
2. A variance to allow a reduced street standard for the private street (14-feet of
pavement with no curb).
3. A variance to allow the development of Lots 4 and 5 with a 15-foot front building line.
The applicant is working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005,
Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant submitted a request dated
February 16, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public
Hearing. Staff is supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public
Hearing.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1477
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. James Dreher of Civil Design was present representing the request. There were no
registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working to resolve
outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting.
Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated February 16, 2005, requesting
the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant is still working to resolve issues related to concerns raised at the
Subdivision Committee meeting held February 10, 2005. Staff recommends this item
be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was not present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was still working to resolve issues related
to concerns raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting held February 10, 2005. Staff
presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1478
NAME: Bellevue Addition Replat Tract 1
LOCATION: Located at 7700 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Bart Sullivan
7704 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72227
ENGINEER:
Keen Surveying LLC
501 Springwood Drive
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.30 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District and R-2, Single-family District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
Variance/Waivers: A variance to allow reduced side, rear and front yard setbacks for
Lots 1 and 2.
The applicant is working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005,
Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant submitted a request dated February 16,
2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is
supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was working to resolve the outstanding
issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff stated
the applicant had submitted a request dated February 16, 2005, requesting the item be
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1478
2
deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this existing tract into two lots. The
site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District adjacent to Cantrell
Road and R-2, Single-family District to the rear of the site. The R-2 zoned
portion of the site currently contains an occupied single-family home. The
property zoned C-3, General Commercial District property is currently occupied
as a strip center containing three office/commercial businesses.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision to allow the separation of the
commercial structure from the residential structure and allow the sale of the
residential structure. Currently, negotiations between the property owner and the
City are under way for the acquisition of right-of-way along Cantrell Road and the
applicant is pursuing the abandonment of Manney Street located along the
property’s eastern boundary. This abandonment will only extend from Cantrell
Road to the rear of the commercial building leaving the remaining right-of-way for
Manney Street in place. The applicant has indicated the home will remain as a
lot with public street frontage accessed by Manney Street to the north.
The applicant is requesting variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
the development of lots with reduced setbacks including the front, side and rear
yards.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family residences and a strip center containing office
and commercial uses. To the east of the site is an office/commercial
development across Manney Road. To the west of the site are commercial uses.
North of the site is a single-family neighborhood and northwest of the site is a
large undeveloped area with a steep grade.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not an
active neighborhood association located in the proposed plat area.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1478
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. Since
this would take the existing building, a Board waiver would be required.
2. This portion of Cantrell Road is scheduled for widening by AHTD. Show the
existing and proposed AHTD right-of-way lines on the plat. Contact the
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, District VI. Verify
that the existing right-of-way is still 60 feet as shown on the plans and not
80 feet after past widening projects.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements to serve all tracts.
No service line is allowed to cross another property to provide service to any
residential or commercial customer. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water has no objection to the closure
of the right-of-way of Manney Street. We do, however, have a 2-inch and an 8-
inch water main in Manney Street. Therefore, we request that the entire right-of-
way of Manney Street be retained as a utility easement. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 377-1225 for additional information.
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 near the Pulaski Heights CATA Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1478
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff noted the request was
to allow the subdivision of an existing tract into two lots, which would allow the
sale of the existing single-family home located on the site. Staff stated there
were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested
the applicant provide the certificates, the source of water and the means of
wastewater disposal and the building setbacks from all property lines.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant verify
the existing right-of-way for Cantrell Road. Staff also indicated Cantrell Road
was scheduled for widening but acquisition had not yet begun and a dedication of
right-of-way would be required. Staff stated the required right-of-way versus the
available right-of-way would require a Board of Directors action to waive the
55-foot requirement. Staff noted if the entire dedication were given, the right-of-
way would encroach into the existing buildings.
There was a general discussion concerning Manney Street and the proposed
closing of Manney Street. Staff noted if the street were abandoned, maintenance
of a utility easement would be required.
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 preliminary plat addressing most of staff’s
concerns raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the source of water and the means of wastewater
disposal in the general notes section of the proposed plat. The applicant has
also provided the certificates of preliminary plat approval on the proposed plat.
The applicant has indicated the existing right-of-way for Cantrell Road is 80-feet.
The applicant is requesting a reduced standard for right-of-way dedication. The
required right-of-way dedication would eliminate the existing building. Staff is
supportive of the applicant’s request for a reduced right-of-way standard. The
applicant has also indicated he will pursue the closure of Manney Street through
a separate Board of Directors action.
The applicant has indicated all proposed building setbacks on the proposed
preliminary plat as requested by staff. The applicant has indicated a 12.44 foot
building setback, after dedication of right-of-way for Cantrell Road along the front
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1478
5
of proposed Lot 1. The applicant has indicated a 0.54 foot side yard setback
along the western property line of proposed Lot 1 and a 0 rear yard setback
along the rear of proposed Lot 1 along the western boundary. The applicant has
indicated the rear of the building in this area will serve as the lot line. Along the
eastern boundary the applicant has indicated a 0.11 side yard setback for
proposed Lot 1. The applicant has indicated a 6.97-foot side yard building
setback along the northern property line and a 1.04 foot building side yard
setback along the southern property line for proposed Lot 2. The front building
line is set at 24.27 feet with a jog around an existing deck and covered porch
reducing the front building line to 13.27 feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
indicated setbacks and proposed building lines. The indicated building line and
setbacks have been placed to recognize existing conditions on the site. The site
is developed with a commercial building adjacent to Cantrell Road with a single-
family home located adjacent to Manney Road. The site contains an existing
fence, which separates the two uses. The applicant has indicated proposed lot
lines following the existing fencing on the site. Staff does not feel the subdivision
of the site as indicated will have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels if approved
the proposed subdivision 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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow a reduced side yard, front yard and rear yard setback for
proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the Ashley’s Addition to the City of Little Rock.
Staff recommends approval of the requested reduced right-of-way dedication to
Cantrell Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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 of approval of the requested
variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced side yard, front yard and
rear yard setback for proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the Ashley’s Addition to the City of Little
Rock and the requested reduced right-of-way dedication to Cantrell Road.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1478
6
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-1479
NAME: Yarberry Place Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located South of Yarberry Lane, East of Kerry Road
DEVELOPER:
Mr. Michael Smith
#51 Westfield Court
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 2.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.06
Variance/Waivers: A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 4 – 9 (15-feet).
The applicant submitted a request dated February 14, 2005, requesting a deferral of this
item to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant has indicated additional time is
necessary to respond to comments received at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision
Committee meeting and to look at possible revisions in the lot layout requested by the
Owner/Developer. Staff is supportive of the deferral request to the April 14, 2005,
Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick Engineers was present representing the request. There
were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a
request dated February 14, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005,
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1479
2
Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was necessary
to respond to comments received at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee
meeting and to look at possible revisions in the lot layout requested by the
Owner/Developer. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request to the
April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration
without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal 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
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: S-1229-B
NAME: Barrow Road Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On the West side of John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive
DEVELOPER:
WTH Development
8503 Asher Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 13 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F.
CURRENT ZONING: MF-12
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11
CENSUS TRACT: 24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated February 4, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing to allow additional time to review the
current site plan and possible revisions to the approved site plan. Staff is supportive of
the deferral request to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant submitted a
request dated February 4, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the April 14, 2005,
Public Hearing to allow additional time to review the current site plan and possible
April 15, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1229-B
2
revisions to the approved site plan. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral
request to the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant and the City have not resolved the issues related to the proposed
revocation of the PD-R portion of the site. Staff recommends this item be deferred to
the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant and the City had not resolved the issues
related to the proposed revocation of the PD-R portion of the site. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6985-A
NAME: Fletcher Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 8121 Jamison Road
DEVELOPER:
Erica Fletcher
8121 Jamison Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: acres NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family with a CUP for a manufactured home
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Single chair beauty salon
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant is working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the February 10, 2005,
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be deferred to the
April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant was working to resolve outstanding issues raised at the
February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a of
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6985-A
2
recommendation deferral to the Commission. Staff requested the item be deferred to
the April 14, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with the additional information requested from the
February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
stated the applicant had not provided staff with the additional information requested
from the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-7787
NAME: Skyhawk Circle Long-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 4500 Skyhawk Circle
DEVELOPER:
Brian Jirel
4500 Skyhawk Circle
Little Rock, AR
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 6.78 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Single-family and cabinet shop
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site located at 4500 Skyhawk Circle
to allow an existing 40 foot by 60 foot metal building to be used as a cabinet
shop. The applicant has indicated the shop/garage is a beige metal building with
four roll-up doors and three walk through doors. The applicant has indicated the
building is very compatible with the neighborhood, as several of the residents
have the same shop and the same steel manufacturer construct the buildings.
The applicant has also indicated their home is located on the site and is
approximately one and a half years old. The cover letter states the home is a
brick, four bedrooms, and three-car garage home.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
2
The applicant indicated the garage/shop was constructed for him to build
cabinets for his spouse’s construction contracting business. He states she builds
three to five houses per year. The applicant states at the time of cabinet
construction, the lumber company delivers cabinet material in a panel truck to the
site. He further states when the cabinets are delivered to the job site, a sixteen-
foot flat bed trailer is used. The applicant states rarely is UPS or Federal
Express used for deliveries. The applicant states the shop is also used as a
hobby shop.
The applicant’s cover letter states he maintains the roadway and has gravel
spread on the road to avoid any potholes, as it is the same road leading to his
residence. The hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through
Friday. The applicant states the shop is utilized between ten and fifty percent of
the time. He stated it is not uncommon to not be in the shop, but in the field
since his business is trim work and remodeling.
The property is outside the City limits but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing metal building and a single-family residence. The
site is heavily wooded with the exception of the developed area. The driveway is
a narrow drive gravel drive extending from an also narrow access easement.
The area is developing with single-family homes on large tracts of five plus acres.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing. As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls
from area residents. There is not an active neighborhood association located in
the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Existing access to the site is through a one-lane gravel lane and a one lane
wooded bridge, which would not provide standard commercial access.
2. The site is located outside the limits of a detailed flood study.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
3
Entergy: A 10-foot under ground utility easement is required or a 30-foot
overhead facility easement is required. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for
additional information.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water does not provide water service
to this area.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. The drive must maintain a
20-foot width. 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 Buzzard Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to make cabinets in
an existing outbuilding on the property.
The proposal is in a rurally developed area of the Extraterritorial Planning Area
and does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan. Staff believes that
this particular application does not justify a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan: Skyhawk Circle is shown as a Local Road on the Master
Street Plan and will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
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: Unless otherwise provided for, a 6-foot high opaque screen, either
a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen
plantings, is required to help screen the business activity from the adjacent
residential zoned properties to the north, east and west. Credit toward fulfilling
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
4
this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth, which is able to
satisfy this year-around requirement.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree-covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape
ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six inch
caliper and larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the request was to allow the use of an existing metal
building as a cabinet shop for the sole purpose of making the applicant’s wife’s
cabinets. Staff stated there were few outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff requested the applicant provide details of restroom
facilities. Mr. Daters stated there were no restrooms located in the facility.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the access to the site was
a narrow one-lane gravel lane with a one lane wood bridge. Staff stated the
access would not provide standard commercial access to the site.
County Planning noted there were no outstanding issues associated with the
request if there was not going to be sale of merchandise from the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be
required and since the site was heavily wooded this could meet the year around
screening 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 site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the building does not contain a restroom facility nor is a restroom
facility proposed in the future. The applicant has also indicated there will not be
end user sales from the site.
The applicant has indicated the site will be utilized to construct custom cabinets
for his wife’s business. He has stated his wife is a builder and constructs five
new homes per year. He has stated he does not construct cabinets for any other
business or person; only cabinets for his wife’s new construction.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
5
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The applicant is proposing a
commercial business in a predominately residential area. The area is shown as
Single Family on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as is the area around the site.
There are several non-conforming uses located in the area all of which were
located in the area prior to the City’s exercising Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction. The area contains a scattering of metal buildings most of which are
used as storage or for hobbies. Staff feels the introduction of a commercial
business into the area would potentially negatively impact the current
development pattern in the area. The area is seeing new subdivisions “popping
up” and homes being constructed on five plus acres. Staff is also concerned with
access to the site. The access is limited to a narrow one-lane bridge, which does
not lend its self to deliveries of materials or transporting the finished product from
the site. Staff feels the use is not appropriate for the site and the introduction of
a new commercial business to the area is not desirable. Staff feels the site
should be maintained as a residential lot without the commercial aspect of the
proposal.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a
request dated March 2, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 14, 2005,
Public Hearing. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the Commission’s
By-laws with regard to the time frame for the deferral request. Staff stated they were
supportive of the applicant’s requested deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. 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 noes
and 1 absent. The Chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the
Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had amended the request to limit the use of the site
to a maximum of five cabinet sets per year and limit the deliveries to one delivery per
set of cabinets, to utilize the site between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday,
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
6
there were no employees of the business, the applicant would make any repairs to the
existing bridge that resulted from his utilization of the bridge for the woodworking
business. Staff stated based on the new information they were now supportive of the
proposed request.
Mr. Tim Daters addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Daters stated
the applicant was amending his application to include the conditions staff had stated
with regard to employees, days and hours of operation and the repair of the bridge
should the damage occur from the applicant’s business.
Ms. Karla Toombs addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated currently the business generated a great deal of traffic both commercial and
employee traffic. She stated with the business being located within a residential
neighborhood there was an increase in noise from the equipment and traffic. She
stated it was not uncommon to see six to ten vehicles parked around the shop area.
Mr. Ken Horton addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated with the cabinet shop located on the site it was like having a convenience store in
the country. He stated his concern was the wear and tear on the bridge. He stated he
hand built the bridge and when constructing his home was very convenience of the
weight limits of the bridge. He stated when the applicant’s constructed their home they
were not and used concrete trucks not paying attention to their load limits.
Mr. Mike Grover addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the area was a quiet neighborhood and did not need the increased traffic from a
commercial business. He stated the applicant’s employees did not observe the speed
limits of the roadway and would travel in excessive speeds. He stated most of the
residents of the area had moved to the country to get away from commercial business.
He stated the area residents did not want the traffic and the noise of a commercial
business in their neighborhood.
Ms. Susan Sims addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the area was a residential neighborhood with most homes constructed on
five-acre plots. She stated the residents moved to the area to not have businesses
located adjacent to their homes.
Mr. Daters stated the applicant the applicant and his wife were both contractors and
both drove trucks. He stated most of their friends drove trucks. He stated the applicant
would keep track of deliveries to ensure the conditions were being complied with.
There was a question as to if Ms. Jirel was operating her business from the site. She
stated she did have an office in her home. The Commission questioned if employees
accessed the site. She stated very rarely. She stated occasionally if an employee was
not at the job site they would come to her home to pick up their pay.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7787
7
There was a general discussion concerning the traffic to the site and the noise levels of
the business. Commissioner Rector questioned other metal buildings located in the
area. It was stated these buildings were used as hobby shops or storage buildings.
