HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 10 2005subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
NOVEMBER 10,2005
5:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (I 0)in number.
Members Present:Gary Langlais
Pam Adcock
Robert Stebbins
Loess Hargraves
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Jerry Meyer
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent:Fred Allen,Jr.
Jeff Yates
City Attorney:C indy Dawson
III.Approval of the Minutes of the September 29,2005 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 10,2005
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
A.LU05-20-04 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Pinnacle Planning
District at the Northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road
and County Farm Road from Single Family to Suburban
Office.
A.1.Z-7771-A Ludwig Complex Long-form POD,located on the Northwest
corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road.
B.S-1502 Inman Subdivision Site Plan Review,located at
5300 Asher Avenue.
C.LU05-02-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Rodney Parham
Planning District on the Northwest corner of Shackleford
Road and Beverly Hills from Single Family to Community
Shopping;and on the Northwest corner of Markham Street
and Shackleford Road from Office to Community Shopping.
C.1.Z-3419-B Beverly Hills Place Short-form PCD,located on the
Northwest corner of Beverly Hills Drive and Shackleford
Road.
D.Z-7874 Fiser Short-form PCD,located on the Northwest corner of
Cantrell Road and Manney Road.
E.Z-5311-A Verizon Wireless Revised Short-form PCD,located at
14309 Cantrell Road.
F.LU05-17-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning
District on the Northwest corner of Crystal Valley Road and
Stagecoach Road from Single Family to Commercial and
Park Open/Space.
F.1.Z-7918 Crystal Valley Crossing Long-form PCD,located at
8424 Stagecoach Road.
Agenda,Page Two
OLD BUSINESS:(Continued)
Item Number:File Number:Title
G.Z-7923 Hayman Short-form PD-R,located at 2460 Howard Street.
H.S-1495 Pine Circle Addition Preliminary Plat,located on Park
Avenue,East of Western Hills Avenue.
Z-5055-F Chenal Country Club —Conditional Use Permit
10 Chenal Club Blvd.
NEW BUSINESS:
I.RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT:
Item Number:File Number:Title
1.G-23-355 Anna Street Right of Way Abandonment,located North of
Asher Avenue and South of Brack Street.
2.G-23-356 West Bowen Road Right of Way Abandonment,located
South of Mabelvale West Road,just West of the proposed
South Loop.
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
3.S-46-AA Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat,located South of
Overlook Drive,at the end of Woodglen Road.
4 S-554-A Mabelvale West Industrial Subdivision,located South of
Mabelvale West Road,just West of the proposed South
Loop.
5.S-867-DDDDDD Chenal Valley Tract 5 Revised Preliminary Plat,located on
the Southwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal
Parkway.
Agenda,Page Three
II.PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
6.S-1420-A Woodland Farms Estates Revised Preliminary Plat,located
at the East end of Pine View Place.
7.S-1477-B Two Rivers Harbor Revised Preliminary Plat,located at the
East end of Isbell Lane.
8.S-1507 Morgan Addition Preliminary Plat,located on the Northwest
corner of Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road.
III.SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Item Number:File Number:Title
9.Z-4343-P Smith Zoning Site Plan Review,located at
5900 Ranch Drive.
IV.PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:File Number:Title
10.Z-5522-B St.Mark's Church Revised POD,located at
1024 N.Mississippi Street.
11.Z-5718-A Magnolia Terrace Revised Short-form POD,located at
15100 and 15104 Cantrell Road.
12.LU051802 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain
Planning District on the Southwest corner of West 36"
Street and South Bowman Road from Suburban Office to
Low Density Residential.
12.1.Z-6049-B Thomas Park Estates Short-form PD-R,located on the
Southwest corner of West 36'"Street and South Bowman
Road.
13.Z-6481-D Breshears Revised Short-form PD-C,located at
600 N.Tyler Street.
Agenda,Page Four
IV.PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:(Continued)
Item Number:File Number:Title
14.Z-7530-A Fox Ridge at Chenal Revised PD-R,located on the
Northwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal
Parkway.
15.Z-7701-A Mosley Revised Short-form PD-C,located at 14309 Kanis
Road.
16.LU05-29-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Barrett Planning
District on the Northwest corner of Highway 10 and Morgan
Cemetery Road from Single-family to Suburban Office.
16.1.Z-7948 Gillum Photography Studio Short-form POD,located North
of Highway 10,just West of Morgan Cemetery Road.
17.Z-7949 Tree Frog-Sweet Dreams Short-form POD,located at
8013 and 8025 Mabelvale Cut-off.
18.LU05-10-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning
District on the Northwest corner of West 41"Street and
Stannus Road from Public Institutional to Suburban Office.
18.1.Z-7950 Carpenter Short-form POD,located on the Northwest
corner of West 41"Street and Stannus Road.
19.Z 7951 La Z Boy Short form PCD,located at 1000 South
Shackleford Road.
20.Z-7952 Pinnacle Valley Court Long-form PD-R,located on Pinnacle
Valley Road,just North of Cantrell Road.
21.Z-7954 McCormick Short-form PD-R,located on the Southeast
corner of West Markham Street and Donna Drive.
22.Z-7605-A Chevaux Revised Short-form POD,located South of
Cantrell Road,approximately 500 feet East of
Chenonceau Boulevard.
Agenda,Page Five
V.Other Business:
Item Number:File Number:Title
23.A Grading Permit Request for Timber Harvest,located at
5701 Murray Street.
24.Adoption of the 2006 Planning Commission Calendar
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Pinnacle Planning District
Location:Northwest Corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads
Receuest:Single Family tc 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.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
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 t in size and located on the banks of the Arkansas
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
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 a)
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.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
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.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
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.
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.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has revised his site plan which has resulted in a different location
of a proposed office complex.The new location places the office uses further
from the intersection of County Farm and Pinnacle Valley Roads resulting in a
larger area (approximately 24 acres)proposed for change to Suburban Office.
Staff still has concerns that a Suburban Office designation may not be in
character with the surrounding rural area.A change to Suburban Office could
result in construction of more intense office uses or office parks at this site.The
floodplain issues and sewer issues still remain,and Staff does see how adding
additional area as suburban office will resolve any of those issues.Additional
area being shown as Suburban Office could increase the amount of developed
and paved area at the location possibly increasing runoff to adjacent properties
or the Little Maumelle River.Showing additional Suburban Office at the
intersection could result in requests for more office zoning resulting in additional
area traffic,additional businesses utilizing septic systems,and greater non-
residential use.While the current zoning proposal is for one office on a small
part the area,the Land Use change is for a large area which could result in more
development in the future.Staff still believes that the change is not appropriate
because the new proposal would add the potential for additional office uses in a
rural area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 26,2005)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission.
Donna James made a presentation of item E.1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item E.
Gene Ludwig,the applicant spoke in favor of the zoning application and stated
that his zoning application was more important to him than the Future Land Use
Plan application.He continued that he did not care if the land use plan was
changed.
Several citizens and neighbors spoke in opposition to the zoning application.
See item E.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Ludwig Long Form
Planned Office Development.
A motion to defer item E and E.1 to the July 7,2005 meeting and was approved
with a vote of 9 ayes,2 noes,and 0 absent.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
STAFF UPDATE:
Before the last hearing,the site plan was revised resulting in the office building
being in the center of the POD.The new site plan did not match the proposed
area proposed for a land use plan change.As a result,the applicant has
changed this application to request the entirety of the POD be changed to
Suburban Office.Staff still believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(J ULY 7,2005)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission.
Donna James made a presentation of item C.1 so the discussion could coincide
with the discussion for item C.See item C.1 for a complete discussion
concerning the Ludwig Complex Long Form Planned Office Development.
Eight speakers spoke concerning the zoning action,but none referenced the
Future Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to defer item C and C.1 to the August 18,2005 meeting and
was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,2 noes,and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application.The land use
application remains unchanged.Staff is requesting deferral to the September 29,
2005 hearing to resolve issues with the zoning application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 18,2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 29,
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 contacted staff regarding the application.The land
use application remains unchanged.Staff is requesting deferral to the
November 10,2005 hearing.
7
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-20-04
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
2005 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application.The land use
application remains unchanged.Due to the inactivity on the part of the
applicant Staff is requesting the item be withdrawn without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.By a vote of 9 for,
0 against and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
8
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:A.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 ('l3,200 total building square footage).The applicant
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
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.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
C.NE I G H BOR HOOD COMME NTS:
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.
~Enter:Easements are required to serve the proposed development.Contact
Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Ener:Approved as submitted.
SBC:No comment received.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
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 De artment:Outside the service boundary,submit comments from local
volunteer fire department which serves this area.
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
I ecol ds.
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.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin 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 s 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.
r
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.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~Landsca e: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.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
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.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
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'
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.
7
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff for consideration.The applicant has
indicated the development of the site with 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000
square feet of residential space.The applicant has indicated the residence will be
maintained as a caretaker's residence or the owner's home.The applicant has
indicated the development will be gated and the overall design is similar to the previous
proposal which includes buildings of white with green metal roofs;a style which is
compatible with the "Kentucky Horse Farm"theme that has been used by other newer
development in the area.Ranch style fencing will enclose the property as a whole as
well as line the driveway and encircle the compound.A single driveway will provide
access from Pinnacle Valley Road on the north/south leg of the roadway.The applicant
is requesting a deferral of street improvements for 5 years or until adjacent
development.
Staff does not believe it is appropriate to permit an intense office use at this site.Staff
previously indicated support of an office/residential development but the support was
based on the residential use being the primary use of the site and the office uses as a
secondary use.Staff feels the development of this site with 30,000 square feet of office
space and intense development for the area.The area is predominately residential and
public/quasi-public uses.Staff feels the development of this site with an intense office
use will negatively impact the river valley area,which has retained it rural character.
Staff does not feel the office use as proposed retains the rural character of the area.
Additionally,staff is concerned about the impact of a proposed intense office use that
would generate a great deal of traffic on substandard county and city streets.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the request.
8
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 26,2005)
The applicant was present.There were registered objectors present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.Mr.Gene Ludwig addressed the
Commission on the merits of his request.He stated he was revising the application
reviewed by the Commission at their January 20,2005,Public Hearing to remove the
pumper truck operation from the proposed site plan.He stated the current proposal
included the placement of 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 square feet of
residential space.He stated his desire was to relocate his office to the new site.He
stated his previous office was located on the corner of Beck Road and Pinnacle Valley
Road and burned.He stated he could not clean the site because there was an
insurance claim still pending and until the claim was settled he could not remove the
debris from the site.He stated his long-term goal was to add a residence to the site in a
separate location.He stated he had worked with staff to minimize their concerns but
could not get a number of the square footage they would be comfortable with.He
stated staff would not give him a number they felt was appropriate for the development
of the site.
Ms.Regina Norwood addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the neighbors were not support of commercialization of the area.She stated
she felt staff had made the right decision to not support the request.She stated Mr.
Ludwig had a site zoned appropriately for his office and had elected to not rebuild.She
stated the proposed development resembled a business complex and not a law office.
She stated she felt if the development were approved this would trigger additional
rezoning in the area.
Ms.Brenda Norwood addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the site plan had changed from an industrial site to a commercial site.She
questioned if the applicant intended to live on the site.She stated Mr.Ludwig had
stated he was a friend to the community but she did not feel he was treating the area as
a friend would treat a friend.She stated there were three parks in the area which
generated a great deal of out of town traffic.She stated the question visitors asked the
most was when was the burned building going to be cleaned and replaced.She stated
it was important to preserve the City's green space.
Mr.Louie Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated his home was north of the site and he did not feel the indicated location was
appropriate for a commercial development.He stated he felt the former location of Mr.
Ludwig's law office was an appropriate location for a non-residential use and felt he
should rebuild on that site.Mr.Bianco stated he had talked to Mr.Aday and in his last
conversation Mr.Aday was opposed to the request.He stated if Mr.Ludwig wanted a
home and to run has law firm from his home then the residents would not be opposed to
the request.
9
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE No.:Z-7771-A
Mr.Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she did not live in the area but did visit the area for recreation.She stated
the area was an oasis and did not need to be ruined with commercialization.She stated
recently she had heard Bob Whites in the park.She stated after research she found the
Bob White population was down by 62 percent due to development.She requested the
Commission deny the request.
Ms.Nancy Lott addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.She
stated Mr.Ludwig should rebuild on the site he owned,which was currently zoned
appropriately for a law office.She stated the neighborhood was currently preparing for
a spring-cleaning and beautification.She stated the burned building was not a beautiful
sight.She questioned why Mr.Ludwig had not removed the debris from the site.She
stated she understood insurance claims but the building had burned in September of
2004.
Mr.Bryan Dietz addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated the area was a family community and should not become a commercial area.
Mr.Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated he wanted to second the previous comments.He stated his home was across
from the new building and the proposed development was not appropriate for the area.
Mr.Herb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated a 30,000 square foot building was one-half a city block.He stated the building
would hold up to 210 workers.He stated this was not a typical law office.He stated the
logical response was the development was not appropriate for the area.He stated if the
Commission felt a change was necessary then they should review the Land Use Plan to
determine where changes were necessary.He stated it was rare to find a delta area in
such close proximity to an urban area.
Mr.Ludwig stated he did intend to clean the site but was waiting until all claims were
settled.He stated he did own other property in the area but the indicated location was
the most desirable location for an office use.He stated his design plan was similar to
current development patterns in the area.He stated there was more opposition to the
previously approved sports complex than to his current request.He stated he was
willing to limit the number of proposed signs.He requested guidance from the
Commission concerning the total square footage that would be acceptable.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the total
square footage.The Commissioners indicated the proposed square footage of the
office in relation to the proposed residential square footage was not consistent.The
Commission stated the previous proposal included the development of an 8000 square
foot residence and a 9000 square foot office building.Mr.Ludwig questioned if the
Commission would be willing to allow the residence on a separate location on the site at
a later date.The Commissioners stated staff's concerns were that the development
10
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
proposed was an office development and not a mixed-use development with the office
and residence complimenting each other.It was stated with the current proposal the
development appeared to be an office development with the residence secondary.