Commissioner Rector questioned Mr. Jirel as to when the building became operational
as a business and the number of cabinets he had constructed prior to this request. He
stated the building was constructed one and one-half years earlier and he had
constructed three sets of cabinets.
Mr. Jirel stated he was a woodworker both as a business and a hobby. He stated he
constructed items for family members and friends for special occasions.
There was a general discussion concerning the applicant’s ability to construct cabinets
with no employees. Mr. Jirel stated presently only one-person put the cabinets together
to ensure quality control.
A motion was made to approve the request including the limits of no employees, limiting
the days and hours of operation and the applicant’s commitment to repair and damage
to the bridge resulting from the commercial business. The motion carried by a vote of
6 ayes, 5 noes 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: LU05-20-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District
Location: Northwest Corner of Highway 10 and Little Rock Christian
Academy Entrance
Request: Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial
Source: Casche Carter, Crofton, Tull, and Associates, Inc.
The applicant requested to defer the item on Tuesday February 14, 2005.
Staff Supports this deferral request to the April 14, 2005 Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the April 14, 2005
Planning Commission meeting. 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 contacted Staff and asked to withdraw the application. Staff
recommends withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: H.1 FILE NO.: Z-6079-F
NAME: Muewly Long-form POD
LOCATION: Located at the Northwest corner of Highway 10 and the entrance to Little
Rock Christian Academy
DEVELOPER:
Highway 10 Real Estate, LLC
11601 Pleasant Ridge Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc.
10825 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 19.34 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: 60% office, 40% commercial uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated February 16, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the April 14, 2005, public hearing. The applicant has indicated additional
time is necessary to respond to Subdivision Committee comments and determine the
final layout. Staff is supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005, Public
Hearing.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: H.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6079-F
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
Mr. Mark Rickett of Crafton Tull and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a
request dated February 16, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the April 14, 2005,
public hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional time was necessary
to respond to the Subdivision Committee comments and to determine the final lot
layout. Staff stated they were supportive of the requested deferral to the April 14, 2005,
Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a
request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration
without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal 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
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Heights Hillcrest Planning District
Location: 700 block of North University Avenue
Request: Office to Mixed Use
Source: Development and Construction Management, Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Heights Hillcrest Planning District from 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
applicant requests to construct 44 condominiums and an unspecified office use
within one section of one of the structures.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the entire half block to make the area more logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is developed with a small single family home zoned R-5 (Urban
Residence District) and 1.74 acres ± in size. Just southwest of the property is
land zoned R-2 (Single Family District) with a CUP for a Catholic school.
Northeast of the site on H Street is additional R-2 land with a CUP for an
elementary school. Northwest of the site are two separate parcels of land
zoned R-5 (Urban Residence District) developed with single family homes,
apartments, and a parking lot. Immediately north of the site is land zoned O-3
(General Office District) and developed with several office buildings. Further
north is a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for an office and land zoned
O-2 (Office an Institutional District) and O-3 developed with a school and offices,
respectively. Immediately west of the site is land zoned R-3 (Single Family
District) and developed with single family homes on a typical urban street grid.
Immediately south of the property is additional land zoned R-5 and O-3
developed with a single family home and an office.
March 17, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On May 18, 2003 a change was made from Multi Family and Office to
Community Shopping less than a half mile south of the site at the northeast
corner of West Markham Street and University Avenue.
On March 5, 2002 a change was made from Commercial and Office to Mixed
Use on the northwest corner of University Avenue and West Markham Street,
less than a half mile south of the site to allow flexibility of uses for future
development.
On June 20, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office
approximately one quarter of a mile southeast of the application at the 200 block
of N. McKinley Street to accommodate proposed development.
On March 16, 1999 multiple changes were made from Office and Multifamily to
Single Family, Multifamily, Mixed Use, and Office within a half-mile radius
southeast of the applicant’s property for future development and to recognize
existing conditions.
An area of Office parallels the east side of University Avenue from H Street to C
Street, which includes the applicant’s property. North of H Street is an area
shown as Public Institutional. At the northeast corner of Evergreen Street and
University are areas shown as Park / Open Space, Office, Low Density
Residential, Single Family, and Multifamily. The area immediately west of the
application is shown as Single Family. South of the site, between Lee Street and
West Markham Street, along University Avenue are higher intensity uses
including Mixed Use, Multi Family, and Community Shopping. At the southwest
corner of West Markham Street and University Avenue is an area shown as
Commercial, the southeast corner of West Markham Street and University
Avenue is shown as Public Institutional. Southwest of the site, and fronting
University Avenue, is additional area shown as Public Institutional. West of the
applicant’s property are areas shown as Office, Multifamily, and Single Family
fronting both H Street and University Avenue. Northwest of the site is an area of
Office fronting University with an area of Park / Open Space and Multifamily
behind.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan with
special design standards south of the site between Lee and Markham Streets,
March 17, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
3
which indicate a 100-foot right of way. Adjacent to the site University Avenue
has a median separating northbound and southbound traffic. Southbound
University Avenue traffic will not access this site directly, nor will traffic be able to
leave this site in the southbound University Avenue direction unless a median cut
is approved. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic
and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and
pedestrians on University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. Additional
improvements and right of way may be required for acceleration and deceleration
lanes since this section of University Avenue has a significant hill.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class III bikeway is shown on H Street north of the site. 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. This bikeway
will not be affected by this project.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows the War
Memorial Park located two blocks east of the application area on the south side
of W. Markham Street. The plan describes War Memorial Park as providing
special facilities such as the zoo, fitness center, and a golf course designed to
serve the entire city. This amendment is not likely to affect the large facilities at
War Memorial Park.
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 Hillcrest Neighborhood
Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal lists one objective related to this
application. The objective is to recreate a neighborhood that is a pleasant place
to work and live, and to preserve the net number of residential units by not
demolishing them or converting them to other uses.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has applied for a change to Mixed Use for a mixed office and
residential development. Since the area is already shown as Office, the office
March 17, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
4
component of the development is consistent with the current plan and Staff has
no problem with the office component of this development. In addition to the
office component that exists under the current land use category, the Mixed Use
category allows both residential and commercial development. The Mixed Use
category can lead to sound development that can commingle the different uses
into an area.
The category allows for residential development similar to that of the Multifamily
land use category. Near this site are several areas of higher density housing
that are shown as either Multifamily or Low Density Residential which are
developed with a mixture of duplexes, apartment buildings, and a few single
family homes. Since areas intended for higher density development have
developed, a need for additional higher density residential may be needed in the
area. Since the Mixed Use category provides for higher density residential
development, it could facilitate future demand, and relieve possible pressure to
intensify nearby neighborhoods. Introduction of possible higher density
residential at this location could provide a buffer between single family homes on
Buchanan and G Streets and offices and traffic on University Avenue. Also the
residential aspect would allow for densification along University Avenue. Central
Arkansas Transit Authority operates Route 21 adjacent to this site and can
provide access to downtown, University Mall, and the University of Arkansas
campus for area residents.
Even though the current application does not involve any commercial activity, the
Mixed Use category does allow it. Currently, commercial activities in the area
are located in areas shown as Mixed Use about a quarter mile south of the site in
the vicinity of “B” and “C” Streets, the Park Plaza Shopping Center at the
northwest corner of West Markham Street and University Avenue, a Community
Shopping area shown at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and
University Avenue, and a large Commercial area at the southeast corner of West
Markham Street and University Avenue. Additional Commercial is shown in the
Heights Shopping District approximately three quarter miles north of the site near
University Avenue and R Street. The nearby area around this site consists of
mostly institutional, office, and residential uses, and addition of commercial
development could create pressure to convert additional area properties to
commercial which could harm the quality of life of nearby residential areas. Staff
doesn’t feel that the addition of commercial that the Mixed Use category allows
would be appropriate at this location, because of the established neighborhood,
the institutional and office uses nearby, and that space for commercial
development is available nearby.
Since University Avenue is a Principal Arterial, and is constructed with a median
separating northbound and southbound traffic, Staff recommends that any
March 17, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
5
development on this site does not impede traffic flow. Access to this
development should only be right turn in, right turn out to maintain the existing
median and prevent conflicts caused by traffic crossing a Principal Arterial.
Since the Mixed Use category allows commercial activity, traffic entering and
leaving the site could be greater than the levels anticipated for the office and
residential components available in the category. Current traffic flows on
University Avenue could be hindered if any commercial aspect develops on the
site in the future.
In 2001 the Urban Land Institute (ULI) did a study of the West Markham Street -
University Avenue area which included this site. The study made
recommendations regarding new development: should preserve the integrity
nearby residential areas, provide a visible identity, and improve pedestrian
safety. The recommendations of the ULI study are similar to the wishes of the
neighborhood action plan to preserve the quality of life in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, the ULI study identified a town center concept at the West
Markham Street - University Avenue intersection.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Forest Park
Neighborhood Association, Heights Neighborhood Association, Prospect Terrace
Neighborhood Association, Sherrill Heights Garden Club, Briarwood
Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, Meriwether
Neighborhood Association, Normandy-Shannon Property Owners Association,
South Normandy Property Owners Association, and the University Park
Neighborhood Association.
Staff has not received any comments from area residents or neighborhood
associations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Staff feels that the office and
residential components of the proposed development are consistent with the ULI
Study statement, but does not support the commercial aspect the Mixed Use
category makes available. Staff believes that commercial activities are more
appropriate at the University Avenue and West Markham Street intersection or
the Heights Shopping District.
March 17, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-04-01
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
The applicant requested the application be deferred to the March 17, 2005
Agenda. The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. 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:
Staff has reviewed the application and noted that the office component of the
development will be located in an area shown as Office on the Land Use Plan. In
the general area numerous properties are developed with offices and
apartments. Adding multifamily units to the applicant’s property would not be
inconsistent with surrounding land uses. Within the last year this property’s
zoning was changed from R-5 (Urban Residence District) to POD (Planned
Office Development), which would have allowed Multifamily development by
right. Staff feels that a Land Use Plan Amendment for the applicant’s property is
not necessary because the office component of the development is consistent
with the plan, and the multifamily component is consistent with the overall
neighborhood character. Staff recommends withdrawal of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 17, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the April 14, 2005
Planning Commission meeting. 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. Staff still
recommends withdrawal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
NAME: University Park Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 715 North University Avenue
DEVELOPER:
University Park LLC
20 Hunters Green Circle
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 1.74 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-5, Urban Residential District
ALLOWED USES: High Density Residential Units of not more than
36-units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family Condominium Development with a portion of the
development being held for office development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to rezone the site from R-5,
Urban Residential District to POD at their April 8, 2004, Public Hearing. The applicant
proposed the placement of a two-story office building consisting of 18,000 square feet of
general and professional office uses with provisions for some light commercial uses
should they fit with office occupancy. The proposed site plan included fifty-nine on-site
parking spaces.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
2
The applicant requested allowance of 25 percent of the gross floor area (4,500 square
feet) to be utilized by the following listed uses: Barber/Beauty Shop, Book and
Stationary Store, Drugstore, Florist, Optic Shop, Clothing, Hobby Shop, Jewelry, or
Tailor Shop.
Included in the filing was a petition for abandonment of Grant Street and “G” Street.
Grant Street was not previously constructed and ends at the intersection of “F” Street.
The applicant proposed an extension of Grant Street approximately 120 feet from “F”
Street to the property line creating adequate turn around in the parking lot for
emergency vehicles.
The applicant amended his request at the April 8, 2004, Public Hearing to remove the
connection of Grant Street from “F” Street into the development. Access to the
development was to only be provided from University Avenue.
The applicant withdrew his request for rezoning prior to Board of Directors action at their
July 22, 2004, Public Hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This applicant now proposes to develop this site as a condominium complex.
The project consists of 1.74 acres of land on the East side of University Avenue.
The project has forty-four condominium homes along with a clubhouse/workout
area. The property has 20 -1 bedroom units in three different floor plans and 18 -
2 bedroom units with three floor plans and 6 - 3 bedroom units. The applicant
has indicated there is room for a few garages, along with covered parking and
storage areas for all the residents under the proposed parking deck. The
applicant has also indicated a portion of the site will be utilized as office space for
general and professional office uses.
The applicant is requesting to abandon Grant Street inside the property boundary
and G Street where it abuts the property.
The applicant has indicated the exterior of the homes will be constructed with
100 percent brick and with long lasting vinyl trim. Windows and patio doors are
vinyl with insulated glass. A full insulation package will include R-30 in ceilings,
R-13 in exterior walls and R-11 between the units. The roof is proposed as
shingles with a twenty-year guarantee.
The proposal also includes interior amenities to include nine-foot ceilings, crown
mold, marble vanities, spa tubs, tile entrances and elevators along with many
other quality interior and outdoor amenities.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
3
The applicant has indicated the clubhouse will be constructed in a later phase.
Amenities within the clubhouse pool facility include a business center in addition
to fitness equipment. A color copier and a fax machine will be included within the
business center along with a meeting room.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property now consists of twelve residentially zoned lots in Blocks 9 and 10 of
the Lincoln Park Subdivision and a portion of Grant Street, which has never been
constructed. The property is bounded by University Avenue to the west, “G”
Street (not constructed) to the north, a closed alley to the east, and a dwelling
and small office building to the south. Steep grades to the east and north lead
down to a drainage canal. University Avenue is constructed with a median
without a break at this location. An abandoned house with a stone exterior
currently sits on the site. There is not an existing driveway location on University
Avenue accessing the site.
Frontage along University Avenue is predominantly occupied by office and
commercial uses, with a few remaining single-family dwellings. To the east of
the site are residential uses adjacent to the drainage canal. Other uses in the
area include the Catholic Boys School a strip retail center and a public library.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, Evergreen Neighborhood
Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all
residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
2. University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
3. The previous land owner placed and un-authorized fill in the regulated
floodway of Coleman Creek. A large portion of the site is within the
mapped floodway and floodplain. Show the regulated floodway on the site
plan. Fill must be removed from the floodway, or a letter of map revision
obtained from FEMA.
4. All fill slopes must conform to the land alteration ordinance. Slopes must be
at 3:1 or terraced with erosion protection. For architectural stone facing,
wall up to 15' high with 10' bench is acceptable. Provide a grading and
drainage plan showing improvements.
5. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
4
Section 8-283 prior to any construction. Approval from the Little Rock
District of the Corps of Engineers may also be required.
6. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required on University in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1800 for requirements on
driveway construction and any frontage improvements.
7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. Repair or
replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-
of-way prior to occupancy.
8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
9. The minimum Finish Floor elevation based on FEMA flood study is required
to be shown on plat and grading plans.
10. 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.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer mains on the site. Revise plans to show sewer mains
and existing easements. No construction will be allowed within the sewer
easements unless sewer main is relocated at the Developer’s expense. Contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 before service is resumed. The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine the location
of public and/or private fire hydrant(s) that will be required. A water main
extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be installed at the Developer's
expense. 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. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water
at 377-1225 for additional information.
Fire Department: Maintain a 20-foot access and a 20-foot wide gate opening on the
south and west sides of the development. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact
the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
5
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near the University Avenue Bus Route (#21) and the
Rodney Parham Bus Route (#8).
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has
applied for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) for 44 condominiums and
an unspecified office use on 1.74 acres of land.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this
agenda (File No. LU05-04-01).
Master Street Plan: University Avenue is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan with special design standards south of the site between Lee
and Markham Streets, which indicate a 100-foot right of way. Adjacent to the site
University Avenue has a median separating northbound and southbound traffic.
Southbound University Avenue traffic will not access this site directly, nor will
traffic be able to leave this site in the southbound University Avenue direction.
The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to
connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and
pedestrians on University Avenue since it is a Principal Arterial. Additional
improvements and right of way may be required for acceleration and deceleration
lanes since this section of University Avenue has a significant hill.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III Bikeway is shown on H Street north of the site. 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. This
Bikeway will not be affected by this project.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land
Use goal lists one objective related to this application. The objective is to
recreate a neighborhood that is a pleasant place to work and live, and to
preserve the net number of residential units by not demolishing them or
converting them to other uses.
Landscape: The on-site street buffer along North University Avenue should have
an average width of 15 feet. At no point should this width be less than 7 ½ feet.
The width of the land use buffer along the southern perimeter where adjacent to
residential property should average at least 9 ½ feet.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
6
The eastern land use buffer width should average 15-feet in width.
The plan submitted is not always clear concerning landscape and buffer widths.
A total of six percent of the interior of the vehicular use areas must be
landscaped with interior islands of at least 112 square feet in area and 5.6 feet in
width.
A small amount of building landscaping between public parking areas and the
building is required. There is considerable flexibility with this requirement.
All of these requirements take into account the reductions allowed within the
designated mature area of the city.
A 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
southern perimeters where adjacent to residential properties.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the proposed
development included construction of a condominium development with a portion
of the site utilized as office space. Staff requested the applicant provide
additional information concerning the location of the non-residential and the total
square footage designated as non-residential.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a portion of the site was
located in the floodway. Staff stated a previous owner had filled illegally in the
floodway and prior to approval the fill from this area should be removed. Staff
also stated details of the proposed terracing along the eastern property line
would be required. Staff noted with a previous application the property owner to
the east had requested plantings on the benches to break the massing of the
wall. Staff requested a grading plan and cross section to ensure compliance with
existing ordinances.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be
required adjacent to single-family zoned or used property. Staff stated the
southern buffer should average 9 ½ feet and the eastern buffer should average
15-feet. Staff noted interior vehicular use areas should be landscaped with
interior islands of at least 112 square feet in area.
There was a general discussion concerning access to the site. The applicant
indicated access to the site would be from University Avenue with an emergency
access provided from Grant Street to the south. Staff questioned if the applicant
had contacted the property owner to the south of the proposed development.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
7
The applicant stated he had not contacted the property owner to the south of the
site to apprise him of the proposed development plans. Staff encouraged the
applicant to contact the property owner in the near future to discuss with him the
proposed development and access to the site.
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 February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated no more than 10,000 square feet would be utilized as general and
professional office space. This would leave approximately 30,000 square feet for
residential units. The applicant has indicated the site will contain a total of
44 units. The site plan indicates 20- 1 bedroom 1 bath, 16- 2 bedroom 2 bath
and 8- 3 bedroom 2 ½ baths. The office uses will be contained within the same
footprint as the residential units. The applicant has indicated the offices uses will
be limited to Buildings 1 and 2.
Buildings three and four are two and three story buildings with parking on the
bottom floor and residential on the remaining floors. Buildings one and two are
two story buildings with residential and office. The applicant has indicated
78 parking spaces. The site plan includes 21 open air spaces, six handicapped
spaces and 51 under deck spaces. The office portion of the proposed
development would typically require 25 parking spaces and the residential
portion would 49 parking spaces or a total of 74 parking spaces. The indicated
parking is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking requirement for the
indicated uses.
The applicant has indicated a single-ground mounted sign will be installed along
University Avenue. The applicant has indicated the sign 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 indicated potential office users and the
residential development will share the proposed sign. The applicant has also
indicated a small plaque will be added to the units housing the potential office
users. The applicant has indicated the signage will be no more than ten percent
of the unit’s façade area. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s indicated signage
plan.
The applicant has indicated screening will be installed adjacent to properties
zoned or used as residential. The applicant has also indicated landscaping will
be added to the interior of the site consistent with ordinance requirements.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
8
The applicant has indicated the fill located within the floodway will be removed
prior to development. The applicant has also indicated retaining walls, consistent
with ordinance requirement with regard to height and landscaping, will be added
to stabilize the site. The applicant has indicated a detailed grading plan will be
provided to staff prior to development.
The applicant is requesting the closure of Grant Street and G Street within the
proposed development. Both streets were indicated as right-of-way when the
area was final platted but were never constructed. The applicant has indicated
an emergency access gate entering the site from Grant Street to the south but is
not proposing to access the site from the south. The applicant has indicated the
development will not be a gated development and is proposing only one
entrance, from University Avenue.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development. The applicant has indicated the
development of the site as a condominium complex with limited office uses. The
applicant has indicated parking sufficient to meet the minimum parking required
for the indicated uses. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff feels if the development is
constructed as proposed there should be minimal impact on adjoining properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions:
1. Compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the
above report.
2. The 10,000 square feet of general and professional office uses are to be
located in Buildings I and II.
Staff recommends approval of the requested abandonment of “G” Street where
abutting the site and Grant Street within the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 3, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had filed to notify property owners as
required by the Planning Commission By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the
item be deferred to the March 17, 2005, Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: I.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7563-A
9
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 17, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item requesting a deferral of the item to the
April 14, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated there were unresolved issues related to the
request and requested additional time to resolve the issues.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion to place
the item for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The previously executed affidavit has expired and the owner no longer has authority to
request a rezoning of the property. Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from
consideration without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the previously executed affidavit has expired and the
applicant no longer had authority to request a rezoning of the property. 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
11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1480
NAME: Hannahville Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 2915 Beauchamp Road
DEVELOPER:
Rick Malmstrom
114 Trelon Way
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Blaylock Threet Engineers, Inc.
1501 Market Street
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 3.9133 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 22 – West Fourche
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from Section 31-232(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an
increased depth to width ratio for proposed Tract A.
2. A variance from Section 31-398 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a waiver of
the Master Street Plan requirement to Beauchamp Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting the subdivision of this 3.91-acre tract into two single-
family residential lots. The applicant has indicated Central Arkansas Water
System will provide water service and individual septic tank and absorption fields
will provide sanitary sewer. The site is located outside the City Limits of the City
of Little Rock but within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1480
2
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow the lots to develop as indicated. The applicant is requesting a variance
from Section 31-232(b) to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio. The
applicant has indicated due to the depth configuration of the property and a
desire to maintain the property’s naturally wooded aspects a variance is being
requested to allow the development to occur. The second variance being
requested is related to the construction of Beauchamp Road to Master Street
Plan Standard (Section 31-398). The applicant is requesting a waiver of the
required street construction to Beauchamp Road. The applicant has indicated
the area is generally rural in nature and no curb and gutter exists on Beauchamp
Road at present.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is partially tree covered with two single-family homes located on the site.
The homes were recently moved to the site from an area on Stagecoach Road.
Beauchamp Road is a two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage. The
area contains a mixture of uses and a mixture of housing types. There are site
built homes located immediately adjacent to the site but there is a scattering of
manufactured homes in the area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing.
There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Beauchamp is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required to be shown
on the plat.
2. Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard.
Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a 5-foot
sidewalk, with the planned development or seek a Board of Directors deferral
or waiver.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. The applicant has
provided certification from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the
proposed septic system.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1480
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No water service is available in this area from Central
Arkansas Water at the present time.
Fire Department: Outside the service boundary, submit comments from the local
volunteer fire department which serves this area.
County Planning: The proposed preliminary plat was approved by the Pulaski
County Planning Commission at their February 2005, Public Hearing.
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: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were two variances
being requested. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement for the required street construction to Beauchamp Road.
Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested the applicant provide the average size of the lots and
the minimum lot size in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary
plat, provide the proposed source of water supply in the general notes section of
the proposed preliminary plat and provide a letter from the area volunteer fire
department indicating their knowledge of the proposed development and their
ability to serve the proposed development. Staff also requested the applicant
provide a vicinity map to scale.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Beauchamp Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and a dedication of right-
of-way 45-feet from centerline would be required and should be shown on the
plat. Staff also requested street construction conforming to Master Street Plan
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1480
4
standard. Staff stated one-half street improvements to the street, including a
5-foot sidewalk, would be required or the applicant would be required to seek a
Board of Directors deferral or waiver
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them directly 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 plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the average size of the lots in the general notes section of the
proposed preliminary plat along with the minimum lot size. The applicant has
also provided a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their
knowledge of the proposed development and the ability to serve the two new
homes. The applicant has also indicated a vicinity map on the proposed
preliminary plat.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of an existing 3.9 acre parcel into two
single-family lots. The applicant has indicated proposed Tract A will contain
2+ acres and proposed Tract B will contain 1+ acres. The applicant has
indicated a shared driveway will be utilized by the proposed homes and has
indicated the drive as a 60-foot access easement on the proposed preliminary
plat. The site is located outside the City Limits of Little Rock but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. City sewer is not available to the site. The
applicant has provided approval from the Arkansas Department of Health
concerning the proposed wastewater collection system of individual septic
systems. The applicant has also indicated individual wells will be placed on the
proposed lots to provide water service.
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow proposed Tract A to develop with an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow a waiver of the required
street improvements to Beauchamp Road. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s
request. Staff does not feel the proposed lot configuration will have an adverse
impact on adjoining properties. Based on the current configuration it would be
difficult to meet the depth to width ratio requirement of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The ordinance typically does not allow a lot to be three times to
depth to width. The applicant has indicated proposed Tract A will be 606 feet by
145 feet at the front building line.
With regard to the applicant’s request of a waiver of the required street
improvements to Beauchamp Road, staff is also supportive. The applicant has
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1480
5
indicated dedication of right-of-way per the Master Street Plan or minor arterial
standard. Beauchamp Road is a two lane rural roadway with no widening or
sidewalk in place the entire length. Staff does not feel the applicant’s request for
a “lot split” to allow the development of two single-family homes warrants street
construction to minor arterial standards.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested preliminary plat and the requested
variances. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff does not feel the subdivision of this parcel into two
single-family lots will have any 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 staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 31-232(b) of
the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased depth to width ratio for proposed
Tract A.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 31-398 of the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement to
Beauchamp Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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 of approval of the requested
variance from Section 31-232(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased
depth to width ratio for proposed Tract A and the requested variance from Section
31-398 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement to Beauchamp Road.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-6090-B
NAME: Indiana Avenue Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 7208 and 7212 Indiana Street
DEVELOPER:
Flagship Homes, LLC
11200 Mara Lynn #2
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 0.688 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and PD-R (two-family residential)
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and two family residences
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Two-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated March 30,
2005, requesting the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated
they were supportive of the deferral request.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6090-B
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-6318-B
NAME: Dairyland Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 16105 Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Whisenhunt Investments
c/o Kemp Whisenhunt
35 Windsor Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Development Consultants Inc.
2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 25.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use Development including
C-3, General Commercial District uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Development including C-3, General Commercial District
uses and the allowance of seasonal outdoor display
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 1997, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,556
establishing Dairyland Long-form PCD. The property was approved for a mixed use
development containing three Phases. Phase I was to include a 76,560 square foot
Kroger Store, 9,000 square feet of retail/restaurant, 646 parking spaces and Lease
Parcel 1. Phase II was to contain 35,000 square feet of retail and Phase III was to
contain 90,000 square feet of retail, 306 parking spaces and Lease Parcels 2 and 3.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318-B
2
Phase I was to begin development upon approval and Phases II and III were to begin
construction within a three year time period. No specific proposal was submitted for
approval for the three Lease Parcels. The applicant indicated approval would be
obtained at the time of development.
Ordinance No. 18,868 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 17,
1988, revised the previously approved site plan for Dairyland Long-form PCD. The
revision included moving the approved phase line to include Lease Parcel 2 and add 12
parking spaces. The revision also included the construction of the drive along the south
side of Lease Parcel 2. The applicant submitted a site plan for Lease Parcel 2 for
approval. The site plan included the construction of a 4,200 square foot bank building
with 29 parking spaces. Phase I has been constructed. No construction has begun on
Phases II and III.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved PCD to allow
twelve of the existing parking spaces to be used as seasonal outdoor display.
The applicant has indicated from March to September the Kroger Store wishes to
display lawn furniture, bar-b-que grills and miscellaneous outdoor equipment in
their parking area. The applicant has indicated the displayed items will be
barricaded to prevent customers from parking in the display area and creating
traffic conflicts. The site plan includes the placement of the outdoor display items
along the western portion of the site, near the Kroger entrance, to allow for
security of the items.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed with a Kroger Store and a bank facility. The out parcels
have not developed and remain cleared and vacant. There is a traffic signal
located at the intersection with Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. Adjacent to the
site, Chenal Parkway is a four lane roadway. Kanis Road has been constructed
to Master Street Plan standard adjacent to the development.
There is undeveloped single-family property located south and west of the site,
with a golf driving range located further west. A convenience store, automobile
dealership and church are among the uses across Chenal Parkway to the north.
A building supply store is located across Kanis Road to the east and there is a
plant nursery located to the southeast along Kanis Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Parkway Place Neighborhood Association, the Margeaux Place
Property Owners Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318-B
3
site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site
were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment regarding the placement of seasonal
display in the parking area.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection to the placement of seasonal outdoor
display.
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 Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The
applicant has applied for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) to allow outdoor display of seasonal merchandise in the parking
lot. The outdoor display would be permitted between March and September
annually.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial and Kanis
Road is shown as a Minor Arterial 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. The purpose of a
Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Previous
construction on site should have resulted in half street improvements to both
Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road to bring them up to Minor and Principal Arterial
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318-B
4
standards. If the streets are currently not built to standards or dedication has
not been made, additional right-of-way and street improvements may be
required.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown on Chenal Parkway adjacent to this
property. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. This
application is a minor revision to an existing PCD and will not affect the proposed
bikeway.