Mr.Ludwig indicated the allowable uses under AF zoned property.He stated a golf
course,day camp,swimming pool were all allowable by right.He stated one proposal
included the development of several five-acre lots.Mr.Ludwig stated his proposed use
was not as intense as one of the by-right uses.He stated the current request included
the development of 30,000 square feet of office space.He questioned if 20,000 square
feet of office space was acceptable to the Commission.
The Commission indicated the previous proposal included uses that complimented each
other.It was stated if Mr.Ludwig proposed the construction of an equal residences
then the development would not be out of character.There was a general discussion
concerning the proposed development and the character of the development.It was
indicated the proposed development was out of character with the area.
Mr.Ludwig requested a deferral of his request to meet with staff to address their
concerns.A motion was made to defer the applicant's request to the July 7,2005,
Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 7,2005)
Mr.Joe White and Mr.Gene Ludwig were present representing the request.There
were registered objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had
revise the plan to include the development of a 9,000 square foot office building and an
8,000 square foot residence.Staff stated they were somewhat supportive of the
proposed development but there were a few issues related to the proposed
development.Staff stated the indicated signage was not given a total height or sign
area.Staff stated they would recommend the sign area be limited to signage allowed in
office zones or six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in sign area.Staff also
questioned the proposed garages.Staff stated the applicant had also indicated attic
space to be utilized as storage.Staff stated they were not supportive of allowing the
attic space to be finished space only an area for file storage.Staff stated the applicant
had not provided a revised site plan.Staff stated the applicant had indicated the
building would be located in the same general location as the previous proposal with a
reduced building footprint.
Mr.Joe White addressed the Commission on the merits of the request.He stated the
development was scaled down from the original request.He stated the development
would be constructed of an architectural style that would match the neighborhood.He
stated with the addition of the garages the total footprint would be 9,000 to 10,000
square feet.Mr.White stated with the reduced total office square footage the parking
areas would also be reduced.Mr.White stated the applicant was requesting to be able
11
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
to move the residence away from the law office.He stated the applicant did not want
the residence tied to the office.
Mr.Hurb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated he felt the Commission should defer the request to allow staff and the
neighborhood time to review the indicated site plan.He stated he felt the applicant's
request was too general and not specific to allow staff and the Commission the ability to
enforce on the zoning at the time of construction.He stated the development lacked
specifics which he felt was a requirement of the planned development process.
Mr.Louis Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated the neighborhood did not want commercial in the area.He stated he felt a 9,000
square foot office was too intense for the area.He stated with the late submission of
the proposal he did not have the opportunity to publish a newsletter to let the residents
know of the current request.He stated of the residents he had talked to in the area all
were opposed to the construction of a 9,000 square foot office building on the site.
Ms.Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she did not live in the area but did use the area for the parks and amenities
the area had to offer.She stated the valley was not an appropriate location of an office
building of the indicated square footage.She stated the area was rural in nature and
the development of a commercial activity was not in keeping with the rural atmosphere
of the valley.
Ms.Rita Dyer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She stated she
did not feel the indicated location appropriate for an office use.
Mr.Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated if
the development were approved it would change the nature of the valley.He stated the
site was an agriculture site being used as pasture land.He stated he did not feel
commercialization of the valley was an appropriate use.He stated the river valley area
was being used for farming and residential homes which was the appropriate use for the
area.He stated the site should be developed with homes similar to the development
pattern in the area.
Ms.Sandra Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the original office was 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.She questioned why
Mr.Ludwig now needed such a large office.She stated the indicated development was
out of character with the existing neighborhood.She stated once an area was
developed for a commercial use the soil was no longer suitable for farming.
Ms.Mariella Nowicki addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She
stated the valley was lovely and a commercial development would not be a positive
addition to the area.She stated there was only one home with square footage similar to
12
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
Mr.Ludwig's proposal.She stated she felt the addition of a 9,000 square foot office
building and 8,000 square foot residence would be out of character for the valley area.
Mr.Gene Ludwig addressed the Commission.He stated he felt the proposal was
reasonable.He stated Mr.Bianco did not speak for the entire association.He stated
many of the neighbors he had spoken to did support the proposed development.He
stated he had requested from staff to relocate his current commercial zoning.He stated
staff was not supportive of this request.He stated the existing commercial site located
on Beck Road only contained one acre and the possible future uses would be limited to
relatively small developments.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
looseness of the current request.The Commission questioned if and when the phases
would be constructed.Mr.Ludwig stated he was unsure.The Commission questioned
if the home would be attached to the office or if it would be constructed at some other
location on the site.Mr.Ludwig stated he was not sure.He stated he was requesting
to keep all his options open.The Commission questioned at what point the home would
be constructed.Mr.Ludwig stated he could not give a definite time frame for
construction.The Commission requested Mr.Ludwig defer his request to tie down the
lose ends of the proposal.They requested a revise site plan and cover letter be
furnished to staff in time to take the item to the next Subdivision Committee meeting.
Mr.Ludwig agreed to this request.
A motion made to defer the request to the August 18,2005,Public Hearing.The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes 1 no and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff and the applicant met on August 4,2005,to work to resolve issues raised at the
Commission's July 7,2005,Public Hearing.The applicant has indicated a revised site
plan will be available for the Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8,2005.
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the September 29,2005,public hearing to
allow the Subdivision Committee and staff additional time to review the proposed
development plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 18,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff stated they and the applicant had met on August 4,2005,to
work to resolve issues raised at the Commission's July 7,2005,Public Hearing.Staff
stated the applicant had indicated a revised site plan would be available for the
Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8,2005.Staff requested the item be
13
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
deferred to the September 29,2005,public hearing to allow the Subdivision Committee
and staff additional time to review the proposed development plan.
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of 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 applicant submitted a request dated September 1,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the applicant's
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 1,2005,requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,
2005,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application.The planned office
development application remains unchanged.Due to the inactivity of the part of the
applicant,staff is requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the
applicant had not contacted staff regarding the application and the requested revised
site plan.Staff stated the planned office development application remained unchanged.
Staff stated due to the inactivity of the part of the applicant,staff was requesting the
item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.
14
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7771-A
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
15
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1502
NAME:Inman Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Located at 5300 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Kathleen Inmon
2820 Reservoir Road
Little Rock,AR 72227
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.76 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT:9 —I-630
CENSUS TRACT:19
Variance/Waivers:
1.A variance to allow a reduced number of required parking spaces.
2.A variance to allow reduced front,side and rear yard setbacks.
3.A variance to allow signage without public street frontage.
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,2005,Public Hearing to
resolve outstanding issues associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was not present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item indicating they were requesting the item be deferred to the
November 10,2005,Public Hearing to resolve outstanding issues associated with the
request.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a multiple building site plan review (a Subdivision Site
Plan Review)to allow the placement of a second building on the site.The
applicant's cover letter indicates in March of 2005,she completed a commercial
building on this lot located at 5300 Asher Avenue totaling 7,266 square feet with
24 parking spaces.The applicant has stated the site has 300-feet of frontage
along Asher Avenue.The western end of the site is currently vacant property.
The applicant is requesting the placement of the second structure containing
2,400 square feet (30-feet by 80-feet).The applicant has indicated 5 additional
parking spaces will be added to the site with the new construction.The
applicant is also proposing a right-of-way abandonment as a separate item on
this agenda (G-23-355).The applicant is proposing the abandonment of Anna
Street,which is located along the eastern boundary of the property.
The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance;a variance to
allow a reduced number of required parking spaces,a variance to allow a
reduced front and rear yard setback,a variance to allow signage without public
street frontage and a variance to allow the required street landscape strip along
the Asher Avenue frontage to be in the public right-of-way.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site was recently developed with a 7,266 square foot commercial building
and is currently being used as a furniture store and shoe store.Most
improvements have been completed with a few landscaping issues remaining
unresolved.The applicant has installed a fence along the rear of the building
and is currently housing delivery trailers behind gates.There is an apartment
complex located to the north of the site,accessed from Fair Park Boulevard.
This area of Asher Avenue contains a variety of commercial uses including
restaurants,a motel,a hardware/lumber store and auto related businesses.The
UALR Campus is located near the site,to the northwest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
Curran-Conway and the South of Asher Neighborhood Associations,along with
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
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.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
EntercnEr:Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Ener:Approved as submitted.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s)are required.A Capital Investment Charge based on
the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.
Fire De artment:install fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
CATA:The site is located along CATA Bus Route 414 —the Rosedale Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:
1.Phase one construction has not been built as shown on the approved site
plan or the approved landscape plan.Three copies of the approved site plan
followed by three copies of the approved landscape plan must be submitted
after approval by the Planning Commission.Phase one completion will also
include any additional landscaping requirements not currently being met and
wheel stops to be located along the western perimeter of the paved area.
These outstanding issues need to be resolved before the final certificate of
occupancy for phase one can be approved.
2.Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping along Asher Avenue appear to
3
f
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
not meet with ordinance requirements.
3.The property to the north is zoned PRD;therefore,a six (6)foot high opaque
screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall,or
dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern perimeter of the
site.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(September 8,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the development indicating the center was open for business on a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.Staff stated the provided site plan did not
match the survey.Staff stated the survey provided did not scale since the survey
had been faxed.Staff requested the applicant provide staff with a survey to
scale to determine if the proposed building location met with current City codes.
Staff stated it appeared the existing building had been constructed nearer the
property lines than the typical setbacks allowed.Staff stated the rear and front
yard setbacks typically required were 25-feet.Staff also stated the landscaping
provided did not meet the typically minimum requirement per the Zoning
Ordinance or the Landscape Ordinance.
Public Works stated there would not be any additional requirements with the
construction of the proposed building.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the wheel stops from the
originally approved building construction had not been installed.Staff stated this
would be required to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy.Staff also
stated screening would be required along the northern property line to screen the
adjoining residentially zoned and used property.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a scaled site plan of the proposed development to staff
addressing concerns raised at the September 8,2005,Subdivision Committee
meeting.The provided survey confirms staffs concerns regarding landscaping
and building setbacks.The previously constructed building has been constructed
at 13.9 feet from Anna Street which would typically require a 25-foot setback.
The building has been set at 29-feet from Asher Avenue,which would also
typically require a 25-foot setback.The rear yard setback has been set at
24.3-feet which a 25-foot setback is typically required.The applicant has applied
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
for a right-of-way abandonment for Anna Street,which if approved,removes the
variance request for a reduced setback along the Anna Street.
The applicant has indicated the new building will be constructed at 22-feet from
the property line along Asher Avenue.As indicated,the ordinance would
typically require a minimum setback of 25-feet.The applicant will not be allowed
the placement of awnings along the front of the building,which would further
reduce the building setback.The applicant has indicated the rear yard setback
for the proposed new building at 15-feet.The ordinance typically requires a
25-foot building setback.The applicant has indicated a screening fence will be
placed in this area to protect the adjoining properties.
The site plan indicates the street landscape strip is not being provided.Adjacent
to Asher Avenue all the provided landscaping is located within the right-of-way.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street buffer width of 6-feet 9-inches
for site located within the "Designated Mature Area"(site located east of
University Avenue).The applicant is seeking approval from the City Beautiful
Commission to allow the required landscaping to be located within the right-of-
way with a franchise agreement with the City.Additional plantings will be placed
along the landscape strip and the landscaping along Anna Street,to be
abandoned,will be enhanced.The applicant's site plan indicates a minimum
landscape strip along the rear of the site of seven feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow signage without public street
frontage.The proposed new building is oriented to face the parking area which
does not have public street frontage.Staff is supportive of the applicant's
request to allow signage without public street frontage.
The site plan includes 24 parking spaces.The existing building totals
7,200 square feet,which would require 24 parking spaces based on typical
parking ratio's for commercial development or one space per three hundred
square feet of gross floor area.The applicant is proposing the addition of a
second building totaling 2,400 square feet,which would typically require an
additional 8 parking spaces.The applicant has indicated five additional parking
spaces will be added to the site.Although the indicated parking is not sufficient
to meet the typically minimum parking demand,staff is supportive of allowing the
site to develop as proposed.Staff would recommend the proposed uses match
the available parking on the site.
The front drive adjacent to Asher Avenue is currently paved.The applicant has
indicated the drive will be blocked to allow for additional parking to the east of the
existing building.Staff recommends the applicant provide a curbing extending
from Asher Avenue to the existing building during the building construction phase
of the second building to direct motorist to the existing parking area.The front
5
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
paved area will be blocked and staff is concerned that motorist may enter this
area and be forced to back into the driveway causing traffic conflicts.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing
redevelopment of a site in an area that has seen little new development in the
recent past.Staff feels the applicant's proposal is reasonable and should have
minimal impact if developed as proposed by the applicant and noted by staff in
the previous paragraphs.
STAFF R E COMME NDAT ION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as noted in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a reduced front and
rear yard setback for the proposed new building and staff recommends approval
of the applicant's request for a reduced rear yard setback of the existing building.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a
reduced number of parking spaces for the proposed development provided the
proposed uses of the site match the available parking on the site.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow signage without
public street frontage.
Staff recommends the applicant provide curbing along the eastern portion of the
drive extending from Asher Avenue to the existing building during the building
construction phase of the proposed second building.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 comments and conditions as noted in
paragraphs D,E,F and H of the agenda staff report.Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the applicant's request for a reduced front and rear yard
setback for the proposed new building and approval of the applicant's request for a
reduced rear yard setback of the existing building.Staff presented a recommendation
of approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow a reduced number of parking
spaces for the proposed development provided the proposed uses of the site match the
available parking on the site and the applicant's requested variance to allow signage
without public street frontage.
6
November 10,2005
S U B D I V I S I ON
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:S-1502
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU05-02-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Rodney Parham Planning District
Location:West of Shackleford Road,between Markham Street and
Maralynn Road.