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: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant
was requesting to revise a previously approved PCD to allow outdoor display of
seasonal items. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the display would take
place in twelve existing parking spaces and would be barricaded to protect the
items and customer traffic. Staff stated there were few outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff noted the items were placed very
near the front door area. Staff questioned if the items could be relocated away
from the front door area. The applicant stated the area had been chosen for
security purposes. The applicant stated he felt relocating the items away from
this area could result in significant loss of inventory.
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 has addressed staff’s concerns raised at the March 24, 2005,
Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is to revise the previously
approved PCD to allow twelve of the existing parking spaces to be used as
seasonal outdoor display. The applicant has indicated items will be displayed
from March to September. The items proposed for display are lawn furniture,
bar-b-que grills and miscellaneous outdoor lawn and garden items. The
applicant has indicated the displayed items will be barricaded to prevent
customers from parking in the display area and creating traffic conflicts. The site
plan includes the placement of the outdoor display items along the western
portion of the site near the Kroger entrance to allow for security of the items. The
applicant has indicated the display area selected allows for the most security and
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6318-B
5
convenience to customers and the applicant feels the placement of the display
items in this area will not have any adverse impact on the traffic flows of the site.
Staff also agrees that the indicated display area will have the least impact on the
site with regard to customer parking, traffic flows and will allow for security of the
items on display.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. To staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the request
to amend the previously approved PCD to allow outdoor display 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 staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
NAME: Centennial Bank Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 12211 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Centennial Bank
8201 Cantrell Road, Suite 265
Little Rock, AR 72227
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72221
AREA: 0.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C
ALLOWED USES: Automobile Dealership
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Automobile Dealership, C-3, General Commercial District and O-3,
General Office uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 17,626 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 2,
1997, rezoned the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PD-C and established
Parkway Motors PD-C Short-form located at 12211 West Markham Street. The
Planning Commission reviewed the request at their October 30, 1997, Public Hearing.
The proposal included the creation of a commercial lot with one building and
twenty-nine parking spaces. The intended use was auto sales allied with an automobile
dealership, which was being developed across West Markham Street. The site included
vehicle access from Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby’s Cafeteria.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing the rezoning of this property originally approved
for an automobile dealership to PCD to allow the redevelopment of the site as a
branch bank facility. The applicant is also requesting the allowance of an
automobile dealership, C-3, General Commercial District uses and O-3, General
Office District uses as alternate uses for the site.
The applicant’s cover letter indicates the building will be remodeled to
accommodate the bank along with minor site revision. The cover letter states the
service driveway will be widened to allow two drive-thru lanes. An ATM machine
will be installed in the east parking lot and a new one-way drive will be extended
from the eastern parking lot to allow patrons to exit on to Entergy Court from the
ATM lane. The applicant states Entergy Court is a quiet street with very little
traffic. According to the applicant the driveway will allow the site to function more
efficiently for the new owners.
The applicant’s cover letter also states customer parking will be mainly in the
western parking lot. According to the applicant, the eastern lot will be primarily
employee parking, thus eliminating turnover in these spaces on a regular basis.
According to the applicant the application will provide a quiet use for the
redevelopment of the property and fit nicely within the surrounding neighborhood.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a developed site with a single building and a parking lot. The site was
used by an automobile dealership, which is relocating to the Colonel Glenn/I-430
area. The site is located near the intersection of West Markham Street and
Chenal Parkway, a commercial node. Across the street is an automobile
dealership. To the northwest of the site are Home Depot, Target and the Sears
Tire and Battery Store. To the south of the site are the Entergy offices and
maintenance storage yard for Entergy. To the east of the site is the Rock Creek
Shopping Center containing a mixture of commercial uses. West of the site is a
strip retail center containing a mixture of commercial uses including eating
establishments.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Birchwood Neighborhood Association, the Parkway Place Neighborhood
Association, the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all
residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. The proposed right-of-way dedication does not meet standard for a
commercial street. The right-of-way dedication width required is 60-feet.
2. The proposed site plan does not provide sufficient room for stacking of
vehicles at the teller lanes and will result in blocking of the parking area or
main access lanes to Entergy Court.
3. The proposed driveway cut is too close to the existing driveway. In addition,
the existing grades would make it impossible to meet standard grades for a
commercial access.
4. A right-turn in, right-turn out island should be provided at the intersection of
Entergy Court with West Markham Street to address an existing safety
problem. Contact Traffic Engineering, Bill Henry, at (501) 379-1816.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow for
use of a vacant building as a bank.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
4
Master Street Plan: Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial and Entergy
Court is shown as a Local Commercial Street on the Master Street Plan. A Minor
Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and its primary
function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. A Local
Commercial Street provides access to adjacent properties. Entrances and exits
off the Minor Arterial should be limited to minimize negative effects to traffic and
pedestrians on Markham Street. Since Entergy Court is considered a Local
Commercial Street, additional right-of-way, paving, and landscaping may be
required. Markham Street may require dedication of right-of-way or street
improvements.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure
goal listed two objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is to “Maintain
an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems
within the neighborhood, so as to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood
environment.” The second objective states: “Ensure that roads are improved in a
manner that is supportive of all modes of transportation (walking, cycling,
automobile, public transit and truck) and help to minimize the conflicts between
the various modes.” In the event of sidewalk or roadway improvements around
the site the non-vehicular infrastructure will need to be preserved or improved.
The Traffic and Transportation goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of
pedestrians, bike, and vehicular traffic in, around, and through the
neighborhood,” with an Action Statement “Improve traffic flows and safety in the
area.” Traffic on this section of Markham Street averages approximately 20,000
vehicle trips per day, above the service volume of a Minor Arterial. This
development should be designed to have minimal effect on Markham Street
Traffic.
Landscape: The proposal submitted reduces the width of the on-site buffer along
Entergy Court to less than the nine-foot minimum width allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance. However, it does meet with Landscape Ordinance minimums.
The plan submitted deletes all interior landscaping required by the Landscape
Ordinance.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the request was to revise a previously approved PD-C for
an automobile dealership to PCD to allow the site to redevelop with a branch
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
5
bank facility. Staff stated the applicant was also requesting to utilize the site with
O-3, General Office District uses, C-3, General Commercial District uses to and
maintain the allowance of an automobile dealership for alternative uses for the
site. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested the applicant provide details of the traffic circulation
through the site and how the indicated teller lanes would not block the customer
parking. In addition, staff questioned if the indicated parking along the eastern
portion of the site would work based on the narrowness of the area. Staff
questioned proposed signage and details concerning the proposed ATM machine
with regard to canopy covers and logos.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed right-of-way
dedication did not meet standard for a commercial street on Entergy Court. Staff
stated the right-of-way dedication width required was 60-feet. Staff also stated
the proposed site plan did not provide sufficient room for stacking of vehicles at
the teller lanes and would result in blocking of the parking area or main access
lanes to Entergy Court. Staff questioned the proposed driveway cut stating it
was too close to the existing driveway. Staff questioned the existing grades
stating it would make it impossible to meet standard grades for a commercial
access based on the current topography. Staff stated the intersection of West
Markham Street and Entergy Court should be constructed with a right-turn in,
right-turn out island to address an existing safety problem.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposal submitted
reduced the width of the on-site buffer along Entergy Court to less than the
nine-foot minimum width allowed by the Zoning Ordinance but stated it did meet
the Landscape Ordinance minimum. Staff also stated the plan submitted deleted
all interior landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated the
approval of the interior landscaping removal would require approval from the City
Beautiful Commission.
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 few of the issues
raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has not provided staff with details concerning the proposed canopy for the
indicated ATM machine. The applicant also has not provided details concerning
the traffic circulation of the site. The applicant has indicated the existing pole
sign will be maintained on the site and building signage will be added to the
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406-A
6
building façade. The existing pole sign is 19-feet in height with a sign area of 24
square feet. The applicant has indicated building signage will be added seven
feet in width and three and one-half feet in height. The building signage will be
placed on three sides of the building, all of which have street frontage.
The applicant has not addressed staff’s concerns with regard to the eastern most
drive located on Entergy Court. Staff does not feel the topography of the site is
such that the applicant will be able to meet the standard grade requirement of the
ordinance for a commercial driveway. In addition the applicant has not
addressed staff’s concern of the stacking within the proposed site. Staff feels
with the current drive-through configuration there will be automobiles waiting in
the drive-thru lanes blocking the indicated customer parking located on the
western side of the building.
The applicant has not added any interior landscaping to the proposed site plan.
The applicant will be required to seek a variance from the City Beautiful
Commission concerning the reduction in the landscaping. Staff has concerns
with the site redeveloping without the allowance for interior landscaping. Staff
feels the site should redevelop with adequate interior landscaping to meet the
minimum ordinance requirements.
Although, staff is supportive of the allowance of the site being redeveloped staff
feels the applicant may be trying to over-build the site or utilize the site with a use
that is not appropriate based on the current configuration. The indicated site plan
does not allow for traffic flow and circulation based on the current design, nor
does the site plan address staff’s concerns with regard to the proposed driveway
grade and configuration.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 7,
2005, requesting the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated
they were supportive of the deferral 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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
NAME: Cantrell Loops (Lot 2) Revised Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on the North side of Cantrell Road at Taylor Loop Road
DEVELOPER:
Rees Development Inc.
11719 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 2.02 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Strip Retail with C-3, General Commercial District uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Strip Retail with C-3, General Commercial District uses and a
reduced rear yard land use buffer
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. The remainder of he site was zoned C-3, General Commercial District
and R-2, Single-family District.
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
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
2
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 this request and made a recommendation of approval at their March 11, 2004,
public hearing. The proposal included the construction of a single building totaling
22,400 square feet. The applicant indicated a western side yard setback of 25-feet with
a 20-foot landscaped strip and a northern setback of 30-feet and a landscaped strip of
25-feet. The approved site plan included a six foot wood fence in addition to plantings
at one and one-half times the required landscaping typically required along the northern
and western property lines. The applicant indicated the additional screening and
landscaping would be provided to protect the adjoining residentially zoned properties.
The applicant also indicated the rears of the building would act as screening and no
doors or windows would be place on the rear of the building other than those required
by fire code. The applicant indicated mechanical equipment would be placed in an area
that would not be intrusive to the adjoining single-family zoned properties.
On January 20, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission review a request to rezone
Lot 3 of the Cantrell Loops Subdivision from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD,
which would allow a the required rear yard buffer to be contained within an existing
30-foot easement. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved the request by the
adopted Ordinance No. 19,276 on February 15, 2005, which established Cantrell Loops
Subdivision (Lot 3) PCD.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing the revise the previously approved Lot 2 PCD to
allow the construction of a single building totaling 25,941 square feet along with
117 parking spaces. The applicant’s site plan indicates a fifteen foot building
setback along the western property line and landscaping to be placed in a ten
foot utility easement. The site plan also includes the placement of a ten foot
landscaped strip along the northern perimeter of the site contained within a
20-foot utility easement. The site plan includes the placement of 12 parking
spaces behind the proposed building along with two trash dumpsters. The
applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation are from 7 am to 10 pm
seven days per week. The site plan also includes the placement of a pole sign
with a maximum of 36-feet in height and 160 square feet in area.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is mostly wooded along the northern perimeter and vacant grass
covered near the Wal-Green’s site. Currently, under construction on Lot 3 of the
Cantrell Loops Subdivision, is a restaurant building for Catfish City and there is a
Wal-Greens located on Lot 1.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
3
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. West of the site is a single-family home located on a
large tract.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester
Neighborhood Association, the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association, all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified located, within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment on proposed reduction in the setback line
or buffer zone. All previous comments on the PCD continue to apply.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easement, if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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 connection off the private fire system. Due to the nature of this facility,
installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZA) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be
installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires
that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
4
completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and
approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection
Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll
Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements
for this project. 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 CATA Bus Route #25, the Highway 10 Express.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied
for a revision to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for a decreased
buffer between the edge of the property and parking lot.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial running east
and west through this area and is built as a five-lane road through this section.
The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to
connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the 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 would
reduce the landscape buffer to 10 feet adjacent to an area shown as Single
Family. This could also cause unnecessary removal of trees in order to
accommodate the development of uses possible in a Commercial area.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
5
Landscape: Because of the ten-foot wide utility easement, the proposed
northern landscape buffer width is 3,980 square feet less than the 25-foot width
required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
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 northern and
western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide a landscape
plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was a revision to a previously approved PCD to allow the buffer areas along the
northern and western perimeters to be reduced. Staff stated there were
additional items necessary to complete the review process and requested
Mr. McGetrick provide details of the proposed screening along the northern and
western perimeters of the site. Staff stated the previous approval included
additional plantings at one and one-half times the typical ordinance requirement
and an eight-foot tall fence along the northern and western perimeters of the site.
Staff also stated the site plan did not allow for pedestrian connectivity through the
site. Staff requested the applicant indicate areas dedicated for pedestrian
access by the addition of pedestrian tables and or landscaped areas designed for
pedestrian connectivity. Staff stated the properties located to the north and west
of the site were currently zoned R-2, Single-family. Staff requested the applicant
remove all the service elements from the rear of the proposed building including
the indicated dumpsters and the head-in parking located to the north of the site.
Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated because of the ten-foot wide
utility easement, the proposed northern landscape buffer width was 3,980 square
feet less than the 25-foot width required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District. Staff also stated a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, was
required along the northern and western perimeters of the site. Staff stated an
irrigation system to water landscaped areas would be required.
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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
6
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing issues raised at
the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated a six foot screening fence will be placed along the northern and
western perimeters of the site. The applicant has also indicated landscaping will
be added on the applicant’s side of the proposed fence but not at the rate of the
previous approval. The applicant has indicated pedestrian access through the
site to allow connection to Cantrell Road. The applicant has not removed the
proposed parking nor the proposed dumpsters located behind the proposed
building.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The site was reviewed through
an overall development plan for the Cantrell Loops Long-form PCD. The site
plan as proposed does not meet the minimum Highway 10 Design Overlay
standards with regard to landscaping, building setbacks or buffering. The
Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires a minimum building
setback of 40-feet along the rear property line and 30-feet along the side property
line. Although, the proposed site plan indicates a 40-foot building setback along
the rear property line, a 15-foot building setback is proposed along the western or
side property line. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District Ordinance also
requires the rear and side yards to have a landscaped buffer averaging 25-feet
from the property line independent of easements. The entirety of the proposed
landscaping along the rear property line is contained within a drainage and utility
easement and 10-feet of the proposed landscaping and buffering along the
western property line is located within a drainage and utility easement and does
not provide the 25-foot minimum landscape strip as was previously approved for
this site. Staff is not supportive of allowing the utility easement to serve as the
required landscaping and buffering. The property to the west is currently zoned
and used as residential. The property to the north is currently zoned and shown
of the Future Land Use Plan as residential. Although, it is unlikely the property to
the west will remain a residential use in the long term, staff feels the area should
be protected until redevelopment occurs. A proposal was reviewed and
approved by the Commission at their January 20, 2005, Public Hearing to allow
Lot 3 (the lot immediately east of the site) to utilize the utility easement as their
required landscape strip but the applicant proposed to maintain a consistent 30-
foot landscape strip. Staff feels the applicant should maintain the landscaping
strip as was approved immediately east of the site.
Staff also feels the applicant’s proposal should not intrude into the rear yard area.
The site located to the north is zoned as single-family and shown on the City’s
Future Land Use Plan as residential. Staff feels the placement of the proposed
parking and dumpsters in this area is intrusive and makes the property less
desirable for single-family development. Staff feels all intrusive activities, such
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
7
as parking and dumpster locations, should be internalized and allow the rear of
the buildings to act as an additional screening mechanism. Staff feels the
development is inappropriate for the site as proposed based on the level of
activity proposed for the rear of the site and the reduction of the required buffers
and landscaping.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Mr. John Rees was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the
applicant was requesting the placement of signage, which exceeded the Highway 10
Design Overlay District standard. Staff also stated the proposed development did not
comply with the Overlay with regard to landscaping and building setbacks. Staff stated
the previously approved site plan did not meet all the requirements of the Overlay but
did come closer to meeting the intent than the applicant’s request. Staff stated they
were not supportive of allowing activity on the rear of the site. Staff stated they felt the
dumpsters should be relocated along with the indicated parking located at the rear of
the building.
Mr. Rees addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated his
request was to redevelop the site as a commercial center. He stated he felt the
dumpster location was more appropriate and shielded from Highway 10. He stated the
had contacted the property owner located to the west of the site and the property owner
had requested the dumpsters be placed in the rear of the building to locate them further
from his home. Mr. Rees stated the indicted parking was for employee parking only,
who would not generate a great deal of in and out traffic per day.
Mr. Rees stated the indicated signage had been lowered from thirty-six feet in height to
sixteen feet in height. He stated the sign was to be a monument style sign and located
300-feet from the Highway 10 right-of-way.
Mr. Mike Saar addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he was President of the Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association
and the Association was not supportive of development, which did not maintain the
integrity of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the League of Women Voters also agreed with staff that the integrity of the
Overlay should be maintained when developments occurred. She stated it felt as if the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District was a moving target and she did not feel revising a
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7022-C
8
PZD prior to seeing if the approved development would work was not a good practice.
She stated it appeared the only benefit to the revision would be to the developer to
allow him additional building square footage on the site. She stated the landscaping
indicated on the site plan was contained totally within a utility easement and it was not
common practice to allow utility easements to count as required landscaping.
Ms. Bell stated the perception was that a developer could get a PZD approved for one
thing and then come back and revise the PZD to get another. She stated the approved
development would not always work but it was important to give a development time to
see if the development would work before making changes.
Ms. Celia Martin did not wish to speak but noted she was opposed to the proposed
request.
Mr. Rees stated his desire was to gain staff approval. He stated he had met with Bob
Brown to resolve issues related to the indicated landscaping. He stated the revised
plan did allow for the required landscaping treatment along the rear of the site. He
stated the property to the west would not likely remain residential in the long term and
his proposed plan allowed protection for the current resident.
Mr. Bob Brown of the Planning staff addressed the Commission on the merits of the
proposed landscaping. He stated the indicated site plan did meet with the required
landscaping along the northern property line but not along the southern property line.
He stated the western buffer did not appear to comply with the Overlay requirement.
Mr. Brown stated the Highway 10 Design Overlay District did allow for easements to
satisfy landscaping requirements.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements. It was noted the area to the north
would not likely develop as a residential use due to the large amount of fill required too
remove the site from the floodplain. It was also noted the developed areas on the site
were allowed parking facing into the residential properties.
Mr. Rees stated he was willing to amend his application to reduce the overall sign area
to six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area as was typically required by the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote
of 6 ayes, 5 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Pinnacle Planning District
Location: Northwest Corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads
Request: Single Family to Suburban Office
Source: Gene Ludwig, White-Daters, Inc
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District from Single Family
to Suburban Office. The Suburban Office category provides for low intensity
development of office or office parks in close proximity to lower density
residential areas to assure compatibility . A Planned Zoning District is required.
Staff is not expanding the application since the land Use Plan in this area was
reviewed within the last two months.
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 4 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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
2
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. Recently (January 20, 2005) the
applicant’s property was the subject of a Land Use Plan amendment
encompassing a larger land area for a change from Single Family to Mixed Use.
That application was denied at the January 20, 2005 Planning Commission
Hearing.
The applicant’s property is located in an area 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.
Pinnacle Valley Road has special design standards north of County Farm Road
that call for a 32 foot wide paved area that includes two traffic lanes and two six
foot shoulders. Also required area two foot green shoulders and with a ten foot
utility corridor and open drainage ditches. These streets will require dedication of
right-of-way and will require street improvements. The intersection of Pinnacle
Valley and County Farm Roads 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
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
3
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 that
has been approved by the Planning Commission. This sports complex would be
a private sports facility. The decision has been appealed to the Board of
Directors by local residents.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
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. This land was part of a Land
Use Plan amendment in January of 2005. That application (LU05-20-01) was
requesting a change from Single Family to Mixed use and represented
approximately 35 acres in the area. This application is of smaller size (5 acres ±)
and less intense use. That first proposal would have potentially allowed
commercial, office, and multifamily development on the property. The new
application will only allow for the office component and only allow for it in a much
smaller location. Staff has concerns about the potential problems associated
with addition of an office use to an area were city sewer service is not available.
With this area being about five acres in size and not adjacent to the city limits
annexation is not immanent. Any sewer for an Office use would require a septic
system. The septic requirement could keep development at the intersection at a
minimum. If annexed in the future, the area could support more intense uses city
sewer service could be a possibility However, even if the Little Maumelle Sewer
Treatment Plant is built nearby it is would be hard to provide service to the north
side of the Little Maumelle River because it would require pumping and crossing
the river.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
4
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. The Little Maumelle River floodplain extends west of
Pinnacle Valley Road all the way to the Little Maumelle River. Approximately
one quarter mile west of the County Farm and Pinnacle Valley Road intersection
is out of the floodplain. A change to Suburban Office in this area could result in
dense and higher dollar value development, increasing the amount of monetary
property damage in the event of a flood. A change to the Suburban Office
category would require a review of the development on this property through the
PZD (Planned Zoning District) process which could minimize effects to
neighboring properties, assure scale and massing that would be compatible with
adjacent properties, and address potential floodplain issues.
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 the
intersection could lead to increased traffic potentially harming bicycles on the
Pinnacle Valley Road bicycle route. This change could also spur an expansion
of higher intensity uses which might create a decline in the area’s rural and park-
like nature.
Southwest and south of the property, and on the opposite side of the Little
Maumelle River, areas shown as Single Family and Low Density Residential
have been developing with single family homes, higher density homes, and
several fourplexes. Primarily the development has been occurring on Rummel
Road and near Pinnacle Valley Road. These developments have all been on the
south of the railroad tracks and on the opposite side of 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 the railroad and river.
In the west Little Rock higher intensity areas are shown at improved Arterial
intersections or adjacent to Arterials. In this case Pinnacle Valley Road and
County Farm Road are unimproved Minor Arterials and Collectors, respectively.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
5
With this property being cornered by a minor arterial on two sides it is consistent
with its placement. 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 the Pinnacle Valley Road Cantrell Road intersection.
Preliminary designs have been developed to improve Pinnacle Valley Road north
from Cantrell to the City Limits but no funding is currently available for the road
improvements beyond those at the intersection. These improvements may be a
catalyst for development along Pinnacle Valley Road.
At the present time the Pinnacle Valley area is developed in a rural fashion.
Addition of Suburban Office to the area could result in denser development not
compatible with adjacent land uses. Most importantly the Suburban Office
category could allow for office complexes that are focused on a regional market,
not a local market. Since Pinnacle Valley Road has special design standards
north of County Farm Road any type of intensification in the area might not be
appropriate. The Suburban Office category could increase non-local vehicles in
the area and create unnecessary traffic which could reduce the rural quality of
the area. use in the area should be in keeping with the rural and recreational
nature of the general vicinity. Introduction of new uses with their differing traffic
patterns and other needs would add demands to the area which it may not be
able to meet or handle.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Walton Heights-
Candlewood Neighborhood Association and River Valley Property Owners
Association.
Staff has received two comments from area residents. None are in support of
the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change not appropriate because intensification of the area is
premature and infrastructure in the area is lacking.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-20-04
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral. A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
NAME: Ludwig Complex Long-form POD
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of County Farm Road and
Pinnacle Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Gene Ludwig
8501 Pinnacle Valley Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 37.2 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: AF – Agriculture and Forestry
ALLOWED USES: Single-family, Agricultural uses and recreational uses
PROPOSED ZONING: POD and R-2, Single-family
PROPOSED USE: Single-family and Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
1. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road and
County Farm Road.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for approval a
proposed rezoning to PCD at their January 20, 2005, Public Hearing. The Little Rock
Board of Directors denied the request at their February 15, 2005, Public Hearing. The
proposal included the development of this 37 acre tract with three proposed uses
including a two story law office (9000 square feet), a two story single-family residence
(8000 square feet) and two separate garage areas to house a concrete pumper truck
business with 18-20 trucks (13,200 total building square footage). The applicant
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
2
proposed the development as a compound with all parking located internally and
screened entirely by the buildings and walls.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to rezone the site to POD to allow the
development of four acres of this 37 acre tract with office uses and rezone the
reminder of the site to R-2, Single-family to be held for future residential use.
The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 would contain 44,600 square feet of
office space in four buildings. The buildings are proposed as two story buildings.
The applicant has indicated this would allow him to have his office on the hard
corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road with additional
speculative office space. The applicant has indicated the architecture of the
office lot would be similar to the original application request or the Kentucky
Horse Farm Style Architecture with all parking internal to the site.
The site plan includes the placement of a single sign eight feet in height and not
to exceed 100 square feet of sign area. The site plan also includes the
placement of a 30-foot building line adjacent to the roadways. The site plan
indicates the site lighting will meet dark skies standards.
The applicant is also requesting the rezoning of the remaining 33.78 acres from
AF, Agriculture and Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant has indicated
the rezoned property will allow for future single-family development. The
applicant is not requesting a preliminary plat application for the single-family
portion at this time.
The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street
improvements to the roadways.
A proposed Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda
(LU05-20-04) to change the site from Single-family to Suburban Office.
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.
County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road are two lane roadways with open
ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The River Valley Neighborhood Association, the Walton
Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association, all property owners located
within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within
300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. 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. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road.
3. Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard.
Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a five foot
sidewalk, with the planned development. Special design standards apply to
Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane
road with paved shoulders and open ditches. For the east-west leg of
Pinnacle Valley Road, add an additional travel lane per standard details.
4. This property is outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial
boundary. No grading permit or storm water detention facilities are required
by the City.
5. Obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County. The minimum Finish Floor
elevation is required to be shown on the plat for flood hazard areas.
6. Public Works would support a five year deferral of street construction of the
office development site, but not for final platting of the residential lots.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
Entergy: Easements are required to serve the proposed development. Contact
Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
4
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Proposed water facilities will
be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection based on hydraulic
modeling to be performed by Central Arkansas Water. A Capital Investment
Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in
addition to normal charges. 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: Outside the 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 exiting drainage structures on the proposed site
plan.
4. Provide copies of NPDES Permit and Clearing Permit for the County’s
records.
5. Indicate owners and uses of adjoining parcels.
6. Show the boundary of the development.
7. Indicate the limits of the floodway in relation to the parcel.
8. Delineate wetland areas; if none exist, so state.
9. Provide construction details for proposed fencing. A variance will be
required for the construction of fencing located in the floodplain/floodway.
10. Provide the finished floor elevation for all proposed structures.
11. Provide an erosion control plan.
12. Contact the Corps of Engineers, if you have not done so.
13. Show all building setback lines.
14. The survey must meet minimum standards.
15. Note: “Development shall meet the standards of the City of Little Rock and
Pulaski County.”
16. 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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a POD (Planned Office Development) for four office buildings and a rezoning
of AF zoned property to R-2, Single-family.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office for four acres ± at
the northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads is a separate
item on this agenda (LU05-20-04). The residential element of the development is
consistent with the Land Use Plan.
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.
Bicycle Plan: 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: In addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of
building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings
(or in the general areas) will be required.
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 northern and
western perimeters.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff stated the site was previously reviewed by the Commission for a
commercial compound containing residential, office and concrete pump trucks.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
6
Staff stated the applicant was now requesting the development of an eight lot plat
containing residential and office. Staff stated there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process and requested Mr. White provide the
total square footage of the office in the general notes section of the proposed site
plan and provide the proposed building lines for Lots 1 – 7 on the proposed
preliminary plat. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was classified as a Minor
Arterial on the Master Street Plan, which would typically require a 35-foot building
line for residential lots. Staff stated non-residential development would typically
require a 45-foot building line when located in the County but within the Planning
Boundary.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and a dedication of
right-of-way 45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated a 20-foot
radial dedication of right-of-way would be required at the intersection of Pinnacle
Valley and County Farm Road. Staff requested the applicant provide the design
of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Staff stated construction
of one-half street improvements, including a five foot sidewalk would be required.
Staff noted special design standards applied to Pinnacle Valley Road north of
County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open
ditches. Staff stated for the east-west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, an additional
travel lane per standard detail was required. Staff stated Public Works would
support a five year deferral of street construction related to the office
development site, but not for the final platting of the residential lots. Staff noted
the property was located outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial
boundary and no grading permit or storm water detention facilities were required
by the City. Staff stated County comments would apply and noted the applicant
would be required to obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County prior to
development. Staff stated the minimum Finish Floor elevation was required on
the plat for flood hazard areas.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated in addition to the proposed
interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the
proposed public parking areas and buildings was required. Staff stated a six foot
high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a
wall, or dense evergreen plantings, was required along the northern and western
perimeters of the office site. Staff also stated an irrigation system to water
landscaped areas would be required.
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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
7
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has revised the site plan to remove the residential portion of the request and is
now requesting a rezoning of 33.73 acres of the site from AF, Agriculture and
Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant is also requesting a POD zoning on
the hard corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road to allow
3.48 acres to develop with 44,600 square feet of office space.
The site plan includes the placement of a 30-foot building line adjacent to the
roadways. The Subdivision Ordinance would typically require a 45-foot building
line for properties located outside the City limits but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction for non-residential development.
The revised site plan indicates required right-of-way dedication per the Master
Street Plan. The applicant is however, requesting a five year deferral of the
required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road. Staff is supportive of the
applicant’s request. The area is rural in nature and staff feels the deferral
request will have a limited impact on the adjoining properties.