Recueet Single Family and Office to Community Shopping
Source:Tom Chambers
The applicant has requested a deferral to the November 10,2005 Hearing.Staff
supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
2005 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning District from Single
Family and Office to Community Shopping.The Community Shopping category
provides for shopping center development with one or more general Merchandise
stores.The applicant plans on removing an existing home to construct a
commercial strip center.The PCD would allow for C-2 (Shopping Center District)
uses.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include area between Markham Street and Shackleford
Drive west of Shackleford Road.This change would better represent the
existing zoning and uses in the area between Markharn Street and Shackleford
Drive.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Area One is located north of Beverly Hills Drive and west of Shackleford Road,
currently zoned and is 1.3 acres t in size.North,south,east and west.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-02-01
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
May 6,2003,Multiple changes were made in the area including changes from
Single Family to Public Institutional immediately north of the application area;
Single Family to Low Density Residential less than one quarter mile west of the
application at Mimi Drive and Nan Court;and Single Family and Low Density
Residential less than a half mile west of the application along Mesa Drive to
recognize existing conditions and provide for future development.
This application consists of two areas.Area One is located at the northwest
corner of Shackleford Road and Beverly Hills Drive.This area is shown as
Single Family on the Plan.To the north and northeast is shown as Public
Institutional.To the east is Community Shopping.Immediately south of Area
One is an area of Single family following Beverly Hills Drive.Area Two is south
of Area One and located between Shackleford Drive and Markham Street west of
Shackleford Road.An area shown as Office lies to the north.East and west of
Area Two is shown as Community Shopping.Properties south of Markham
Street are shown as Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Shackleford Road is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan and is built
to Minor Arterial standards through this section.A Collector street's primary
purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to Arterials.Beverly Hills
Drive is shown as a Local Residential Street on the plan and not built to current
street standards because it is lacking sidewalks.Beverly Hills Drive will require
dedication of right-of-way and may be required to be built to Local Commercial
Street standards.The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties.A Local Commercial Street is built to Collector Street
standards.Shackleford Road 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.
PARKS:
This application is in the West Little Rock Park Planning District.The Master
Parks Plan identifies a lack of public parks in the west Little Rock area and
recognizes private neighborhood parks and recreation facilities as parkland in the
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-02-01
west Little Rock area.This specific application is located adjacent to Terry
Elementary School which can provide recreation for people in the area.Less
than a half mile southwest of the site is a Birchwood park (a mini-park)with a
basketball court and playground.Approximately a half mile southeast of the
application is Weidman Park which remains undeveloped.Just under a mile
east of the application area is undeveloped parkland adjacent to Rock Creek.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not indicate any new proposed
public parks for the 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 Walnut Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan.The Community Redevelopment (Land Use)Goal
states,"Maintain and reinvigorate existing retail areas to provide active retail for
local residents."This application could complement and strengthen the existing
retail uses in the area.The Infrastructure goal is to "Maintain the public rights-of-
way and streets to assure safe and pleasurable use."An action statement
relates to a need to increase maintenance activity on streets and sidewalks
throughout the area.This development should require construction of a sidewalk
on Beverly Hills Drive,and improve sidewalks on Shackleford Road.
ANALYSIS:
This area is located in a west Little Rock and is developed in a suburban fashion.
Shackleford Road can be considered as the eastern entrance into Little Rock's
regional shopping area.Markham Street west of Shackleford Road is lined with
big box retail stores,national chain stores,furniture stores,automobile related
stores,and restaurants.Non-Local traffic primarily enters the area using
Markham Street and Shackleford Road south of Markham Street.North of
Markham Street Shackleford Road maintains its multiple lane design,but quickly
dissipates into a two-lane road meandering into a residential area.The Current
Community Shopping area along Shackleford Road more or less provides
services for local residents while the Community Shopping area along Markham
Street provides services for more of a regional draw.
Currently Area One is developed with a commercial strip center,a parking lot
servicing the strip center,and a single family home.Currently the commercial
activities are not recognized as part of the plan and the change would recognize
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-02-01
those uses.However,the change would also decrease the amount of single
family in the area,and introduce Community Shopping activities in close
proximity of an established Single Family area.This expansion would leave only
a small amount of Single family on the west side of Shackleford Road,which
could become vulnerable to non-residential uses in the future.
At the present time a parking lot exists adjacent to the Beverly Hills and
Shackleford Road intersections.Between the parking lot and an existing home,
to be removed,there is a significant elevation change.By expanding this
development west,and into the single family neighborhood a larger elevation
difference would result.This change in elevation would expose more homes on
Beverly Hills Drive to Shackleford Road.
The Community Shopping category could allow for future requests for straight
zoning resulting in commercial or office development that may be incompatible
with the nearby neighborhood.Utilizing a category that requires a PZD (Planned
Zoned Development)for office or commercial development at this site could
protect the nearby residential area.The PZD process could better control
aspects such as heights,sounds,hours of operation,use,etc.The current
rezoning request is for a PZD,which would be consistent with staff's
recommendation.However,the category of Community Shopping could allow
for a future change to blanket zoning which would not allow for careful evaluation
of a development's relationship to adjacent single family residences.
Staff expanded this application to include the area surrounded by Shackleford
Drive,Shackleford Road,and Markham Street.This area is known as Area Two
and is currently shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.Currently land in
this area is zoned C-3 General Commercial District and has developed with a
furniture store,hotel,and several regional restaurants.Staff feels the expansion
to the south would be more in character with the actually land use in that area.
The new Community Shopping area will better define the types of uses that
currently occupy the land.The resulting land use pattern will show Community
Shopping on the north side of Markham Street from Bowman Road to interstate
430.The entirety of the Community Shopping area is buffered from Single
Family Uses nearby by a series of Park/Open Space,Multifamily,and Public
Institutional.The newly added land will utilize an existing Office area to buffer it
from the nearby Single Family neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Walnut Valley Neighborhood Association,Echo Valley Property Owners
Association,Colony West Homeowners Neighborhood Association,Treasure
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.F ILE NO.:LU05-02-01
Hills Neighborhood Association,Sturbridge Property Owners Association,
Beverly Hills Property Owners Association,Santa Fe Heights Neighborhood
Association,Rainwood Cove Property Owners Association,Woodland
Hills/Aspen Highlands P.O.A.,Pleasantree Recreation Association,Birchwood
Neighborhood Association,and John Barrow Neighborhood Association.Staff
has received two comments from area residents.One is supportive and one is
opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The Applicant requested the commission defer their item due to the opposition.
After a short discussion,the Commission voted 0 for 9 against deferral.Walter
Malone,Planning Staff reviewed the two proposed changes.Mr.Malone
explained the area use pattern and zoning.Staff has a major concern with the
loss of a single-family home and the resulting 'chipping'way at the small single-
family neighborhood.The second change is designed to better reflect the
existing and likely future zoning and use pattern.Staff can not support the
proposed amendment.The zoning item was reviewed and both were discussed
together.For a complete review of the minutes see item C.1 Z-3419-B.By a
vote of 0 for,9 against and 2 absent the item was denied.
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
NAME:Beverly Hills Place Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located on the Northwest corner of Beverly Hills Drive and
Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
A Cut Above Properties,LLC
302 Shackleford Drive
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Chambers Construction Company
55 Marcella Drive
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.648 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family and 0-3,General Office District
ALLOWED USES:Single-family and General Office
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3,Shopping Center District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 8,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,Public Hearing.Staff is supportive of the
applicant's deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 8,2005,requesting the item be deferred to the November 10,
2005,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral
request.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this site from 0-3 and R-2 to PCD to
allow the construction of a second building on the site and to utilize C-2 uses as
allowable uses for the site.The applicant has indicated the development will
consist of 28,224 square feet total land area and will involve the construction of a
second building on the site containing 3,444 square feet.The total square
footage on the site will be 6,676 square feet.Thirty parking spaces will serve the
development.No new curb cuts will be added as a result of the development.
The existing curb cuts along Beverly Hills Drive and Shackleford Road will
continue to provide access to the development.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a commercial building along with a single-family home.There
are commercial businesses located to the east across Shackleford Road and
single-family residences located to the south and west.There is a daycare
center located to the north of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident.The Walnut Valley Property Owners Association,the Beverly Hills
Property Owners Association,along with 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.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Beverly Hills
Drive in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the
Master Street Plan.
2.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
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
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-34'l9-B
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
4.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec.29-186 (e).
Show all hillside cuts,terracing,and slopes to conform to Land Alteration
Regulations.
5.The proposed land use would classify Beverly Hills Drive on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Enterriy:A ten-foot utility easement is required along the western perimeter of
the site.Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Ener:Approved as submitted.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s)are required.Due to the nature of this facility,
installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZA)is required on the domestic water service.This assembly must be
installed prior to the first point of use.Central Arkansas Water (CAW)requires
that upon installation of the RPZA,successful tests of the assembly must be
completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and
approved by CAW.The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection
Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.Contact Carroll
Keatts at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements
for this project.Contact CAW at 501-372-5161 and request that the account be
changed to a commercial account if this change takes place.
Fire De artment:Install fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.r~
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a rezoning from 0-3 and R-2 to PCD to allow for construction of a
commercial strip center and allow for C-2 uses on the site.A land use plan
3
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI S I ON
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda.
(LU05-02-01)
Master Street Plan:Shackleford Road is shown as a Collector on the Master
Street Plan and is built to Minor Arterial standards through this section.A
Collector street's primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to
Arterials.Beverly Hills Drive is shown as a Local Residential Street on the plan
and not built to current street standards because it is lacking sidewalks.Beverly
Hills Drive will require dedication of right-of-way and may be required to be built
to Local Commercial Street standards.The primary function of a Local Street is
to provide access to adjacent properties.A Local Commercial Street is built to
Collector Street standards.Shackleford Road may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements.
immediate vicinity of the development.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The Community
Redevelopment (Land Use)Goal states,"Maintain and reinvigorate existing retail
areas to provide active retail for local residents."This application could
complement and strengthen the existing retail uses in the area.The
Infrastructure goal is to "Maintain the public rights-of-way and streets to assure
safe and pleasurable use.n An action statement relates to a need to increase
maintenance activity on streets and sidewalks throughout the area.This
development should require construction of a sidewalk on Beverly Hills Drive,
and improve sidewalks on Shackleford Road.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.A small portion of the proposed northern land use buffer width is less than the
9-foot required.The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum width of 6'-9".
Currently,the driveway and a dumpster are proposed within this area.
3.The property to the west is zoned residential,therefore,a six (6)foot high
opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a
wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the western perimeter of
the site.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(September 8,2005)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had contacted them
indicating the site plan could potentially change in the next few weeks.Staff
stated they recommended the applicant defer the item to the next Subdivision
4
November 10,2005
SU BDI VI S ION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
Committee meeting.There was no further discussion of the item and the
committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested the applicant provide
the days and hours of operation,the proposed screening and the total building
height.Staff also expressed concerns that the proposed parking and dumpster
were located adjacent to the single-family subdivision located to the west.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated sidewalks would be
required in accordance with ordinance requirements.Staff also stated a grading
permit would be required prior to construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated a portion of the northern
land use buffer width was less than the 9-foot required per the zoning ordinance.
Staff stated the landscape ordinance required a minimum of 6-feet 9-inches.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a six foot screening fence will be placed along the rear of the
property adjacent to the single-family residences.A 3.23 foot landscape strip is
located along the northern perimeter of the site.The applicant has indicated
where the parking and building is existing,the additional landscaping will be
difficult to obtain.
The applicant has indicated the area behind the existing building will remain as
landscaping.The applicant has moved the dumpster away from the residential
properties and removed the proposed parking from the rear of the site.The
dumpster between the two buildings,near the rear of the existing building.The
dumpster will be screened per ordinance requirements.
The applicant has not indicated a dedication of right-of-way adjacent to Beverly
Hills Drive.The Master Street Plan would require an additional five feet of
dedication for a commercial street adjacent to the site.The applicant has
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
proposed a 20-foot building line adjacent to Beverly Hills Drive.A ten foot rear
yard building setback is proposed adjacent to the residential homes.
The applicant is requesting C-2 uses as allowable sues for the site with the
exception of the following uses:Ambulance service post,Animal Clinic,Auto
glass or muffler shop,Bakery or confectionary shop,Bar,lounge or tavern,
Beverage store,Butcher shop,Catering,commercial,Eating place with drive-in
service,Fire station,Hotel or motel,Lodge or fraternal organization,Parking,
commercial garage,Recycling facility,automated,Private club with dining or bar
service,School,business,Service Station,Taxi office,Theater,not drive-in type.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing to
remove an existing single-family home and construct a second commercial
building on the site.In addition,the applicant is requesting C-2 uses as
allowable uses for the site.Staff does not support the expansion of the
non-residential activities into the neighborhood.The original building is zoned
0-3 with a conditional use permit to allow a beauty salon on the site.The office
zoning allows for a buffer between the single-family homes and Shackleford
Road and the commercial activities in the area.Staff feels the buffer of uses
should be maintained.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Tom Chambers was present representing the request.There were registered
objectors present.Mr.Chambers requested the item be deferred to the January 5,
2006,public hearing to allow additional time for his client to meet with the opposition
and possibly resolve issues related to the proposed development.A motion was made
to waive the By-laws for the deferral request.The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,9
noes and 2 absent.
Mr.Chambers stated he felt the development would not encroach into the
neighborhood.He stated his clients were trying to straighten a property line along the
rear of the site.He stated he did not feel the removal of the one home would cause a
negative impact on the adjoining properties.
Mr.Paul Staggs addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated he had a petition signed by the adjoining neighbors most directly affected by the
proposed rezoning.He stated the area was residential and should remain residential.
He stated when the developer removed the home there would be a significant cut on the
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-3419-B
site adjacent to his home.He stated with the development of the site as commercial the
character of the neighborhood would be changed.
Ms.Kathleen Oleson with the League of Women Voters addressed the Commission in
opposition of the proposed request.She stated the cutting of the hill would change the
complexion of the neighborhood.She stated with the removal of the hill and the existing
single-family home the residents would hear traffic noise from Shackleford that they
currently did not hear.She stated she agreed with staff the commercial activities should
remain on Shackleford Road and not encroach into the neighborhood.
Ms.Mary Ann Moran addressed the Commission in support of the request.She stated
she lived directly behind the current salon and was requesting the develop place an
eight foot fence along the property line to screen the properties.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
proposed uses of the site.The Commission indicated the development was chipping
away at the neighborhood and felt the developer should locate in an area zoned
appropriately.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed.The motion failed by a vote of
0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-7874
NAME:Fiser Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located on the Northwest corner of Cantrell Road and Manney Road
DEVELOPER:
Chuck and Rob Fiser
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:1.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-3,General Commercial District and R-2,Single-family District
ALLOWED USES:General Commercial District uses and Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3 —General Commercial District uses and 0-3,General Office
District Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with the requested additional information from the
June 16,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the August 18,2005,Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 7,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of deferral of the
item.Staff stated the applicant had failed to provide staff with the requested additional
information from the June 16,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff requested
the item be deferred to the August 18,2005,Public Hearing.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7874
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral.The motion
carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated August 5,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the September 29,2005,Public Hearing.The applicant has indicted they
are working to resolve access issues raised by staff.Staff is supportive of the
applicant's requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 18,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated
August 5,2005,requesting the item be deferred to the September 29,2005,Public
Hearing.Staff stated the applicant had indicted they were working to resolve access
issues raised by staff.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's requested
defe rra I.
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of 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 applicant submitted a request dated September 19,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the
applicant'eferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 19,2005,requesting this item be deferred to the November
10,2005,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral
request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7874
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application.The planned
commercial development application remains unchanged.Due to the inactivity of the
part of the applicant,staff is requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration
without prejudice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the
applicant had not contacted staff regarding the application and the requested revised
site plan.Staff stated the planned commercial development application remained
unchanged.Staff stated due to the inactivity of the part of the applicant,staff was
requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-5311-A
NAME:Verizon Wireless Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located at 14309 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
c/o Wooden,Fulton and Scarborough
737 Market Street,Suite 1620
Chattanooga,TN 37402
ENGINEER:
Excell Communications,Inc.
6247 Amber Hills Road
Birmingham,AL 35173
AREA:2.37 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:C-3,General Commercial District
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3,General Commercial District uses and the addition
of a cellular tower
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant failed to provide staff with the requested additional information from the
September 8,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff recommends this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was not present.There were no registered objectors present.Staff
presented the item indicating the applicant had failed to provide staff with the requested
additional information from the September 8,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.
Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the November 10,2005,
Public Hearing.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5311-A
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has not provided staff with an updated site plan relocating the tower
outside the regulated floodway.In previous conversations the applicant indicated they
are working to resolve issues raised concerning the location of the proposed tower in
regulated floodway.Staff recommends this item be deferred to the January 5,2005,
public hearing to allow the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues
associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had not provided
staff with an updated site plan relocating the tower outside the regulated floodway.Staff
stated in previous conversations the applicant indicated they were working to resolve
issues raised concerning the location of the proposed tower in regulated floodway.Staff
presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the January 5,2006,public
hearing to allow the applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues associated
with the request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:LU05-17-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Crystal Valley Planning District
Location:Northwest corner of Stagecoach and Crystal Valley Roads
Receuest:Single Family to Commercial and Park(Open Space
Source:Robert McFarlane
The applicant has requested a deferral to the November 10,2005 Hearing.Staff
supports the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the November 10,
2005 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the
consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District from Single
Family to Commercial and Park/Open Space.The Commercial category includes
a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personal and
professional services,and general business activities.Commercial activities vary
in type and scale,depending on the trade area that they serve.The Park/Open
Space category includes all public parks,recreation facilities,greenbelts,flood
plains,and other designated open space and recreational land.The applicant
has proposed a Commercial Development with a 50 foot greenbelt buffer
between the development and the existing single family development.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include an area immediately to the southwest of the
application to make the boundaries more logical.This will expand the
Commercial area to the adjacent Park/Open Space.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is mostly undeveloped,wooded,and zoned R-2.A small portion of
the application area is zoned C-2 and developed with a parking lot for an auto
sales business.North and west of the property are lands zoned R-2 and
developed with a single family subdivision.To the northeast is a PDO with a
dental office.East of the property is land zoned R-2 and developed with a single
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-17-02
family home and a church.Southeast of the property is undeveloped and
wooded land zoned R-2 and directly to the south is land zoned C-4 and
developed with an auto dealership.Further south is land zoned 1-2 and
developed with a technology services company.Southwest of the application is
undeveloped and wooded land zoned R-2.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
No changes to the area land use plan has occurred in the immediate area in
recent years.
The application area is the southeast portion of a large Single Family area.The
application wraps around a Commercial area focused on the northwest corner of
Crystal Valley and Stagecoach Roads.East of the property are areas shown as
Suburban Office and additional areas shown as Commercial and Public
Institutional.Further southeast of the application are lands shown as
Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial.Just south of the application area is
a Park/Open Space band separating the Single Family area from an area shown
as Suburban Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and
Crystal Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial.The primary function of a
Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators
or activity centers within urbanized areas.The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to
provide connections to and through an urban area.The Master Street Plan
indicates a future expansion of Crystal Valley Road creating a link to Colonel
Glenn Road via David O.Dodd Road.The connection to David O.Dodd Road
will make this part of Crystal Valley Road the terminus of a major north south
arterial.Entrances and exits to the site should be limited since it is located at
the intersection of two arterials.Both streets may require dedication of right-of-
way and may require street improvements.
BICYCLE PLAN:
A Class II bikeway is developed on Stagecoach Road.A Class II bikeway is
located on the street as either a 5'houlder or six foot marked bike lane.A Class
I bikeway is shown on Crystal Valley Road and is not currently developed.A
Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.Additional paving and
right of way may be required to facilitate the Class I bikeway.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-17-02
PARKS:
This application is located in the Southwest Parks Planning District.The
Southwest Parks Planning District is characterized as having predominantly
mature neighborhoods served by small parks and a few large parks.The largest
developed park in the area is Otter Creek Park,a regional park with a
playground,several soccer fields,picnic areas,and fishing and boating activities.
This park is over a mile southwest of the property.Undeveloped parkland and
open space exists near the application paralleling the Fourche Creek and
remains mostly undeveloped.
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 Otter Creek —Crystal
Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and Commercial development goal
listed an objective maintaining as much of the existing topography,trees,and
green space as possible.Three relevant action statements encourage the use of
Planned Zoning Districts for new business developments,encourages intense
uses to be located at the peripheral of the study area,and discouraging intense
uses at the heart of the study area.The plan defines the heart of the study area
as the section of Stagecoach Road roughly between Otter Creek and Baseline
Roads and the proposed development would not be in the heart of the study
area.
ANALYSIS:
This application is located in an area of southwest Little Rock that has seen new
development over recent years.This development includes new commercial
development immediately south of the application,commercial construction at
the Interstate 430 interchange,and commercial construction at the Baseline
Stagecoach intersection.Residential construction has also occurred within the
last decade that includes new single-family homes in the adjacent single family
area;and new apartments,single family homes,and a golf course southwest of
the application near Baseline Road.
This amendment would add approximately seven acres of Commercial to the
area,and expand an existing Commercial area by 300%.The expansion would
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-17-02
also encroach on an established Single Family neighborhood.The applicant
has indicated that a 50 foot undisturbed buffer will exist between their proposed
development and the adjacent single family area,and has requested the Land
Use Plan recognize the buffer as Park/Open Space.Staff agrees that a buffer
may be necessary to minimize use conflicts between Commercial and Single
Family area and the residential area but does not feel that a 50'pen space strip
would be adequate.Staff may be more supportive of a larger open space strip
representing a one hundred feet or better which was landscaped with evergreen
trees that produced a solid screen of greenery.
At the Stagecoach and Baseline Roads intersection a 20-acre Commercial area
exists and is roughly 25%developed with commercial activities.Additionally,
there are existing areas close to the site along Stagecoach Road that the land
use plan recognizes as appropriate for commercial activities and are presently
undeveloped and underdeveloped.This includes a Mixed Office Commercial
area roughly 13 acres in size to the southeast,which is minimally developed;and
an 8 acre Commercial area east of the application that is approximately 50%
developed.Stagecoach Road has the potential to become lined with
Commercial activities because of present day non-conforming uses and non
residential land use categories indicated on the north and south sides of the
roadway.
This Commercial expansion could extend the potential strip commercial pattern
westward towards the commercial node at Baseline and Stagecoach Roads.If
the expansion were to occur,it would result in the potential for commercial
development for over 85%of the property fronting Stagecoach Road between
Baseline Road and Interstate 430.The remaining areas would also have non-
residential uses.
Focusing larger scale Commercial uses at this section of Stagecoach Road could
be considered appropriate since they are not located in the Neighborhood Action
Plans Primary focus area.The Otter Creek —Crystal Valley Neighborhood
Action Plan calls for more intense Commercial uses to be located in areas more
accessible to traffic.This application area is less than a quarter mile west of
Interstate 430 and located at the intersection on a Principal Arterial (Stagecoach
Road)and a Minor Arterial (Crystal Valley Road).Recent subdivision and
development activity north of the application will result in the extension of Crystal
Valley Road north to David O.Dodd Road.The ultimate completion of this major
north south arterial will connect this Commercial area to new residential
developments in west Little Rock.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-17-02
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Crystal Valley
Property Owners Association,Plantation House Homeowners Association,and
Otter Creek Homeowners Association.Staff has received one comment from
area residents.The comment was neutral in nature and had concerns about
some types of uses that could be located in the commercial area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate because it encroaches on an
established Single Family area.Staff would be supportive of the application if a
larger Open Space area separated the Commercial from the Single Family area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant requested the item be withdrawn prior to the meeting.The
Commission placed this item on the consent agenda for withdrawal.By a vote
of 9 for,0 against,and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
NAME:Crystal Valley Crossing Long-form PCD
LOCATION:8424 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
WM Fitzs
8424 Stagecoach Road
Little Rock,AR 72210
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek parkway,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-2,Shopping Center District and R-2,Single-family District
ALLOWED USES:Shopping Center District and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3,General Commercial District uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a letter dated September 14,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,public hearing.Staff is supportive of the applicant's
deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 14,2005,requesting this item be deferred to the November
10,2005,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral
request.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
A.P ROPOSAL/R EQ U EST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site located at 8424 Stagecoach
Road from C-2 and R-2 to PCD to allow the development of Crystal Valley
Crossing,a neighborhood shopping center.The applicant has indicated the
development will be divided into two parcels.Lot 1 containing seven acres will
be developed with an 'L'haped shopping center with four buildings totaling
56,000 square feet for C-3 uses.Lot 2,containing two acres is to be used for
future office development of an office and/or a branch bank.
The applicant has indicated buildings are to be steel with brick or masonry walls
with dryvit facades in earth tone colors.Store fronts are to be bronze aluminum
frames with insulated tinted glass suitable for most C-3 users.The applicant has
indicated all parking lot lights are to be subdued low pressure sodium at 24-feet
height or less with trees and landscaping per code.The applicant has also
stated all lights are to be inward facing,away from streets or buffer zones.
The applicant has stated Crystal Valley Road is to be widened and improved
along the shopping center side with drive cuts located per city recommendations.
The applicant has indicated the existing home located on proposed Lot 2 will
remain on the site as will the existing office building.The applicant has stated
the property owner will continue to live in the home and the office will be rented
to a general or professional office user.Upon development of proposed Lot 2,
the existing home will be removed and the office will remain during construction,
then removed upon completion of construction.The applicant has indicated each
parcel will have one sign on Stagecoach Road in accordance with typical City
ordinance requirements.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family home with an office building formerly
occupied by Bill Fitz auto sales.Currently Mr.Fitz's Auto Sales is located to the
south of the site and he utilizes the existing site as storage and parking of his
inventory.The remainder of the site is wooded,abutting a single-family
subdivision to the north and west of the site.East of the site,across Crystal
Valley Road,is a church and north of the church is a PD-0 approved for a dentist
office.Southeast of the site is a large tract of vacant property,a portion of which
is located in the floodway.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents,many indicating opposition to the proposed development.The Crystal
Valley Neighborhood Association,Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,
along with 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.Crystal 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.With site development,provide design of both abutting streets conforming to
the Master Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to the street
including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.An additional right
turn lane on Crystal Valley at the intersection is not required.
3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.The Stagecoach
driveway must continue straight into the site,and not impede traffic
movements by abruptly bending.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
5.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
6.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
8.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
9.A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
10.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of 291.0 is required to be shown on plat
and grading plans.
11.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
12.On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.This
applies to both Crystal Valley and Stagecoach Roads.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
EntercnEt:A 20-foot easement is required around the perimeter of the site.
Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information.
Center-Point Ener: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 connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off
the private fire system.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.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 De artment:Install fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
CATA:The site is not located adjacent to a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Commercial and Single Family for this property.The
applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-2 and R-2 to PCD to allow for
construction of a commercial strip center.A land use plan arnendrnent for a
change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda.(LU05-17-02)
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
Master Street Plan:Stagecoach Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and Crystal Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial.The
primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect
major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas.The purpose
of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area.The
Master Street Plan indicates a future expansion of Crystal Valley Road creating a
link to David O.Dodd Road.The connection to David O.Dodd Road will make
this part of Crystal Valley Road the terminus of a major north south arterial.
Entrances and exits to the site should be limited since it is located at the
intersection of two arterials.Both streets may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements.
1:»6 H
bikeway is located on the street as either a 5'houlder or six foot marked bike
lane.A Class I bikeway is shown on Crystal Valley Road and is not currently
developed.A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road.