The applicant has indicated landscaping will be added to the site to meet current
City Code. The applicant has indicated building landscaping will be installed
between the building and the public parking areas. The applicant has also
indicated screening will be placed along the northern and western property lines
with either a wood fence, dense evergreen plantings or a wall. The applicant has
indicated irrigation will be provided to water landscaped areas.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development. Staff feels an office use on
the site is not appropriate for the area. In addition, staff feels the placement of
such a large square footage of office buildings on the site is out of character for
the area. Staff stated with the previous application they would support an office
use on the property if the use was directly tied to a residential component.
The site plan indicates the development of 44,600 square feet of office on this
site contained in four office buildings. There is no residential component
proposed. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the remainder of the site to
R-2, Single-family to allow for future residential development, independent of the
office uses. The applicant has indicated general and professional office uses for
the proposed buildings. Staff feels this is an intense office development, which
potentially would generate a great deal of traffic to the area. Staff is comfortable
in supporting a single user office with a primary residence located on the site.
Staff does not feel this would generate the same traffic demand as the proposed
development.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7771-A
8
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 7,
2005, requesting the item be deferred to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated
they were supportive of the deferral 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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: South side of Cantrell Road near the 15000 Block
Request: Transition to Mixed Use
Source: Kelton Price, Global Surveying Consultants, Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District from
Transition 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 is requesting zoning for a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) for a 24-hour, multiple bay, automated car wash.
Staff is not expanding the application area because this area has been reviewed
three times within the last 12 months.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is partially vacant, zoned R-2 (Single Family) and is 2.2 acres ± in
size. Bordering this property on the north and running northwest to southeast is
Cantrell Road. The land directly north of Cantrell Road is zoned POD (Planned
Office Development) and developed with a bank and a two story office building.
Northwest of the property are several homes on large lots zoned POD and PDO
(Planned Development -Office) with businesses inside existing residential
structures. Northeast of the site is land zoned R-2 developed with two homes on
large lots. Immediately east of the site is undeveloped forest land zoned R-2.
Further east of the east of the property is a Walgreen’s store zoned PDC
(Planned Development - Commercial), a PCD (Planned Commercial
Development) for a Catfish City Restaurant and retail center, and a PCD for large
antique and home furnishings store and restaurant. Further east is land zoned
C3 (General Commercial District) for a hardware store and other small
businesses, and several lots zoned POD, PDO for banks, a church, offices.
Immediately west of the property is R-2 land for an animal clinic and single-family
homes. South and west of the property is R-2 land developed with a
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
2
single-family home subdivision. A little further south and west is vacant land
zoned PR (Parks and Recreation District) that is undeveloped and reserved for
future recreational use.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 3, 2005 a change was approved by the Planning Commission from
Transition and Suburban Office to Mixed Use immediately northwest of the
property for immediate and future development. At the time of publication this
item had not been approved by the Board of Directors.
On February 3, 2005 multiple changes were approved by the Planning
Commission including a change from Transition to Mixed Office Commercial one-
quarter mile east of the site to recognize existing conditions, from Transition to
Single Family one mile west of the site to recognize existing conditions, and
Transition to Suburban Office one mile west of the site for future development.
At the time of publication this item had not been approved by the Board of
Directors.
On August 19, 2003 a change was made from Transition to Commercial at
14410 Cantrell Road to accommodate proposed development one half mile to
the east.
On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made within the area surrounding
this application to recognize existing conditions. This includes Transition to
Suburban Office north of Cantrell Road and west of Rummel Road just northwest
of the application, Transition to Single Family immediately south of Cantrell Road
at the end of Westchester Court west of the application, Transition to Commercial
northwest of the Cantrell Road / Taylor Loop Road intersection northeast of the
application, Transition to Single Family on Jerry Drive south of Cantrell Road one
quarter mile east of the application, Transition to Single Family on Cantrell Road
at Westbury Drive one quarter mile east of the application, and Transition to
Open Space at Cantrell Road and Ison Creek a quarter east of the property to
recognize existing conditions.
On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park / Open Space
at Pankey Park about one mile east of the site to recognize existing conditions.
The applicant’s property is shown as Transition on the plan. Northwest of the
property is an area of Transition. North of the property is an area of Transition
and Suburban Office. Immediately east of the property is shown as Transition.
A Commercial Node is illustrated at the Intersection of Cantrell Road and Taylor
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
3
Loop Road (east leg) with Commercial is on all four corners. South and
southwest of the property is an area of Single Family. Immediately east of the
property are areas shown as Single Family and Transition. Further east and
southeast is an area of Park/Open Space.
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.
BICYCLE PLAN:
Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of
the development.
PARKS:
There are no parks immediately adjacent or accessible to this property. To the
south and east of the property is Taylor Loop Community Park. Taylor Loop is
an undeveloped park consisting of 35.0 acres and is separated from the property
by a street lined with single-family homes. Running through the park is a creek.
This area is not in a “Service Deficit Area”.
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 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 a Commercial area.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
4
ANALYSIS:
The application area is located in an area of the city characterized by an increase
in Office and Commercial uses. The Transition land use category requires
neighborhood compatibility and compliance to any overlay district, and a change
to Mixed Use would require a Planned Zoning Districts for new non-residential
developments. Although this amendment could increase the amount of
Commercial development along the south side of Cantrell Road, development
style could be limited to acceptable design standards through the site plan review
process.
On February 3, 2005 the Planning Commission approved a variety of changes
along Cantrell Road as part of the Highway 10 Land Use Review. Staff looked
at the area of the application and identified two commercial nodes that work
together harmoniously at both Taylor Loop Road and Pinnacle Valley Road.
Staff felt that land in the area was able to absorb any new commercial demand
that might come to the area. Staff indicated that zoning trends had shown
commercialization of land in the area between the two nodes and recognized that
trend by establishing an area of Mixed Office Commercial recognizing the uses
that had developed on the north side of Cantrell Road. Addition of Mixed Use in
this area would allow for Commercial activities to occur west of the two
commercial nodes. Not only would the commercial be west of the existing
nodes, it would create a “commercial leapfrog affect” by jumping over an area
shown as Transition on the land use plan.
Staff did not expand the application eastward because that property has been the
focus of an amendment within the last nine months. This request was for
Commercial and residents and staff did not support the change. Additionally, a
lesser request for Mixed Office Commercial and Suburban Office for the same
property was also not supported. Opposition to changes has been because of
the potential higher intensity uses associated with land use categories other than
Transition, and the close proximity of the established Westchester neighborhood.
Staff did not expand the application westward either because it would result in a
proposed westward expansion into a small area immediately adjacent to a
single-family neighborhood not appropriate for Mixed Use development.
Immediately northwest of the application and on the north side of Cantrell Road
is an area the Planning Commission approved for a change to Mixed Use at the
March 3 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. Staff was not in support of the
change because it would result in expansion of the commercial activities
westward, was immediately adjacent to a Single Family area, and would result in
potential strip commercial development. This application would also add the
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
5
potential strip development pattern and break up the node system on Cantrell
Road. The current application is considered different than the previous one
northwest of the site, because it has a side and rear relationship to an
established Single Family area. The area northwest was a change that might not
influence surrounding properties as much because it is bordered by areas shown
as Transition, Commercial, and undeveloped Single Family.
Generally, a change to Mixed Use is adding the potential for higher intensity use
and commercial activity. In the existing Transition area residential, multifamily,
and light office uses are allowed as long as they are compatible with adjacent
uses. Since the Mixed Use category requires a PZD, compatibility could be
controlled as well. Along this section of Cantrell Road a majority of the land has
been shown as Transition at one time. Over recent years some changes have
occurred that have resulted in the addition of Commercial, Suburban Office,
Public Institutional, and Single Family. A majority of the changes were to
recognize existing conditions, with the exception of the Commercial added at the
Taylor Loop Road (east leg) Cantrell Road intersection for development. Most of
these changes have been adjacent to undeveloped areas shown as Single
Family or include areas for Single Family redevelopment. Since the Transition
land use category’s intent is to provide an orderly transition between higher
intensity uses and residential uses, the importance of the Transition in the area of
the application might need to remain to safeguard the adjacent Westchester
Neighborhood. The uses that are associated with the applicant’s Mixed Use
request could be considered premature due to the availability of those uses in
nearby areas. Nearby Transition areas at Seven Acres Drive have developed
with light office uses and are adjacent to a Park Open Space area, not a Single
Family area. One half mile east of the application is undeveloped Commercial
land adjacent to the Kroger Grocery Store. One mile to the west, at Ranch
Boulevard, are additional Commercial and Office areas that have not fully
developed either. Along Cantrell Road are numerous areas available for
development in which commercial and high intensity office uses could be
absorbed.
Since this application is located on a Principal Arterial, the addition of higher
intensity use in the area could create added traffic congestion in the area. Since
the primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic, access to
any development in a mid-block Mixed Use area could result in traffic having to
slow due to activity on the site. Development of the Mixed Use area should be
limited to right turn in, right turn out, to help minimize potential conflicts that could
arise from site traffic and keep the Principal Arterial functioning properly.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
6
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following: Walton Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood
Association, Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey Community
Improvement Association, Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association Pleasant
Forest Neighborhood Association, Westbury Neighborhood Association,
Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, Secluded Hills Property
Owners Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association, River Valley Property
Owners Association, and Chenal Ridge Property Owners Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents or Neighborhood
Associations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Staff believes that the current
request is premature due to the availability of office, commercial, and multifamily
areas that have not developed in the area, and that the change would result in an
expansion of possible commercial activities west of an established Commercial
Node.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff, reviewed the item. He explained why the area
was not expanded and covered the changes to the Plan made over the last
several years. There has been development of commercial and office uses in
the general area recently; however there are still areas to the east and west
available for commercial development. Mr. Malone reminded the Commission of
the function of a Principal Arterial and that Cantrell was such a road. The Node
concept and how this worked with the arterial classification was reviewed. Mr.
Malone closed by indicating, for these reasons Staff recommended denial of the
request. Item 7.1 (the related PCD application) was presented, see that item for
a complete discussion concerning the Plan Change and PCD applications.
Some of the items related to the Land Use Plan were the applicant’s reading
form the Staff report about compatibility and transitioning and how his
development would do that. The president of the Neighborhood Association
expressed concerns about leap frogging, and use of previous zoning to allow
even more intense development in the future (do not even open the option for
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU05-01-02
7
commercial a little with a ‘good’ development). The League of Women Voters
asked that the Plan be followed and that this use was an intense commercial
use.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with
a vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes, and 1 absent (Bill Rector).
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 7.1 FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
NAME: Miracle Development Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 14929 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Miracle Developments
8015 Stagecoach Road
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
Global Surveying Consultants Inc.
217 West 2nd Street, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 2.21 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Carwash facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
A requested rezoning of the property located at 14929 Cantrell Road from R-2, Single
Family District to O-3, General Office District for future office development is currently
before the Little Rock Planning Commission. That applicant elected to defer the
rezoning request at the Commission’s March 17, 2005, Public Hearing to allow this
applicant to pursue the current application request.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to build a two-bay automatic carwash facility with
three vacuum stations along Cantrell Road with the addition of a future third bay.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
2
The applicant has indicated there will be no parking provided as there will be no
reason for any vehicle other than a service vehicle to be unattended on the
property. The applicant has indicated the facility will initially be a 24-hour facility.
The applicant has stated an agreement has been reached with the adjoining
property owners that should the 24-hour operation become a concern they will
close during the late night and early morning hours. The applicant has indicated
since they do not anticipate much business during these hours, just the
possibility of having a car come through will discourage loitering and illegal
activity.
The applicant has indicated the plan will provide a separation of approximately
98-feet from the west property line to the building, which is more than three times
the 30-feet building line requirement defined by ordinance. In addition to this, the
applicant has stated the planned use will leave 225-feet of the southern portion of
the property (almost an acre) undeveloped as an additional buffer.
The applicant has indicated elevation concerns raised with the previous
application will be resolved with the current development. The applicant has
stated a great deal of fill was previously proposed thereby causing an issue with
the adjoining homeowners of choosing between a steep hillside or retaining walls
dominating their backyard views. The applicant has stated the current proposal
allows for a minimum of fill due to the limited use of the total property area. The
applicant has stated based on cross section views the homeowners in the
Westchester Subdivision will be unable to see any vehicles or little of the
building. The applicant has stated all that will be visible will be the roof and
possibly some of the building fascia.
The applicant has indicated drainage concerns will be addressed. The applicant
has stated according to preliminary calculations, they would not be required by
City regulations to install any sort of detention system to slow the flow rate of
storm water across and from the development due to the very small amount of
the total property that is being developed. Even so, the applicant is proposing to
install a double detention system to slow the flow rate of the storm water
currently crossing and coming from the property by a minimum of 25 percent
completely at the developer’s expense. The applicant has stated they feel this
will assist in improving the drainage within the western portion of the adjacent
subdivision.
The applicant has indicated operational noise will be minimal. According to the
applicant’s cover letter a decibel-meter test has been conducted at their existing
site located at 8015 Stagecoach Road and on the proposed site. The applicant
has stated they feel the addition of the facility will not cause any increase in the
noise levels in the adjacent properties over what currently exists due to the traffic
on Highway 10. Furthermore, according to the applicant, the new facility will be
quieter than the existing site on Stagecoach Road because a longer wash bay
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
3
length is proposed for the Highway 10 site, which will allow the applicant to move
the equipment further within the building.
The applicant has indicated lighting will be building mounted wall-packs and
low-level pole lights that use only downward-directed lighting that is shielded
from the visibility of the adjacent properties. The applicant has indicated there
will not be any lighting on the west or south side of the building above the
building fascia.
The site plan includes the placement of one 6-foot diameter lighted sign mounted
in the gable of the building facing north toward Highway 10 and one monument
sign at the entrance to Highway 10.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this
Agenda (LU05-01-02).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site currently contains two (2) single family residential structures, with a
single access drive from Cantrell Road. Single family residences are located on
the property immediately west and south of the site. A mixture of residential,
office and commercial uses and zoning exists to the west along Cantrell Road.
Single family residential and office uses and zoning is located across Cantrell
Road to the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Westbury Neighborhood Association, the Westchester
Neighborhood Association, the Secluded Hills Neighborhood Association, all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. Cantrell 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
at all locations. An additional easement for future storm water improvements
may be required.
2. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plan showing
the proposed drainage and grading for future site development.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
4
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. Westchester Subdivision to the west has a history of flooding problems. The
Storm Water Detention Ordinance applies to this property and will be
required.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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. 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). Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an
approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is
required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to
the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by
a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within
ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at
377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this
project.
Fire Department: 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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant is
requesting zoning for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for a 24-hour,
multiple bay, automated car wash.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Use is a separate item on this
Agenda (LU05-01-02).
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.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the 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 a Commercial development.
Landscape: A portion of the proposed on-site landscape buffer width along
Cantrell Road is less than the 40-feet required by the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District Ordinance.
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,
western and southern perimeters of the site. Credit toward fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this
year-around screening requirement.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the applicant
was requesting a rezoning to PCD to allow the construction of a two bay carwash
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
6
facility with an expansion area for a third bay. Staff noted there were additional
items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the indicated
signage did not comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay standard. Staff
stated the Highway 10 Design Overlay typically allowed for signage not to
exceed six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area for a single
development. Staff also requested details of any proposed fencing including
height, location and construction material. Staff questioned the proposed
vacuum stations with regard to a canopy over the stations and if there would be a
logo on the canopy. Staff requested the applicant provide the height of the
proposed vacuum stations and details of screening from Highway 10.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant provide
the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and leaving the
property and a sketch grading and drainage plan showing the proposed drainage
and grading for future site development. Staff stated the Westchester
Subdivision to the west had a history of flooding problems. Staff noted the Storm
Water Detention Ordinance would apply to the property and would be required.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a portion of the proposed
on-site landscape buffer width along Cantrell Road was less than the 40-feet
required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District Ordinance. Staff also stated
a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings was required along the eastern,
western and southern perimeters of the site. Staff stated credit toward fulfilling
this requirement could be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfied
this year-around screening requirement. Staff stated an irrigation system to
water landscaped areas would be required
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 March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated signage consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
standard or a maximum of six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area.
The applicant has also indicated fencing will be placed along the eastern
property line and the southern property line both six feet in height. The applicant
has indicated an eight foot fence will be placed along the entrance drive, eight
feet in height. The applicant has also indicated the fence along the internal drive
and along the southern property line will be placed with the smooth face to the
building. The applicant has indicated the fencing is not located on the property
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
7
line and the placement of the smooth side out would have no benefit to the
adjoining property owners. In addition, the applicant has indicated a 25-foot
landscape buffer will be added along the western property line to protect the
residences in this area. To the south of the site is a 0.93 acre tract of
undeveloped area. The applicant has indicated the existing buildings will be
removed along with all paved areas and the areas will be reseeded.
The applicant has indicated the vacuum stations will be a maximum of eight feet
in height and three and one-half feet at the base. The applicant has indicated the
stations will be covered with a canopy a maximum of ten feet in height. The
applicant has indicated the canopy will be under lit and there will not be any
logos located on the proposed vacuum station canopies. The site plan includes
vacuum station screening with a landscaping treatment or a berm or a
combination of both.
The applicant has indicated limiting the servicing hours of the proposed dumpster
to 7 am to noon Monday through Friday. The dumpster has been located along
the eastern side of the building away from the single-family homes located in the
Westchester Subdivision.
The applicant has provided Public Works staff with a sketch grading and
drainage plan as requested. The applicant has also indicated areas set aside for
storm water detention on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated
detention will be provided along the eastern property line and along the western
property line to ensure detention of the site’s potential water run-off.
The site plan indicates all site development will take place behind the 40-foot
landscape buffer typically required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The applicant has also indicated irrigation will be provided to water landscaped
areas and a RPZA backflow preventer will be installed per Central Arkansas
Water specifications.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request for a commercial development at
this location. The applicant has indicated the site plan allows for buffer of the
neighboring single-family homes. The site plan does allow for additional
buffering for a few of the homes but there are several homes, which do not
receive the benefit of the acre of undisturbed buffer. Staff feels there are
available sites in the area, which are currently zoned or indicated on the Future
Land Use Plan as Commercial, which would allow for a development as
proposed. Staff feels if this site is allowed to redevelop as a commercial use this
will only encourage the sites located immediately east to also redevelop as
commercial uses. This development pattern will extend the existing commercial
node located at Taylor Loop Road further west taking in this site as well. The site
is shown as Transition on the City’s Future Land Use Plan and a change to
Mixed Use is a separate item on this agenda. Staff is not supportive of the plan
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
8
change and feels the site should remain as Transitional and redevelop as a use
defined under the Transitional Land Use category or low density residential,
multi-family or an office use. Staff feels a commercial use is too intense a
development for this site and the plan should be maintained allowing a stepping
down of intensity of uses.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Mr. Bill Keathly was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Keathly addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he and
his partner had spent six months looking for a site on Highway 10 to develop a carwash
and the requested site was the only location they had been able to find. He stated he
had met with the neighborhood and the proposed site plan did offer them protection. He
stated he felt the requested use was a transitional use since there was approximately
one acre of land not being utilized but being offered as a buffer to the neighborhood.
He stated the site plan offered detention to help address the neighborhoods current
flooding problems. He stated the proposed carwash facility would not generate a great
deal of additional noise.
Mr. Gene Martin addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He
stated he supported the development with mixed emotions. He stated the developers
had worked closely with the neighborhood to develop a plan that was less intrusive to
the neighborhood. He stated he felt this development was more desirable than a
multi-story office building. Mr. Martin stated he felt the proposed development a good
transition for the neighbors most effected.
Mr. Mike Saar addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the Westchester Neighborhood Association was not in support of the proposed
development although for a few of the residents of the neighborhood the developer was
offering a great deal of protection. He stated with the change of the site from residential
to commercial he felt this would only erode the Transitional Land Use classification of
the area. He stated he felt if the site were changed to Commercial this would only
encourage the area to the east of the site to also develop with an intense commercial
use.
Mr. Renee Crater addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she was the neighborhood that would be most effected by the proposed
development. She stated she felt the developers had addressed concerns related to
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7783-A
9
drainage and lighting but not the noise levels. She stated current the site was not used
as a carwash facility and the noise was not there. She stated the time most people
wanted to utilize a carwash facility and the peak usage time was the time she would
typically be at home and trying to enjoy her outdoors. She stated she was not
supportive of the proposed development.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the Transitional Land Use category typically allowed for a stepping down of
intensities allowing the lesser intensity uses adjacent to residential development. She
stated she was supportive of allowing the increased buffer area adjacent to the
neighborhood but felt a commercial development was not appropriate for the site.
Mr. D.K. Robinson and Ms. Rosemary Robinson did not wish to address the
Commission but indicated opposition to the proposed request.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the applicant as to measure that would be undertaken
to eliminate persons from hanging around the site and playing loud music while detailing
their cars. Mr. Keathly stated the site was not designed to allow loitering. He stated the
site at Stagecoach had been designed to allow for customer to pull out of the flow of
traffic and detail their cars. The Commission questioned the number of cars served in a
day. Mr. Keathly stated typically 85 cars per day would be served. He stated a web
cam would be installed to discourage loitering and the neighbors would be given access
to view the web cam.
A motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan amendment. The motion failed by a
vote of 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the PD-C request. The motion failed by a vote of
0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7810
NAME: Harvey Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:
Paul Harvey
P.O. Box 192607
Little Rock, AR 72219
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co., Inc
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 1.96 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses, Indoor warehousing
and limited outdoor display
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The R-2, Single-family zoned site located at 10100 Mabelvale Pike was
developed prior to annexation by the City of Little Rock. The site was
grandfathered in upon annexation with a non-conforming status for commercial
activity. The site has not operated as a business for more than one year and has
lost its non-conforming status. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PCD to
allow the site to be marketed as a commercial property. The applicant is
requesting uses with outdoor display of items to be sold on computer internet
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
2
sites, warehousing indoor for items to be sold on computer internet sites and C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial District uses.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a vacant non-residential building located on a single parcel of
land. There have been a number of commercial uses located on the site in the
past and most recently the site housed a limousine service.
There is a single-family neighborhood located to the west of the site (Pinedale)
and a single-family neighborhood located to the northeast of the site (Mavis
Circle). Mabelvale Pike contains a number of uses including single-family, multi-
family and commercial uses. The commercial uses are predominately located
nearer the Interstate access road and further south within Mabelvale.
The road is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. There are no
sidewalks in place adjacent to the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Pinedale Neighborhood Association, the Mavis Circle
Neighborhood Association, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents who could be
identified located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Mabelvale Pike 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. Boundary street improvements and storm water detention do not apply unless
construction is proposed with a future building permit.
3. Furnish signage and notarized dedications with final Board of Directors
approval of the rezoning request.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
3
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional meter(s) are required.
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 near 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 Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to use an existing
commercial building for a business. The PZD (Planned Zoning Development)
process will allow a thorough and detailed review of the development. Since the
applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial building, the same
infrastructure, is not planning expansion, and the property has historically been
used as a non conforming commercial use, Staff feels a Land Use Plan
Amendment is not necessary for this particular application.
Master Street Plan: Mabelvale Pike is shown as a Collector on the Master Street
Plan. A Collector street’s primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity
centers to Arterials. Mabelvale Pike will require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
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: 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
northern and southern perimeters of the site.
The development of a new parking lot will require landscaping and buffers in
compliance with ordinance requirements.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the site was a
commercial building located on Mabelvale Pike which had been grandfathered
into the City as a non-conforming use. Staff stated the building had not
functioned as a business for more than one year resulting in the loss of its non-
conforming status. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to
complete the review process. Staff questioned if the request was to allow the
first 348 feet to be zoned as PCD with the remainder of the site remaining zoned
R-2, Single-family. Staff also requested the applicant provide the total square
footage of the building and the days and hours of operation in the general notes
section of the site plan. Staff requested the applicant provide a historical list of
uses that had occurred on the site. Staff stated the request included the
development of the site with C-4, Open Display District uses. Staff stated they
felt a C-4, Open Display District development at this location was too intense.
Staff stated they would recommend selecting specific uses for redevelopment or
consider redevelopment with C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses. Staff
suggested the applicant be more specific of his requested uses and narrow down
the listing of requested uses. Staff stated they felt C-1 uses were more
appropriate uses for the site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way
45-feet from centerline would be required along Mabelvale Pike. Staff noted
upon dedication the front parking area would be very limited. Staff suggested the
applicant design parking in the rear of the building. Staff stated boundary street
improvements and storm water detention did not apply unless construction was
proposed with a future building permit.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a six foot high opaque
screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense
evergreen plantings was required along the northern and southern perimeters of
the site. Staff also stated the development of a new parking lot would require
landscaping and buffering in compliance with ordinance 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 March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the front portion of the property zoned as PCD and the remainder
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
5
of the property zoned R-2, Single-family. The applicant has also indicated the
total building square footage in the general notes section of the proposed site
plan. The applicant has indicated the building contains 4050 square feet and the
building is constructed of metal and rock. The applicant has also indicated a
proposed parking area in the rear of the building to be used as outdoor display
and customer parking. The applicant has indicated the proposed uses of the site
are outdoor display of boats, autos and motorcycles to be sold on computer
internet sites, the allowance of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial uses and indoor
warehousing and storage of merchandise to be sold on computer internet sites.
The applicant has indicated there will be limited site visits to allow viewing of the
merchandise held for internet sales. The applicant has also indicated there is a
potential for the sale of these items based on these viewings.
The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan.
The applicant has indicated a new parking area will be added to the rear of the
building in the future. The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing parking
area in the front of the building until Mabelvale Pike is widened at which time the
applicant will construct the rear customer parking area. Based on the total
square footage of the building the typical minimum parking required would be 13
parking spaces for retail use. The applicant has indicated nine future customer
parking spaces along the rear of the building. The indicated parking is not
adequate to meet the typical minimum parking required for a retail use or a
restaurant use, which is an allowable uses under C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial. Staff feels the indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical
parking demand required for a retail use but would recommend a restaurant not
be an allowable use for the site due to the in adequate parking proposed.
Staff also has concerns with the use of the right-of-way for customer
maneuvering room from the existing parking spaces. The applicant has indicated
the proposed rear parking area will not be constructed immediately and is
requesting to utilize the right-of-way for customer backing out space and
maneuvering area. Although, the customers will not be backing into the right-of-
way staff has safety concerns with allowing the customers to utilize the right-of-
way as a maneuvering area.
The proposed site plan includes the placement of an eight foot wood fence along
the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The applicant also proposes
the placement of an eight foot fence between the commercially and residentially
zoned portions of the property. The applicant has indicated a six foot landscape
strip along the parking lot perimeters and has indicated landscaping will be
added in the future when the parking lot is paved.
The applicant has not indicated signage on the proposed site plan. If approved
staff would recommend limiting signage for the proposed development to signage
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
6
similar to office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square
feet in area.
The applicant has indicated the parking area behind the building is currently
unpaved. The applicant has indicated the parking area will remain unpaved for a
limited time but the area will not be utilized for customer parking or storage until
the area is paved.
Although, staff is supportive of the indoor aspects of the proposed development if
limited to uses, which do not require parking at a rate far greater than is
proposed, staff has concerns with the proposed outdoor display area. There are
residential uses located to the north, south and west of the site. The western
property line has a significant buffer provided by the applicant, the properties to
the north and south do not have this increased buffer area. With such a close
proximity to residential uses staff feels the outdoor display area could adversely
impact the adjoining properties and should not be allowed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Mr. David Jones was present representing the request. There were registered objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the
primary concern was with the placement of the outdoor storage area.
Mr. Jones addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He stated
the building was constructed 20 plus years before as a commercial building. He stated
the site had a history of commercial uses including outdoor storage. He stated his client
had purchased the property and had utilized the site as a commercial business in the
past. He stated the client did not know if there was not a commercial activity on the site
the site would lose its non-conforming status. Mr. Jones stated his client was
requesting the outdoor display for boats, motorcycles and cars to be sold on an Internet
site such as E-bay. He stated the units would only be on site for 10 to 30 days
depending on the length of the auction. He stated the units would be screened from
view by the placement of an eight-foot wood fence. He stated the units would be loaded
and unloaded behind the fence and the units would not be for sale at the site.
Ms. Elizabeth Stewart addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
request. She stated she was President of the Mabelvale Mavis Circle Neighborhood
Association. She stated her home was across the street from the proposed commercial
business. She stated the applicant was living in the structure. She stated even if the
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7810
7
business was an Internet business there would still be customer traffic to the site. She
stated there would be merchandise to drop off or pick up from the site. She stated the
area had developed with commercial businesses to the north and south of the site. She
stated the neighborhood had remained in tact in this area. She stated the site was not
appropriate for a commercial business and felt the residential zoning should remain.
Ms. Elizabeth Peel addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she lived adjacent to the site and did not wish to have a commercial
business adjacent to her home. She stated the business would generate traffic due to
the nature of the use. She stated if a business were to prosper then one would
anticipate traffic into the area.
Mr. Jones stated the applicant was only requesting to get back what he had lost. He
stated it was important to have the outdoor storage area for the boats, motorcycles and
cars. He stated this was a growing part of the Internet sales business. He stated he felt
the proposed request was in keeping with the neighborhood.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and potential
access and sales from the site. Mr. Jones assured the Commission that no direct sales
would take place from the site. There was also a general discussion concerning the
proposed fence height.