Additional paving and right of way may be required to facilitate the Class I
bikeway.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Otter Creek —Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Office and Commercial development goal listed an objective maintaining as
much of the existing topography,trees,and green space as possible.Three
relevant action statements encourage the use of Planned Zoning Districts for
new business developments,encourages intense uses to be located at the
peripheral of the study area,and discouraging intense uses at the heart of the
study area.The plan defines the heart of the study area as the section of
Stagecoach Road roughly between Otter Creek and Baseline Roads and the
proposed development would not be in the heart of the study area.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances is required.
2.A thirty-nine foot (39)wide land use buffer is required to separate this
proposed development from the residential property on the northern and
southern perimeters of the site.Currently,the southern perimeter is not
meeting this minimum requirement.Seventy percent (70%)of these buffers
are to remain undisturbed.
3.A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the
northern,southern,and western perimeters of the site.Credit towards
fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that
satisfies this year-around requirement.
4.An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
5.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide an
approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
6.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(September 8,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff stated there were concerns with
the indicated buffer and the placement of dumpsters on the site.Staff stated the
development abutted a single-family subdivision and it was important to protect
the adjoining property owners.Staff also questioned proposed signage,lighting
and maximum building height.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated an additional lane would
be required along Stagecoach Road.Mr.McGetrick stated Stagecoach Road
was currently five lanes.Staff stated five lanes were sufficient to meet the needs
of the Master Street Plan.Staff stated an on site striping and signage plan
should be forwarded to Public Works Traffic Engineering for approval of the site
development package.Staff stated there were concerns with the current
driveway alignment and configuration.Staff noted the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the proposed development.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed southern
buffer was not adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement for
separation of commercial and residential properties.Staff noted seventy percent
of the buffer area was to remain undisturbed.Staff also stated screening would
be required where adjacent to residentially zoned or used properties.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 8,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated signage,lighting and building height in the general notes section of
the proposed site plan.The applicant has also relocated the dumpster on the
site plan as requested by staff.The applicant has proposed an additional buffer
6
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:F.1 FILE NO.:Z-7918
area to the north and west of the proposed development.The applicant has
noted landscaping and buffering along the southern perimeter of the site as
requested by staff.The applicant is requesting the southern perimeter buffer be
allowed to be undisturbed.
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site from C-2 and R-2 to PCD to
allow the development of a neighborhood shopping center.The applicant has
indicated the development will be divided into two parcels.Lot 1,containing
seven acres an 'L'haped shopping center with four buildings totaling
56,422 square feet will be developed with C-3 uses.Lot 2,containing two acres
is to be used for office and/or a branch bank.The applicant has indicated
181 parking spaces on Lot 1 and C-3 uses as allowable uses for the site.Lot 1
would typically require the placement of 188 paring spaces based on the typically
minimum parking require for a commercial development.Future development of
Lot 2 will require amending the PCD for the specific development.
The applicant has indicated Crystal Valley Road is to be widened and improved
along the shopping center side with drive cuts located per city recommendations.
The existing home located on proposed Lot 2 will remain on the site as will the
existing office building.The property owner will continue to live in the home and
the office will be rented to a general or professional office user.Upon
development of proposed Lot 2,the existing home will be removed and the office
will remain during construction,then removed upon completion of construction.
Each parcel will have one sign on Stagecoach Road in accordance with typical
City ordinance requirements.
The applicant has indicated a minimum buffer along the northern and western
perimeters of the site of 60-feet where the site abuts a single-family subdivision.
The applicant has also proposed an 80-foot building setback in these areas.
Staff has concerns with the indicated buffer and building setback since the
applicant has indicated a service drive around the rear of the buildings.Staff
feels the drive may be acceptable if sufficient separation and proper fencing is
put in place to act as both a visual and sound barrier to the adjoining residents.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a 2-foot to 4-foot retaining wall with a
wood fence located on the top of the retaining wall up to eight feet in height.
Although staff is supportive of many aspects of the development staff is not
supportive of the application as filed.Staff is not supportive of the proposed
buffering and building setback.Staff would recommend the applicant provide an
80-foot buffer and a 100-foot building setback.Staff would also recommend the
applicant provide a permanent fence or wall around the service drive to protect
the adjoining homes.
7
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7918
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the applicant submitted a request
dated November 8,2005,requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice.Staff stated the withdrawal request would require a waiver of the By-laws
due to the late withdrawal request on the part of the applicant.Staff stated they were
supportive of the By-law waiver for the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver for the late withdrawal request.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes
and 2 absent.The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for Withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
8
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-7923
NAME:Hayman Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:2460 Howard Street
DEVELOPER:
Rhonda Hayman
12125 Day Street,¹E301
Moreno Valley,CA 92557
ENGINEER:
Ron Woods Architects
2200 South Main Street
Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:0.10 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Duplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated September 8,2005,requesting this item be
deferred to the November 10,2005,Public Hearing.Staff is supportive of the
applicant's deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 29,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated September 8,2005,requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,
2005,public hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral
request.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7923
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
A.P ROPOSAL/R EQ U EST:
The applicant is proposing the removal of an existing single-family structure
located on the site and the construction of a new duplex unit.The applicant has
indicated the unit will be a maximum of two stories.A two car drive will be
constructed to serve the development.Architectural design and construction
materials will be complimentary to the area.
The site contains two partial lots with a total lot width of 33.32 feet.The lot depth
is 140-feet for a total lot area of 4,665 square feet.The applicant has indicated
the new building will be set at 22.51 feet from the front property line and 25-feet
from the rear property line.The applicant has indicated a 4-foot side yard
setback along the north and south side yards.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family structure in a state of disrepair.There is a
mixture of single-family and two family homes located in the area.The property
is zoned R-3 and properties one block to the east are zoned R-4.Along
Roosevelt Road there are a number of non-residential uses including a City of
Little Rock Fire station.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
South End Neighborhood Association,the Wrights Avenue Neighborhood
Association,along with 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.There is no cul-de-sac at the end of this street,adjacent to this project.
2
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7923
E,UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Ener: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.Contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedure for reestablishing service to this property.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:No comment received.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a rezoning from R-3 to PDR to allow the conversion an existing
structure into a duplex.The proposal does not have a significant impact on the
Land Use Plan,which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan:Howard Street is shown as a Local Street on the Master
Street Plan.The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties.Howard Street may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements.
'"g 'P'P
immediate vicinity of the development.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
~Landsca e:No comment.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7923
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(September 8,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested the applicant provide
the maximum height of the proposed building.There was a general discussion
concerning the applicant's request and the available parking.Staff suggested
the applicant provide a two car drive on the site.Staff stated they would support
the required third space to be provided on the street.
Public works comments were addressed.Staff stated no additional requirements
would be require for the proposed duplex unit.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the September 8,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a two car drive as suggested by staff.The applicant is proposing
the development of the site as a duplex unit.The typical minimum parking
required for a duplex unit would be three parking spaces.The applicant is
requesting the third space be allowed as street parking.Staff is supportive of this
request.The neighborhood utilizes street parking for many of the homes in the
area.Howard Street is a dead-end street and staff does not believe the
proposed parking will have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The site contains two partial lots
with a total lot width of 33.32 feet.The lot depth is 140-feet for a total lot area of
4,665 square feet.The applicant has indicated the new structure will be set at
22.51 feet from the front property line and 25-feet from the rear property line.A
4-foot side yard setback along the north and south side yards.Each of the units
will have approximately 1,285 square feet of open space.The planned
residential development ordinance would typically require ten to fifteen percent of
the site be set aside as common open space and a minimum of 500 square feet
of private open space per unit.Although the indicated open space is not
sufficient to meet the typical minimum ordinance requirements,staff is supportive
of the applicant's indicated green space.The proposed development consists of
the construction of a duplex unit.The applicant has indicated a rear yard area for
outdoor living space.Staff feels this is adequate to meet the needs of the future
residents.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:G Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7923
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.Staff feels the redevelopment of the site as a duplex
residence is appropriate for this property.There are areas of R-4,two family
district zoning located one block east of the proposed development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs
D,E,F and H of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:S-1495
NAME:Park Circle Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located on Park Avenue,East of Western Hills Avenue
DEVELOPER:
CL Clifton
608 Nan Circle
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Parkway,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:3.22 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:12 FT.NEW STREET:600 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:10 —Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the November 10,2005,Public Hearing to
allow additional time to resolve staff's concerns with physical access to the proposed
plat area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(J ULY 7,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the
November 10,2005,Public Hearing to allow additional time to resolve staff's concerns
with physical access to the proposed plat area.
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:H Cont.FILE NO.:S-1495
There was no further discussion of the item.The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral.The motion
carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 10,2005,requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated October 10,2005,requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration
without prejudice.Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
2
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:FILE NO.:Z-5055-F
NAME:Chenal Country Club —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:10 Chenal Club Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Deltic Timber Corp./White-Daters
PROPOSAL:A revised conditional use permit is requested to allow
for modification of the master plan for the Country
Club located on this R-2 zoned property.
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located at the end of Chenal Club Blvd.;west of Chenal
Parkway.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The Country Club and associated golf course are an integral component
of this neighborhood.The current proposal involves expansion and
relocation of existing elements within the club property.No expansion of
the club grounds is proposed.The modifications should not affect the
club's continued compatibility with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the proposal.
There is no organized neighborhood association in the immediate vicinity
of the Club.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The current approved plan for the club has 533 parking spaces to be built
in 4 phases.Two phases have been completed.This revision does not
change any of the existing or proposed parking or drives.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5055-F
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:Approved (conditionally).Owner will pay for any necessary
electrical facilities that may need relocating or removed.
CenterPoint Energy:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s)are required.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size
of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system.
Please submit the plans for modification of the fire protection system to
Central Arkansas Water for review.Contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding procedures for extension of the fire service to this facility.
Need to review the location of the private fire line to reflect previous
relocation of this line.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
County Planning:No Comments.
CATA:The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(SEPTEMBER 22,2005)
Tim Daters was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and noted little additional information was needed.Utility and landscape
comments were noted and discussed.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5055-F
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On May 16,1989,the Planning Commission approved the original conditional
use permit to allow for development of the Chenal Country Club on this R-2
zoned,22+acre tract.The approved plan allowed for the multi-phase
development of facilities including a club house,pool,tennis courts,putting
greens and parking.The C.U.P.for the adjacent golf course had been previously
approved.Since the date of the original approval,there have been several
revisions to the plan.All of the subsequent changes involved relocating
elements or expanding buildings;all within the 22+acre tract.Although most
elements of the plan have been completed,some are yet undeveloped;including
some of the parking and tennis courts.
The applicant is requesting an additional modification to the approved plan.The
pool and tennis building which had been shown west of the pool is now to be
relocated to the north side of the pool and will be used as a snack bar with
kitchen.Two additions are planned to the clubhouse to accommodate additional
locker areas,a fitness area and expansion of dining facilities.No changes are
proposed to other elements of the plan.The clubhouse expansion will add
23,000 square feet.The new poolhouse/snackbar building is 1,650 square feet
and the pool and tennis building which is being removed from the plan is 8,500
square feet.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow for modifications within the existing
Chenal Country Club property.To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues.There is no bill of assurance issue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Section 6 of the
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 13,2005)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had not correctly followed the notification
procedure and the item needed to be deferred.There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to November 10,
2005 with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:I Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5055-F
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.There was no further
d iscuss~on.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:G-23-355
NAME:Anna Street Right-of-way Abandonment
LOCATION:Located North of Asher Avenue and South of Brack Street
OWNERS:Kathleen lnmon,South Oaks Limited Partnership,Frank Whitmore
APPLICANT:Kathleen Inmon,South Oaks Limited Partnership,Frank Whitmore
REQUEST:To abandon approximately 225 linear feet of a 50-foot right-of-way for
Anna Street extending north of Asher Avenue to Brack Street
PURPOSE:To incorporate the area of abandonment into the two (2)adjacent
commercial properties to the east and west.
STAFF REVIEW:
A.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-wa
As noted in Paragraph G.of this report,all of the public utility companies consent
to the right-of-way abandonment.Several of the utilities request that the area of
abandonment be retained as an access,drainage and utility easement.The
Public Works comments are as follows:
1.A portion of the right-of-way must be maintained as an easement.
B.Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues,as the right-of-way is not classified as a
Collector Street or higher.
C.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-wa Terrain
Anna Street is currently a narrow paved road with curb,gutter and sidewalk
along the west side of the portion to be abandoned.The eastern portion has not
been constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
D.Develo ment Potential
Once abandoned,the area will be incorporated into the two (2)adjacent
commercial properties to the east and west.The eastern site is a commercial
business with the parking lot located adjacent to the right-of-way.The western
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-355
site is also a commercial business (newly constructed)with a driveway servicing
the rear of the building located adjacent to the right-of-way.
E.Nei hborhood and Land Use Effect
Each of the landowners located adjacent to the right-of-way are co-applicant's for
the right-of-way abandonment request.There is a commercial building located to
the west side of the portion of Anna Street to be abandoned,owned by one of the
applicants.There is a commercial building located to the east side of the
proposed abandonment,owned by the second applicant.There are multi-family
units located to the north accessed from Fair Park Boulevard constructed over a
portion of the previously abandoned Anna Street.
F.Nei hborhood Position
All property owners abutting Anna Street,the South of Asher and the Curran
Conway Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.As of this
writing,staff knows of no objectors to the proposed abandonment.
G.Effects on Public Service and Utilities
Wastewater:No objection to the abandonment,but right-of-way must be
retained as an easement.
~Enter:No objection to the abandonment,but right-of-way must be retained as
an easement.
CenterPoint Ener:No objection to the abandonment,but right-of-way must be
retained as an easement.
SBC:No objection to the abandonment,but right-of-way must be retained as an
easement.
Central Arkansas Water;No objection to the abandonment.