Mr. Jones requested an amendment to his application. Mr. Jones stated he was
amending his request to remove the outdoor storage area and reduce the fence height
to six feet.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion failed by a vote of
5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7811
NAME: Thomas Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the North side of Cantrell Road at the West end of
Mooser Lane
DEVELOPER:
Jerry Thomas
39 Quercus
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Robert Holloway
200 Casey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 33 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: A barn without the presence of a principal structure
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this 33 acre tract from R-2, Single-
family to PD-R to allow the construction of a barn to house livestock and his
personal mowing equipment on the site. The applicant does not live on the site
nor is there a principal residence on the site, which necessitates the need for a
rezoning request. The applicant has indicated the building will be set at 60-feet
from the western property line and approximately 350-feet from Taylor Loop
Creek. There is an existing low water bridge on the site, which will provide
access to the new building.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7811
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant pastureland with a scattering of trees. Taylor Loop Creek
crosses the property and a large portion of the property lies within the 100 year
floodplain. There is a railroad line located to the north of the site and a single-
family subdivision is located to the south of the site. Access to the site is from
Mooser Lane, a narrow road, which services very few homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association, all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to construction.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
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. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and
location of the water meter. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an
approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) may be
required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to
the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon
installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by
a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by
CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7811
3
ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact Carroll Keatts at
377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this
project.
Fire Department: 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: 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 PDR (Planned Development -Residential) for construction of a
barn.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Mooser Lane is shown as a Local Street on the Master
Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Mooser Lane will require dedication of right-of-way.
Bicycle Plan: A Class I bikeway is shown following Taylor Loop Creek through
the property. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
Since this Class I bikeway is part of Little Rock’s regional trail system dedication
of 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: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item indicating there were
few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they
would contact the applicant directly to complete the technical review. There was
no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7811
4
H. ANALYSIS:
There were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request
remaining from the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the proposed barn facility will not have restroom facilities
or an electrical connection.
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this 33 acre tract from R-2,
Single-family to PD-R to allow the construction of a barn to house livestock and
his personal mowing equipment. The applicant does not live on the site nor is
there a principal residence on the site, which necessitates the need for a
rezoning request. The applicant has indicated the building will be set at 60-feet
from the western property line and approximately 350-feet from Taylor Loop
Creek. There is an existing low water bridge on the site, which will provide
access to the new building. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request. Staff
does not feel the proposed development of the barn without a principal structure
on the site will have 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 request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-7812
NAME: Pintura Subdivision Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the North side of Kanis Road, just West of Kirby Road
DEVELOPER:
Chris Olsen
7 Woodbrook Court
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Crafton, Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 6.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Residential subdivision containing townhouse and patio home
development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated March 30, 2005, requesting this item be
deferred to the April 28, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff recommends this item be deferred
to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing to allow time for staff to review modifications and
changes proposed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated March 30,
2005, requesting the item be deferred to the April 28, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7812
2
the applicant had since agreed to defer the item to the May 26, 2005, Public Hearing.
Staff presented a recommendation the application be deferred to the May 26, 2005,
Public Hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to review proposed
modifications and changes.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7813
NAME: Faithland Properties Short-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1720 North Grant Street
DEVELOPER:
Faithland Properties
5100 West 12th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court – Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 0.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: Quiet Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A waiver of the required right-of-way dedication
to Cantrell Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site located at 1720 North Grant
from R-2, Single-family to POD to allow the conversion of an existing single-
family structure into a quiet office use. The applicant has indicated parking will
be accessed from an existing alley extending from Cantrell Road. The site plan
includes the placement of four parking spaces in the rear of the structure.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a small single-family structure with a covered front porch area,
which is very characteristic of the neighborhood. The site is located one block
east of the Cantrell Road and University Avenue intersection. There is a parking
pad located south of Cantrell Road accessed from the alleyway providing parking
for the structure.
To the west of the site is an office use approved as a PD-O for a real estate
office. To the south of Cantrell Road the uses are residential and predominately
single-family. To the north of Cantrell Road the uses on the east side of
University Avenue are commercial, office and public institutional uses and west
of University Avenue the uses are single-family.
Grant Street is a typical residential street with curbing in place. Cantrell Road is
a four lane roadway with a center turn lane located at University Avenue.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Heights Neighborhood Association, the Forest Park
Neighborhood Association, the Normandy-Shannon Property Owners
Association, all property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from centerline will be required, however,
the existing home is only 35-feet from the centerline. A Board of Directors
waiver would be required.
2. All commercial access should be through the alley and not through the old
residential apron.
3. Any future site construction and/or redevelopment of the property would be
subject to the Master Street Plan requirement.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
3
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment.
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 located near CATA Bus Route #21, the University Avenue Bus
Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a POD for an office use in an existing residential
structure. No plan amendment was filed.
Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and Grant
Street 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. The primary function
of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Heights Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning goal
encourages maintenance of the existing zoning pattern, unless it conflicts with
the future land use plan. Several objectives state that the neighborhood would
like to see non residential developments be developed through a PZD, not
support any zoning changes that are in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan,
and change must be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The
Zoning goal is to “Maintain existing zoning in the heights area, except in
instances where it conflicts with Future Land Use Plan.” Objectives state:
“Require all non-residential development to submit a PZD for zoning changes,”
and not to support any zoning changes inconsistent with the Future Land Use
Plan. This development would need to positively relate to adjacent properties in
the area. Currently, the proposed use does conflict with the land use plan, as
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
4
does an existing POD immediately west of the property. In order to be a quality
development for the neighborhood the residential character of the property
should be retained.
Landscape: Any expansion of the parking area will require landscaping in
compliance with ordinance requirement. This would include perimeter on-site
landscaping buffers of at least six feet nine inches in width along Cantrell Road
and the southern perimeter. This takes into account the reduction allowed within
the designated mature area of the City.
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 southern
perimeter of the site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the
proposed request was to convert an existing single-family structure into an office
use. Staff questioned if the request for quiet office was general and professional
office uses or if the applicant was requesting O-1, Quiet Office uses.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Cantrell Road was
classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Staff stated a
dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from centerline would be required. Staff
stated the existing home was located only 35-feet from the centerline and a
Board of Directors waiver would be required for the required right-of-way. Staff
stated all commercial access should be through the alley and not through the old
residential apron and requested the applicant remove the apron access.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any expansion of the
parking area would require landscaping in compliance with ordinance
requirements. Staff stated this would include perimeter on-site landscaping
buffers of at least six feet nine inches in width along Cantrell Road and the
southern perimeter. Staff noted this did take into account the reduction allowed
within the designated mature area of the City. Staff stated screening would be
required along the southern perimeter of the site. Staff stated a six foot high
opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall
or dense evergreen plantings would be required.
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.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
5
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the site will be utilized by general and professional office uses.
The applicant has also indicated a waiver request of the required right-of-way
dedication for Cantrell Road. The applicant has removed the existing driveway
apron located along Cantrell Road and indicated parking will be accessed from
an existing alleyway. The site plan includes the placement of four parking
spaces to serve the total building area of 1,100 square feet. The ordinance
would typically require two parking spaces based on an office use and the total
building square footage.
The site plan includes the hours of operation from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through
Friday. The site plan also indicates there will not be a dumpster located on the
site. The applicant has indicated a six foot landscape strip between the
proposed driveway and the northern property line. The ordinance typically
requires a landscape strip of not less than six feet nine inches. The applicant
has indicated landscaping will be added in this area to provide screening of the
proposed parking lot. The applicant has also indicated an existing six foot
wooden fence will be extended along the southern property line to the 25-foot
front yard setback to provide screening to the adjoining property.
The site plan has not indicated any proposed signage. Staff would recommend if
approved, signage would be limited to signage allowed in residential zones or a
ground sign with a maximum of one square foot of sign area and not to exceed
six feet in height and a single wall sign to be placed on the north façade only.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant’s request. The site is indicated on the
City’s Future Land Use Plan as Low Density Residential with the predominate
use in the area being residential. Although an office use exists on the corner of
University Avenue and Cantrell Road, just west of this site, staff does not feel the
adjacent non-residential use warrants a change for this site. Staff feels with the
redevelopment of this site as a non-residential use, this will erode the residential
fabric of the neighborhood along Cantrell Road. The area to the north of Cantrell
Road has redeveloped with non-residential uses while maintaining the residential
uses to the south of Cantrell Road. Staff feels this is an appropriate development
pattern for the area. With the exception of the property located to the west and a
non-conforming public institutional use located to the east, this area has
maintained residential uses as the primary use. Staff feels the request for an
office use is not appropriate for the site and staff feels the site should maintain its
residential use and integrity.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
6
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the
proposed request.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. He
stated the owner was willing to restrict the use of the site to her real estate management
firm office use. She stated the business had three employees and the applicant was not
proposing to change the appearance of the structure and the structure would remain
residential in character. He stated there would not be any customer traffic to the site.
He stated the site was not intended as a place for persons to come and pay rents. He
stated the use would not generate any traffic numbers any greater than a single-family
residence.
Mr. Jonathan Opitz addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated his home was located just south of the proposed rezoning request. He stated
he moved to the area because it was a neighborhood and to rezone the site to a
business was counter intuitive to the neighborhood. He stated there were other site
located in the area that were zoned appropriately for a business and the indicated use.
He stated if the site were rezoned it would only encourage other homes in the area to
request a rezoning and further decline the residential homes in the area. He stated the
neighborhood did not want a business as the gateway to the neighborhood. He stated
the area wanted the home had not been properly maintained and now the owner was
saying it was not cost effective to renovate the home as a residential use. He stated
many of the homes in the area had been in disrepair when the owners purchased them
and they had put a lot of time and money into renovations. He stated the indicated site
could too be renovated as a residence, if someone took the time and money to do so.
Ms. Elaine Zediker addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she had lived at 1623 N. Grant Street since 1998. She stated it was
important to maintain the residential integrity of the neighborhood. She stated Grant
Street had a significant amount of traffic with persons cutting through to the office
buildings located to the south. She stated with the addition of an office use on the site
this would only increase traffic. She stated the alley was not designed appropriately for
a commercial business. She stated the alley currently served the homes in the area
and one commercial business. She stated with a rezoning of the site this would
encourage other homes located along Cantrell Road to also request a rezoning. She
requested the Commission maintain the residential integrity of the neighborhood.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7813
7
Mr. Andrew James addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated his home was across the street from the proposed office use. He stated he
and his wife purchased the home and put a lot of work into their home and he felt with
the approval of an office use on the site this would decrease his property value. She
stated the area was a good location convenient to downtown and West Little Rock. He
stated he felt with the approval of the rezoning this would negatively impact area
residents.
Ms. Turdy Cromwell was not present. Staff stated Ms. Cromwell had indicated the
proposed use was not consistent with the Neighborhood Action Plan and was out of
character with the existing neighborhood.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the residential neighborhood was virtually intact in the area. She stated the
south side of Cantrell Road had maintained residential uses while the north side of
Cantrell Road had become a commercial center for the neighborhood. She stated she
felt an approval would trigger a domino effect resulting in the loss of additional housing
stock in the area. Ms. Bell requested the Commission deny the request and continue
the site as a residential use.
Mr. Thomas Rinehart addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he lived east of the property being considered for rezoning. He stated he
agreed with the previous comments of his neighbors. Mr. Rinehart requested the
Commission deny the request.
Ms. LaJauna Herrin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she too agreed with the previous comments.
Ms. Lauren White addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated her home was at 1704 North Grant Street, just south of the proposed
rezoning request. She stated her home backed up to the alley being proposed as
access to the site. She stated there were a number of cars traveling the alleyway,
which did not live in the neighborhood. She stated at first she felt an office use might
not be a bad idea. She stated she had since reconsidered. She stated the area was a
residential neighborhood and did not need a business use at the entrance to the
neighborhood.
Mr. McGetrick stated the property owner was trying to bring the property up to some
standard. He stated there would not be any more traffic than a single-family residence
with the limited number of employees. He stated a sign was not important since there
would not be customer traffic to the site. He stated the owner’s desire was to maintain
the residential integrity of the site.
A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye,
8 noes and 2 absent.
April 14, 2005
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7814
NAME: Winstead Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located at 6 River Mountain Road
DEVELOPER:
Professional Leasing Company
P.O. Box 55092
Little Rock, AR 72215
ENGINEER:
Ollen Dee Wilson
P.O. Box 604
North Little Rock, AR 72115-0604
AREA: 9.28 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family residential
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Two residences along with a pool house with a kitchen facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to PD-R to allow the construction of a new
home on this 9+ acre tract. The site currently contains a single-family residence,
a pool house with kitchen facilities and storage barn. The applicant has indicated
the new home will be constructed approximately 300-feet from the rear property
line and approximately 50-feet from the western property line. The applicant has
indicated the existing home will be retained as a care taker’s residence or remain
vacant.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7814
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family home located on acreage just off River
Mountain Road. There are similar lot configurations located in the area with
homes located on 5 plus acres. There is a traffic signal located at the River
Mountain/Cantrell Road/Rodney Parham Road intersection located just west of
the site. There is a church located on the northwest corner of this intersection
and an office building located at the southwest corner. Vacant lands are located
on the southeast corner of the intersection.
River Mountain Road is a two lane roadway which provides access to the
Arkansas River. Once at the river, connecting trails are available to allow
bicyclists and residents access to Murray Park and Rebsamen Park.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
River Valley Property Owners Association, all property owners located within
200-feet of the site and all residents who could be identified located within 300-
feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions: No comment on the addition of a residence to the site.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easement, if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225 if larger
and/or additional meter(s) is required.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7814
3
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA bus route #25, the Highway 10 Express
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 PDR (Planned Development Residential) for construction of a
third home on a nine-acre lot.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: River Mountain Road is shown as a Local Street on the
Master Street Plan. River Mountain Road may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bikeway is shown on River Mountain 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: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item indicating there were
few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff stated they
would contact the applicant directly to complete the technical review. There was
no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant has provided responses to the outstanding issues raised at the
March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
the existing home will be left vacant or be used as a caretaker’s residence for the
property.
April 14, 2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7814
4
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to rezone the site to PD-R to allow
the construction of a new home on this 9+ acre tract. The site currently contains
a single-family residence, pool house with kitchen facilities and storage barn.
The addition of a second residence on the site (along with the pool house with
kitchen facilities) necessitates a rezoning request. The ordinance typically only
allows a single-family residence on an individual lot or tract. In staff’s opinion a
structure with kitchen facilities is a dwelling unit, therefore, the current request
would increase the number of potential dwelling units to three.
The applicant has indicated the new home will be constructed approximately
300-feet from the rear property line and approximately 50-feet from the western
property line. The indicated setbacks are more than adequate to meet the typical
ordinance setback requirements. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request.
Staff feels the addition of a new home on the site will have minimum impact on
the adjoining properties. Staff would recommend the property owner reside in
one of the structures.
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 staff report.
Staff recommends the property owner reside in one of the structures.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 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 property owner reside in
one of the structures and the existing structure only be utilized as a guesthouse or a
caretaker’s residence.
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 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.