H.Reversionar Ri hts
The Anna Street right-of-way was dedicated with the original C.O.Brack Addition
in 1911 (the eastern portion of the abandonment).A 20-foot access was
provided with the original plat.The applicant located along the western portion of
the abandonment dedicated 30-feet in 2004 (at the time of building permit for
construction of a new building).The reversionary rights will extend to the
adjacent property owners to the east and west as were previously dedicated.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-355
I.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Abandoning this street right of way will have no adverse effects on the pubic
welfare and safety.The Little Rock Fire Department has indicated no issues with
the abandonment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the request was a right-of-way
abandonment for Anna Street in conjunction with a site plan review which was on the
current agenda (File No.S-1502).Staff noted several of the utility companies were
requesting the area be retained as a utility easement.Staff stated to their knowledge
there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.There was no
further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of the 50-foot by 225-foot portion of
Anna Street right-of-way located along the western boundary of Block 23,C.O.Brack
Addition,subject to the following conditions:
1.The entire abandonment must be retained as an access,utility and drainage
easement.
2.Compliance with Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A of the staff
report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
abandonment of the 50-foot by 225-foot portion of Anna Street right-of-way located
along the western boundary of Block 23,C.O.Brack Addition,subject to the entire
abandonment being retained as an access,utility and drainage easement and
compliance with Public Works requirements as noted in paragraph A of the staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:G-23-356
NAME:West Bowen Road Right-of-way Abandonment
LOCATION:Located South of Mabelvale West Road,just West of the proposed South
Loop
OWNERS:Bird Cold Storage,Alawest-AL,LLC.,Anco Properties,Inc.,
T 8,G Properties,LLC.,Arkansas Explosives,Inc.
APPLICANT:Bird Cold Storage Partnership
REQUEST:The abandonment of 1045 linear feet of a 50-foot right-of-way for West
Bowen Road located south of Mabelvale West Road
PURPOSE:To incorporate the area of abandonment into the adjacent commercial
properties to the east and west.
STAFF REVIEW:
A.Public Need for this Ri ht-of-wa
As noted in Paragraph G.of this report,all of the public utility companies consent
to the right-of-way abandonment.Several of the utilities request that the area of
abandonment be retained as a utility easement.The Public Works comments
are as follows:
1.Public Works maintains no facilities in this undeveloped right-of-way.
B.Master Street Plan
There are no Master Street Plan issues,as the right-of-way is not classified as a
Collector Street or higher.
C.Characteristics of Ri ht-of-wa Terrain
West Bowen Road is currently a narrow road constructed of chip seal and open
ditches for drainage along the portion to be abandoned.
D.Develo ment Potential
Once abandoned,the area will be incorporated into the adjacent properties to the
east and west for possible future development.The western site is a commercial
business,Warrior of Arkansas,which appears to be a heavy equipment sales
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-356
and rental business and has areas of outdoor display.The eastern portion is
vacant property currently zoned C-3,General Commercial District.
E.Nei hborhood and Land Use Effect
Each of the landowners located adjacent to the right-of-way are co-applicant's for
the right-of-way abandonment request.There is a commercial building located to
the west side of the portion of West Bowen Road to be abandoned,owned by
one of the applicant's.The property located to the east is vacant.
F.Nei hborhood Position
All property owners abutting West Bowen Road and Southwest Little Rock United
for Progress were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff knows of
no objectors to the proposed abandonment.
G.Effects on Public Service and Utilities
Wastewater:Little Rock Wastewater has no existing or planned facilities located
within this right-of-way and has no objection to the closure and abandonment of
easement rights in the area described.
Entercty:Entergy has no objection to the closing of West Bowen Road
contingent upon the road right-of-way being retained as a utility easement.
Entergy currently has a distribution line laying within or along the referenced road
right-of-way.
CenterPoint Ener:CenterPoint Energy has no objection to the abandonment
of the road right-of-way for West Bowen Road.The current maps show no main
lines located in this right-of-way.
SBC:SBC has no objection to the abandonment of the road right-of-way for
West Bowen Road.
Central Arkansas Water:Central Arkansas Water as no existing or planned
facilities located within this right-of-way and has no objection to the closure and
abandonment of easement rights in the area described.
H.Reversiona Ri hts:
This portion of West Bowen Road was previously dedicated as a public roadway
but was not constructed to Master Street Plan standard.The area of
abandonment will be returned to the respective property owners 25-feet either
side of a portion of the west line of the NW V4 NE V4 Section 9.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-356
I.Public Welfare and Safet Issues:
Abandoning this street right of way will have no adverse effects on the pubic
welfare and safety.The Little Rock Fire Department has indicated no issues with
the abandonment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff stated the request was a
right-of-way abandonment for an undeveloped roadway.Staff stated the applicant had
provided the requested additional information after the comments were printed.Staff
stated the petition signed by all abutting property owners was still needed.There was
no further discussion of the item.Public Works staff stated there were no public
facilities in the undeveloped roadway and they were supportive of the abandonment.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of the 50-foot by 1,045-foot portion of
West Bowen Road right-of-way located South of Mabelvale West Road,subject to the
following conditions:
1.The entire area of abandonment must be retained as a utility and drainage
easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
abandonment of the 50-foot by 1,045-foot portion of West Bowen Road right-of-way
located South of Mabelvale West Road,subject to the entire area of abandonment
being retained as a utility and drainage easement.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-46-AA
NAME:Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located South of Overlook Drive,at the end of Woodglen Road
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Development Company
P.O.Box 99
N.Little Rock,AR 72115
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:38 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:35 FT.NEW STREET:3600 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:3 —West Little Rock Planning District
CENSUS TRACT:22.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow Woodglen Drive to be constructed to a minor residential
street standard,including a variance to allow a 50-foot centerline radius in two
locations and a variance to allow 18%grades in several locations.
2.A variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 166-173.
3.A variance to allow a reduced front building line (15-feet)for Lots 152-164.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A preliminary plat was approved for the proposed subdivision in the Mid-1960's.
The approved preliminary plat included the development of this 38 acres with
39 single-family lots.The lots were proposed as rear loaded lots and the lots
were to be developed with a minor residential street standard and no sidewalk.
The lots were never developed and the developer is proposing to reconfigure the
existing preliminary plat to reduce the number of lots and eliminate the private
drive access with the exception of the drive on the east side.The current layout
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
proposes 35 lots.The developer has indicated Woodglen Drive is partially
constructed to a minor residential standard.The property contains challenging
slopes and requires the development standards outlined under the minor
residential street requirement to function properly.Specifically,the developers
will need a centerline radius of 50-feet in two locations,18 percent grades in
several locations and no sidewalks on this portion of the street.The applicant
has indicated Woodglen does not have sidewalks on the existing section of the
street.
The applicant has indicated in their opinion the eliminating of the rear access will
be more compatible with the existing neighbors and will eliminate the need to
clear trees adjacent to their backyards.The applicant has indicated they believe
the adjoining property owners will be pleased with fewer lots and no alleys.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lots are extremely steep falling from the road with topography ranging in
elevation from 475-feet to 525-feet.Single-family homes have developed in the
area in similar conditions.The site is wooded with a ravine running along the
south and west.Foxcroft has developed to the south of the site across the
ravine.Single-family homes are located north of the site in the Overlook
Subdivision.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident.All property owners abutting the site along with the Robinwood and
Overlook Property Owners Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.
2.Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works.Contact David Hathcock at (501)371-4808.
3.Due to elevation changes and street curvature,proposed street should be
one (1)way.Reconfigure intersection for no left turns from existing
entrance into subdivision.
4.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan with street design will be required per
Section 29-186 (e).Show compliance with City of Little Rock street
standards specifically pertaining to horizontal radius of 75 ft and maximum
centerline grade of 16%.Up to 18%centerline grade can be approved in
special situation.
5.On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval prior to construction.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
7.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
8.Historically,unusual soil conditions involving springs have existed in this
area.All construction should account for these conditions.
9.The proposed right-of-way dedication meets Master Street Plan
requirements.
10.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.
11.Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas.
12.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
13.Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property.This development will have
minor impact on the existing water distribution system.Proposed water facilities
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the
request.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating
there were additional items necessary to complete the review process.Staff
requested the applicant provide the names and address of the landowner along
with the source of title in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary
plat.Staff also 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.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff noted the street names and
street naming conventions would need to be approved by Public Works prior to
final platting.Staff also stated due,to the elevation changes and street
curvature,the proposed street should be one way,reconfiguring intersections for
no left turns from existing entrances into the subdivision.Mr.White questioned
this comment.He stated the proposed street design was very similar to the
existing development pattern in the area.Staff stated with the requested
curvatures,traffic circulation in the area would not be safe.Mr.White stated he
would meet with Public Works staff to discuss this request in greater details.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification,
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has indicated the name and address of the landowner along with the
source of title for the landowner in the general notes section of the proposed
preliminary plat.The applicant has also indicated the average size (140-feet by
275-feet)of the lots and the minimum lot size (145-feet by 250-feet)in the
general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat.The applicant has
indicated prior to final platting the developer will contact Public Works staff to
confirm the proposed street names within the proposed subdivision.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
The applicant has met with Public Works staff concerning the request to one-way
the proposed street serving the indicated lots.Staff feels the developers should
increase the radius of the two curves proposed within the subdivision or one-way
the proposed street.Staff feels the curb radius should be increased to 75-foot
radius to allow sufficient pavement for motorist to travel.Staff also feels these
two curve areas should be signed for no parking to increase the visibility.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow Woodglen Drive to be constructed
to a minor residential street standard.Staff is supportive of this variance request.
Typically a minor residential street is limited to 1500 linear feet and serving no
more than 35 lots.Although,the street exceeds the maximum length typically
allowed,the number of lots is consistent with the proposed street design.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 166—
173.Staff is supportive of this request.The lots have a depth which will allow for
building setbacks sufficient to allow developable area for the new homes.Staff
does not feel a street adjacent to the front and rear of the homes will have a
significant impact of the potential development.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15-foot building line on
proposed Lots 152 —164.The applicant has indicated the steepness of the lots
does not lend itself to development with the traditional 25-foot building line.The
subdivision Ordinance typically allows lots with a 18 percent slope or greater to
be developed with reduced design standards.The applicant has indicated
several areas have steep slopes,which would typically allow special subdivision
development standards.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The
applicant has indicated reduced front building lines in areas abutting existing
single-family neighborhoods.The reduced front building line will allow for the
development of the proposed lots with minimal disturbance to the existing
vegetation in the area.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat with the exception as noted
above concerning the radius of the proposed roadway.As indicated,staff feels
the radius should be a 75-foot minimal to allow for sufficient sight distance and
maneuvering.The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 38 acre tract into
35 single-family lots resulting in a density of 1.08 units per acre.The proposed
preliminary plat removes the rear drives along the Overlook side of the
development.The Foxcroft side of the development remains virtually the same.
Staff feels the subdivision of this site and the development of thirty-five new
single-family homes is an appropriate use of this property.
5
November 10,2005
SU BDI V IS ION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and
H of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Woodglen Drive to
be constructed to a minor residential street standard.Staff is supportive of the
requested variance to allow 18%grades in several locations.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow double frontage
lots for Lots 166-173.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced front
building line (15-feet)for Lots 152-164.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to compliance with
the conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the agenda staff
report.Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance to
allow Woodglen Drive to be constructed to a minor residential street standard and the
requested variance to allow 'l8%grades in several locations.Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variances to allow reduced lot
development standards limited to the requested variance to allow double frontage lots
for Lots 166-173 and the requested variance to allow a reduced front building line
(15-feet)for Lots 152-164.
Dr.Whit Goodwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed subdivision.
He stated his home was located at 22 Tallyho Lane.He stated his concerns were with
drainage,the grade of the site and property values.He questioned the number of trees
that were to be cut for the proposed development.He stated the development would
drain to Jamison Creek as did the entire area.He stated with the development of lots
on the site there would be less area for absorption and questioned the ability of the
creek to handle the drainage.
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates addressed the Commission on the merits
of the request.He stated the development would pay the City an in-lieu contribution for
the required drainage.He stated based on the location of the development,near the
Arkansas River,the in-lieu would benefit the City more than a detention basin.He
stated with the construction of a detention basin additional trees would need to be
removed from the site.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-AA
Staff stated they felt the in-lieu more beneficial than actual construction.Staff stated the
in-lieu contribution would be held in an account and used for drainage improvements
within the watershed.
There was a question concerning the proposed grades and the construction of the
proposed street to a minor residential standard.Staff stated the grades were necessary
in two locations at hairpin turns.Staff stated they were supportive of the proposed
grades and the construction of the street to minor residential street standard including
the minor residential street radius for curves.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed subdivision and the proposed
detention,cutting of trees and the proposed roadway construction.Staff stated prior to
construction the developer would be required to submit construction plans for the
development of the proposed subdivision.Staff stated the subdivision would be
inspected through the process to ensure the developers were complying with City
ordinances.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-554-A
NAME:Mabelvale West Industrial Subdivision
LOCATION:Located South of Mabelvale West Road,just West of the proposed South
Loop
DEVELOPER:
Bird Cold Storage Partnership
11219 Financial Center Parkway
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Garver Engineers
P.O.Box 50
Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:54.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:1310 LF
CURRENT ZONING:l-2 and C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:16 —Otter Creek Planning District
CENSUS TRACT:41.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement for the placement of sidewalks
along Warrior Road (Section 31-175).
2.A variance to allow a commercial cul-de-sac street (Section 31-285).
BACKGROUND:
A preliminary plat was reviewed and approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission
at their September 9,1986,public hearing for this 55 acre tract.The applicant
proposed the subdivision of the tract into 28 lots,which were zoned C-3,General
Commercial District and l-2,Light Industrial District.The plat included an entrance from
Mabelvale West Road and a second entrance located along a 60-foot ingress and
egress easement located off East Otter Creek Boulevard.The applicant indicated the
development of the proposed subdivision in four phases.The applicant indicated the
placement of 3,200 linear feet of new street as a part of the platting process.The
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-554-A
subdivision was never developed and the previously approved preliminary plat has
expired.
A.P ROPOSAL/REQ U EST:
Mabelvale West Industrial Park is east of and adjacent to Otter Creek Industrial
Park on the south side of Mabelvale West Road.The site contains 54.3 acres
and is currently wooded.The proposed park has road access from Mabelvale
West Road and an access easement across the North 60-feet of Lot 5 of Otter
Creek Industrial Park.The applicant has provided a copy of the establishment of
the easement which indicates that the street across the 60-foot access easement
will be built to City standard and dedicated as a public right-of-way.
The applicant is requesting the proposed new roadway be constructed in two
phases.Phase I will consist of the portion of road lying within the North 60-feet
of Lot 5 of the Otter Creek Industrial Park.The applicant has indicated
approximately 418-feet of new road will be constructed in Phase I of the
development.The applicant has indicated Phase II will consist of the
development of the remainder of the roadway or 892-feet.The applicant is
requesting a waiver of Section 31-175 of the Subdivision Ordinance;a waiver of
the required sidewalk placement within the proposed subdivision.
The applicant is requesting as a separate item on this agenda the right-of-way
abandonment of West Bowen Road located south of Mabelvale West Road (G-
23-356).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located in an area that is developing as industrial and institutional
uses.The property is bordered on the west by the Otter Creek Industrial Park,
on the south by the Union Pacific Railroad and on the east by Mabelvale Junior
High School.There are a number of office,office/warehouse users located along
the western perimeter of the site;along Otter Creek East Boulevard.Southwest
Hospital is located across Mabelvale West Road,to the North.
The site is wooded and appears to be relatively flat.Mabelvale West Road is an
unimproved roadway adjacent to the site with open ditches for drainage.The
street improvements have been installed to Master Street Plan standard west of
the site and to the north adjacent to the hospital.West Bowen Road is an
unimproved roadway,which appears to be a drive to access the rear of the
adjoining businesses.
2
November 10,2005
SUI3DIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-554-A
C.NEIGH BOR HOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were
notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has not received any
comment from area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
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.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
5.Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
6.Proposed access easement should also provide easement for utilities.
7.Access should be provided for property to the south of Lots 2 and 3 unless
alternate access already exists.
8.The proposed right-of-way dedication meets Master Street Plan
requirements.
9.Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works.Contact David Hathcock at (501)371-4808.
10.Access should be provided for Lot 5 on Otter Creek East Boulevard.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-554-A
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property.A utility easement or public
right-of-way must be provided for installation of water facilities from Otter Creek
East Boulevard.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.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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route ¹17and 17A —Mabelvale
Downtown and Mabelvale UALR.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landeca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff stated the request did include a
variance to allow the development of lots without the placement of sidewalks
along proposed Warrior Drive.Staff stated the plat area was located adjacent to
an industrial park where sidewalk placement was exempted and the first 400-feet
of the proposed roadway was exempted since the area was located in the Otter
Creek Industrial Subdivision.Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
Staff stated access to Lot 5 of Otter Creek Industrial Subdivision should be
provided with the development of the future roadway.The applicant indicated
the access would be provided from the new street.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-554-A
H.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has indicated access to Lot 5 of the Otter Creek Industrial Subdivision.
Access to the lot is proposed from the new roadway,Warrior Drive.
The proposed lots have road access from an access easement across the North
60-feet of Lot 5 of Otter Creek Industrial Park.The applicant has provided a
copy of the establishment of the easement which indicates that the street across
the 60-foot access easement will be built to City standard and dedicated as a
public right-of-way.The applicant is requesting the proposed new roadway be
constructed in two phases.Phase I will consist of the portion of road lying within
the North 60-feet of Lot 5 of the Otter Creek Industrial Park.The applicant has
indicated approximately 418-feet of new road will be constructed in Phase I of the
development.The applicant has indicated Phase II will consist of the
development of the remainder of the roadway or 892-feet.The applicant is
requesting a waiver of Section 31-175 of the Subdivision Ordinance,a waiver of
the required sidewalk placement within the proposed subdivision.The proposed
subdivision lies adjacent to the Otter Creek Industrial Park which is exempt from
the requirement of sidewalk placement.Staff is supportive of the waiver request.
The sidewalk adjacent to Lot 5 Otter Creek Industrial Park would be exempt from
sidewalk placement.Since no sidewalk is required in this area staff does not feel
the placement on the remainder of the roadway is warranted.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of a commercial
cul-de-sac lot.The Subdivision Ordinance typically does not allow
commercial/industrial subdivisions to be developed utilizing a cul-de-sac street
system.Staff is supportive of the applicant's requested variance.The previously
approved preliminary plat also included the construction of a commercial cul-de-
sac street to serve the proposed subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant has indicated lots
ranging in size from 21.5 acres to 5.7 acres,adequate to meet the minimum lot
size required for I-2 and C-3 zoned properties or 14,000 square feet.The
applicant has also indicated a front building line of 50-feet as required for
properties zoned 1-2.The applicant is requesting as a separate item on this
agenda the right-of-way abandonment of West Bowen Road located south of
Mabelvale West Road (G-23-356).Staff is also supportive of this request.The
requested right-of-way abandonment will be retained as a utility easement as
requested by a public utility.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-554-A
To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.Staff feels the platting pf the proposed property as indicated
should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement for the placement of sidewalks along Warrior Road (Section 31-175).
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a commercial
cul-de-sac street (Section 31-285).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 agenda staff report.Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement for the placement of sidewalks
along Warrior Road (Section 31-175)and the requested variance to allow a commercial
cul-de-sac street (Section 31-285).
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
NAME:Chenal Valley Tract 5 Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located on the Southwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:
RED Development Company
4717 Central
Kansas City,MO 64112
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:54.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:3200 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-2,Shopping Center District
PLANNING DISTRICT:19 —Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT:42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow reduced side and rear yard setbacks along the common lot
line of Lots 1 and 2;reduced to 1 foot.
2.A variance to allow setbacks for proposed Lots 3 —7.
3.A variance to allow the backing into a service easement (Section 31-210(g)(7)).
4.A variance to allow advanced grading of the entire site with the development of
Lots 1 and 2.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7,2004,the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for the
Promenade at Chenal,a 531,981 square foot open-air,life-style center,which was
proposed to be located in Chenal Valley.The shopping center was to be home to a
variety of upscale national,regional and local retailers,restaurants and entertainment
venues.The development was proposed to be anchored by a 155,000 square foot
Dillard's department store.The center would be designed in a Gothic style.The
open-air design of the center replicated a nostalgic Main Street Shopping district.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
Vehicular access to the Main Street allowed convenient parking in front of the store or
restaurant.Extensive sidewalks,landscaping and hardscape were to create a
pedestrian-friendly environment ideal for shopping,entertainment and socializing.
The French Gothic design style was to showcase buildings and steeply pitched slate
roof treatments punctuated by vertical elements such as masonry piers,tall windows
and decorative tower elements.Stone and brick square pillars will anchor the entrance
features and the corners of the buildings.The materials used were to be warm and
earthly such as brick stone,precise stone,simulated stucco and simulated slate roofs.
With its refreshing openness and strong,vertical lines,the shopping center reflected the
heavily timbered landscape of the Chenal Valley area.
The proposal included the development of the site with four lots.The shopping center
was to be contained on a single lot and three out parcels were proposed along Chenal
Parkway and LaGrange Drive.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved preliminary
plat for the tract.The applicant is requesting to split the previously proposed
large lot into two individual lots and five out parcels resulting a total of seven lots.
The applicant is requesting Lots 1 and 2 for the main shopping center
development and Lots 3 —7 as out parcels.The proposed lots will require a
reduced building setback along the common lot line of the proposed lots (Lots 1
and 2).The applicant has indicated the new proposed building will be
constructed within one foot of the proposed property line.The applicant has also
included five proposed out-parcels.The applicant is proposing a reduced
setback for each of the proposed out parcels.The site is zoned C-2,Shopping
Center District,which typically requires a 40-foot building setback from all
property lines.No changes are proposed to the applicant's site plan.
The applicant has indicated cross access parking and utility easements will be
recorded as a part of the platting process.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant wooded site on the west side of Chenal Parkway.Chenal
Parkway has been constructed as a four lane median roadway with curb and
gutter but without sidewalks adjacent to the proposed development.LaGrange
Drive has been constructed with curb and gutter adjacent to the southern
boundary of the property but also does not have a sidewalk in place.Rahling
Road has not been constructed adjacent to the site but is proposed as a part of
the development.There are commercial and office uses located in the area
southeast and south of the site.Property to the north of the site is currently
vacant and zoned PCD.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners,the Parkway Place Property Owners Association
and the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public
hearing.As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area
residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.
2.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
4.With development,prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information
regarding streetlight requirements.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
EntercnE:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system.A water main extension and
on-site fire protection will be required in order to provide service to this property.
Additional fire hydrant(s)will be required.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s)and
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Lendece e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the
request.Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there
were additional items necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested
the applicant provide a phasing plan in the general notes section of the proposed
preliminary plat.Staff requested the applicant provide the names of abutting
property owners.Staff also requested the applicant label all cross access and
utility easements.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to any land development.Staff also noted street construction
would be required along LaGrange and Rahling Road prior to the execution of
the final plat.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated Lots 1 and 2 will be developed in the first phase and the remaining
lots will be developed based on market demand.The applicant has indicated all
infrastructure and street construction of the abutting roadways will be constructed
prior to the final platting of Lots 1 and 2.The applicant has also indicated the
names of owners of abutting properties and labeled the cross access easement
as requested by staff.The applicant has indicated all drives as cross access and
cross parking.
The applicant is proposing a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat
for this 54.48 acre tract.The applicant is requesting to split the previously
proposed large lot into two individual lots resulting in the creation of seven lots.
The applicant is requesting Lots 1 and 2 for the main shopping center
development and Lots 3 —7 as out parcels.The applicant has indicated Lot 1
will contain 31.19 acres,Lot 2 will contain 12.63 acres,Lot 3 will contain 1.16
acres,Lot 4 will contain 1.39 acres,Lot 5 will contain 1.39 acres,Lot 6 will
contain 1.03 and Lot 7 will contain 0.61.The applicant has indicated 6.72 acres
will be dedicated as public right-of-way.The proposed lots will require a reduced
building setback along the common lot line of the proposed lots.The applicant
has indicated the new proposed building will be constructed within one foot of the
proposed property line.The applicant has also included five proposed out-
parcels.The applicant is proposing a reduced setback for the remaining
proposed lots.The site is zoned C-2,Shopping Center District,which typically
requires a 40-foot building setback from all property lines.Staff is supportive of
the applicant's request.The site is to be developed as a shopping center
development with the placement of lot lines to allow individual tenants ownership
of both the building and the land area.Staff does not feel the reduced setbacks
will have any adverse impact on the development or the adjoining properties.
As indicated,the applicant is proposing lots ranging in size from 31.19 acres to
0.611 acres.Property zoned C-2,Shopping Center District typically requires a
minimum lot size of five acres,except in those instances where a subdivision site
plan and plat proposing peripheral lots and multiple ownership is approved by the
Commission.The ordinance further states there shall be not less than three
hundred feet of district frontage on at least one abutting street,whether for single
or multiple building/lot development.Proposed Lots 3 -7 do not appear to meet
the minimum lot frontage criteria established for the zoning district.The lots
appear to be 120-feet plus.Staff does not feel the reduced lot frontage will have
any adverse impact on adjoining properties.Although the lots are located on a
public street,the indicated lots do not have direct access to the roadway through
a curb-cut.Staff feels the serving of these lots by internal drives will lessen any
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
potential negative impact on the adjacent roadway.Staff is supportive of the
reduced lot frontage.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the backing into a service
easement.Per the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-210(g)(7)parking spaces
shall not be permitted to back into a service easement.Section 31-210(j)states
the Commission may approve a variance of this subsection for applications
before them.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant has
indicated as a part of the site development features such as pedestrian tables
and landscape islands will be used to slow traffic on the site for both motorist and
pedestrians.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to
allow advanced grading of the site.The applicant has stated with the
development of Lots 1 and 2 the grading of the remaining lots will be performed.
The applicant has indicated they will comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance
with regard to a restoration plan.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff feels the applicant has
addressed most of the minimum requirements with the overall development plan
for the site.To Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed request.Staff feels the proposed development should have
minimal impact on adjoining properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with less than the required 300-foot minimum street frontage subject to
those lots not having direct access to the abutting public street.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow reduced side and
rear yard setbacks along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2;reduced to 1 foot.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback for proposed Lots 3 and 7.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the backing into a
service easement (Section 31-210(g)(7)).
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow advanced grading
of the entire site with the development of Lots 1 and 2 subject to compliance with
the Land Alteration Ordinance with regard to a restoration plan.
6
November 'IO,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-867-DDDDDD
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVE M B E R 1 0,2005)
Mr.Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the staff report.Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow the development of lots
with less than the required 300-foot minimum street frontage subject to those lots not
having direct access to the abutting public street.Staff presented a recommendation of
approval of the requested variance to allow reduced side and rear yard setbacks along
the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2;reduced to 1 foot and the requested variance to
allow a reduced rear yard setback for proposed Lots 3 and 7.Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow the backing into a
service easement (Section 31-210(g)(7))and the requested variance to allow advanced
grading of the entire site with the development of Lots 1 and 2 subject to compliance
with the Land Alteration Ordinance with regard to a restoration plan.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:S-1420-A
NAME:Woodland Farms Estates Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located at the East end of Pine View Place
DEVELOPER:
Woodland Farms Estates,LLC
20 Hunters Green Circle
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:2.59 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:7 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:1 —River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT:42.09
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow the placement of a six-foot fence within the front building
setback.
2.A variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 20-feet for proposed Lots 1 —10
Woodland Farms Estates.
BACKGROUND:
A proposal was reviewed for a portion of this property by the Little Rock Planning
Commission at their March 11,2004,public hearing.The proposed subdivision was to
reconfiguration of Lots 144,145,146 and 147 of the Longlea Phase VIIIB Subdivision
Plat into five lots (1.99 acres).The proposed lots would be served by the extension of
Pine View Place to the east ending in a "hammer head"turn-around.The applicant
indicated the lots to be approximately one-quarter to one-half acre in size with two lots
north and three lots south of the newly extended Pine View Place.The applicant
indicated all lots would have a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to the street.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1420-A
Infrastructure improvements are currently underway with regard to water,wastewater
and street construction.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved preliminary
plat to increase the land area and the total number of lots.The applicant has
indicated the subdivision of this 2.59 acre site into ten (10)single-family lots.The
applicant has purchased additional land area to the east of the current terminus
of Pine View Cove and is proposing to extend the current roadway to serve the
additional area.The previous proposal allowed Pine View Cove to end in a
"hammer-head"turn-around.The applicant is proposing the placement of a
cul-de-sac turn-around.
The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 0.26 acres with a minimum lot
size of 0.20 acres.The applicant has indicated a 25-foot front building line,
8-foot side yard setbacks and a 20-foot rear yard setback.The applicant is
requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the reduced rear
yard setback.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the placement of a 6-foot fence
within the front building set back.The applicant has indicated the fencing will
be decorative fencing constructed of brick,brick and wood,wrought iron or stone.
The applicant has indicated the fence will be installed 15-feet from the property
line.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and tree covered with significant outcropping of rocks.The
applicant is currently extending the roadway,water and sewer to serve the area.
The lots north of the street are very steep falling significantly from northeast to
southwest.The lots south of the street do not have a significant grade change.
The site is located in the Longlea Phase VIIIB Subdivision.The area is
predominately built-out with single-family homes.The Longlea Subdivision was
constructed in the early to mid-1990s.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents and one letter of opposition.All abutting property owners,the
Westchester Neighborhood Association and the Secluded Hills Property Owners
Association were notified of the public hearing.
2
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1420-A
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e).
Maximum centerline grade is 15%.Additional drainage inlets should be
installed if existing inlets will be overwhelmed by additional storm water.
2.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
3.Several drainage complaints have been received concerning this property in
the past.Steps should be taken not to discharge sediment and not to
increase storm water flow on downstream neighbors.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Developer has extended sewer main without approval of
Little Rock Wastewater Utility.Line must be disconnected.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A water main extension to
each lot served will be required.A maximum floor elevation may apply due to
marginal water pressures in this area.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to
obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s).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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1420-A
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed preliminary plat indicating there were few outstanding
issues associated with the proposed request.Staff stated the name and address
of the owner of the property along with the source of title should be included in
the general notes section of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff also requested
the applicant provide the names of any landlocked parcels abutting the plat area.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated drainage complaints had
been received from the site.Staff stated the detention ordinance did apply to the
site.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated the name and address of the landowner in the general notes
section of the proposed plat along with the source of title.The applicant has also
indicated there are no landlocked parcels abutting the proposed plat area.The
applicant has addressed Public Works concerns of drainage.The applicant has
indicated water will be piped from the southern property line to the street and a
French drain will be installed around the base of the homes also piped to the
street connecting to the City storm drain system.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing the
subdivision of a 2.59-acre site into ten (10)single-family lots resulting in a density
of 3.86 units per acre.The applicant has indicated an average lot size of 0.26
acres with a minimum lot size of 0.20 acres.The applicant has indicated a 25-
foot front building line,8-foot side yard setbacks and a 20-foot rear yard setback
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow
the reduced rear yard setback.Staff is supportive of this variance request.The
applicant has indicated homes in the area have been constructed with similar
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1420-A
setbacks and,with the reduced setback,larger single story homes may be
constructed on the proposed lots and provide allowances for decks and patios.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the placement of a 6-foot fence
within the front building set back.The applicant has indicated the fencing will be
decorative fencing constructed of brick,brick and wood,wrought iron or stone.
The applicant has indicated the fence will be installed 15-feet from the front
property line.Staff is supportive of the request.The applicant has indicated the
fencing will be added as an architectural element of the building design.Staff
does not feel the placement of a six foot fence in this area will have any adverse
impact on the adjoining properties.
To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.Staff feels the subdivision of this site and the development of
ten new single-family homes is an appropriate use of this property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the above agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the placement of a
six-foot fence within the front building setback.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback of 20-feet for proposed Lots 1 —10 Woodland Farms Estates.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the agenda staff report.Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow the placement of a six-
foot fence within the front building setback and the requested variance to allow a
reduced rear yard setback of 20-feet for proposed Lots 1 —10 Woodland Farms
Estates.
There was one registered objector present.Mr.Roger Sanders stated he had visited
with the applicant prior to the item being discussed.He stated he was withdrawing is
opposition to the item.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes,2 absent and 1 recusal (Chairman Mizan Rahman).
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:S-1477-B
NAME:Two Rivers Harbor Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located at the East end of Isbell Lane
DEVELOPER:
Charles Hinson
24 Isbell Lane
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Civil Design Incorporated
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:1.31 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:300 LF (Private)
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:1 —River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT:42.05
Variance/Waive rs:
1.A variance to allow the development of lots with a private street.
2.A variance to allow a reduced building setback adjacent to the floodway.
BACKGROUND:
On July 21,2005,the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat
request which included this site.The request included the development of an existing
9.66-acre tract of residentially zoned property into five large estate type lots ranging
from 1.26 acres up to 2.29 acres and one tract for future development (the area
currently being proposed for subdivision).The developer indicated an average lot size
of 1.56 acres.The developer requested a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow the development of lots with private streets.The applicant submitted a FTN
Certificate ("No Rise/No Impact"statement)as required by Pulaski County for
November 10,2005
SU B D IV I S I ON
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-B
development within the Arkansas River floodway.The lots were to be served by
individual septic systems.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise the previously approved preliminary plat for
Two Rivers Harbor Subdivision to create two lots from this previously held tract
containing 1.31 acres.A "No Rise/No Impact"statement for the overall Two
Rivers development was issued in July,2005.The certificate covered the
proposed lots in addition to the five previously approved lots located to the west.
The applicant has indicated sewer service for the two additional lots will be from
a package treatment plat.The applicant has provided a NPDES permit from the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to allow construction of the
package treatment plant.
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance.The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of lots with private
streets and a variance to allow a reduced setback adjacent to a floodway.
The property is located outside the City Limits of Little Rock but within the
planning jurisdiction.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Isbell Lane is a narrow roadway appearing as a drive serving two to three single-
family homes.The Arkansas River is located to the north of the site and Two
Rivers Park is located to the south of the site.To the west of the site are single-
family homes located on large tracts.The tracts appear narrow at the roadway
but extend to the river allowing additional acreage.The homes sit on the
riverbank and access County Farm Road through single and shared driveways.
County Farm Road is a two lane County road with open ditches for drainage.As
indicated there is an existing City Park and the County's Community Garden
located south of the site.River Valley Marina is located along the banks of the
Little Maumelle River on River Valley Marina Road to the southeast.
The site is located within the floodway of the Arkansas River.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
abutting property owners,the Candlewood/Walton Height Neighborhood
Association and the River Valley Neighborhood Association were notified of the
public hearing.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-B
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.The property appears to lie within the 100-year floodplain and the regulatory
floodway.Contact Pulaski County for a floodplain development permit and
further information.
2.No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims
for operations on private property.
3.Private access is proposed for these lots.In accordance with Section 31-207,
private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets.A
minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street width of 24
feet from back of curb to back of curb.A standard 80 foot cul-de-sac or tee
type turnaround is required.
4.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary.Provide staff with approval from the
Arkansas Department of Health and/or Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality concerning the proposed wastewater disposal.
Entercny:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.This 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 De artment:Outside the City jurisdiction.Provide approval from the area
volunteer fire department serving the area.
~C
Please provide the following information on the proposed plat:
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-B
1.Provide a legal description that is tied to two land corners and provide state
plane coordinates.
2.Provide an original print —copy received is vague.
3.Provide existing cul-de-sac on Isbell Lane.
4.Provide the names of abutting subdivisions or owners.
5.Provide existing or proposed covenants or restrictions.
6.Provide drainage and flood control plans.
7.Provide a copy of the bill of assurance.
8.Indicate if the sewer treatment facility will serve both lots or one will be
constructed for each lot.
9.Submit fire department verification of coverage.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.James Dreher was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested the applicant provide
the approval letter from Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
concerning the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system.Staff also
requested the applicant provide written approval from Pulaski County Planning
concerning construction within the Arkansas River Floodway.Staff also
requested the applicant provide a building foot print for each of the indicated lots.
Staff questioned the buildability of the proposed lots with the indicated setback.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated a NPDES storm water
permit would be required prior to construction.Staff also stated a minimum
access easement of 45-feet would be required.Mr.Dreher stated the indicated
access matched a previously approved access for lots located to the west of the
proposed plat area.Staff stated they would support the reduced roadway design
for the two additional lots.
Pulaski County comments were addressed.Staff questioned if the current
construction had received a flood construction permit from the County.Mr,
Dreher stated he would contact the owner to verify the permit status.Staff also
requested an original plat since the previously provide copies were not clear with
regard to building lines.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-B
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has indicated a building footprint for each of the proposed lots as
requested by staff.The applicant has also provided a plat with clear building
lines.The applicant has indicated on Tract 6 a 25-foot front and rear yard
building line.The applicant has also indicated side yard setbacks sufficient to
meet typical minimum ordinance requirements.The applicant has indicated
proposed Tract 7 with a 25-foot front setback,25-foot rear yard setback and six
foot side yard setback.The proposed side yard setback along the northern
perimeter will require a variance from the ordinance requirements.The northern
boundary of the proposed plat is located adjacent to the Arkansas River.
Typically,adjacent to a floodway,a 25-foot setback is required.As indicated,
adjacent to the river the applicant has indicated a six foot side yard setback.The
ordinance states no structure shall be closer than 25-feet to any established
floodway line.Uses having a low flood-danger potential shall be permitted within
the 25-foot setback to the extent they are not prohibited by ordinance and
provided they do not require structural involvement.Examples of such uses
including loading areas,parking areas,open storage of materials or equipment,
and public and private recreational uses.Staff does not supportive the variance
to allow construction of a structure within the 25-foot required setback.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of lots utilizing a
private street.The applicant has indicated a 25-foot access and utility easement
to serve the proposed lots as well as the previously approved five lots to the
west.The applicant has indicated a minimum of 18-feet of hard surface roadway
will be constructed to serve the proposed lots.Staff previously supported this
request.Staff feels with the addition of the two additional lots,the indicated
roadway is still sufficient.
The applicant has provided an approval from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality concerning the proposed wastewater treatment system.A
construction permit was issued for the site and is filed as Permit Number
AR0050547C.
The applicant has indicated the volunteer fire department for the area reviewed
the proposed development of the two indicated lots with the previous plat request
and indicated service would be available to the proposed lots.The applicant has
indicated all other County comments will be addressed as a part of final platting.
5
November 10,2005
SU B D I V I S I ON
ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1477-B
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to allow proposed Lot 6 to be
developed but not proposed Lot 7.The lot does not comply with the minimum
requirements of the current City ordinances and staff feels the variance request
to allow the development should not be granted.Staff feels construction within
the floodway should be limited to a 25-foot setback as required by the current
ordinances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 November 7,2005,requesting the item be deferred to the
January 5,2006,Public Hearing.Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional
time is necessary to address staff's concerns with regard to the development of
proposed Lot 7.
Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver with regard to the
deferral request due to the date of receipt of the deferral request.Staff stated they were
supportive of the By-law waiver and the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:S-1507
NAME:Morgan Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Located on the Northwest corner of Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery
Road
DEVELOPER:
Corey Gillum —Gillum Photography
315 N.Bowman Road
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:3.462 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:29 —Barrett
CENSUS TRACT:42.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow the development of lots less than the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District 2-acre minimum lot size.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 3.462 acre tract into two (2)
lots.The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 as 1.197 acres and proposed
Lot 2 as 2.265 acres.The applicant has indicated a 100-foot building setback
adjacent to Highway 10 and a 25-foot building setback adjacent to Morgan
Cemetery Road.The applicant is requesting to phase the final platting of the
proposed lots.The applicant has indicated these lots will be final platted based
on market demand with Lot 1 being final platted upon approval of the request.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1507
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a drainage ditch running through the
middle of the site from north to south.The Joe T.Robinson Elementary School
is located to the east of the site,across Morgan Cemetery Road and the Joe T.
Robinson Middle and High School campus is located to the southeast across
Highway 10.The land adjacent to the site to the west contains a non-conforming
auto garage and single-family residence.
Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located
directly south of the site and are currently vacant.The owners previously
proposed this property for commercial zoning but later withdrew their request.
Chalamont is located south of the site,adjacent to Joe T.Robinson High School.
Chalamont extends from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway by way of
Chalamont/Northfield.There are several single-family subdivisions currently
under construction accessed from Chalamont and Northfield.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners,the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association
were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received one
informational phone call from an area resident.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
Highway 10 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
2.A 25 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road.
3.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
4.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
5.A 10 ft drainage easement should be provided between Lots 1 and 2.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary.Provide staff with approval from the
Arkansas Department of Health and/or Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality concerning the proposed wastewater disposal.
2
November 10,2005
SU BDIV I S ION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1507
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system.Contact the fire department
having jurisdiction to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s)and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).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 De artment:Outside the City jurisdiction.Provide approval from the area
volunteer fire department serving the area.
Please provide the following information on the proposed plat:
1.Name and Address of the Owner of Record.
2.Source of Title
3.Name and Address of Subdivider.
4.Date of Survey.
5.Legal description —tie to two land corners and provide state plane
coordinates.
6.Place the locator on the vicinity map in the correct location.
7.Provide natural features.
8.Provide cultural features.
9.Provide the names of subdivisions abutting or property owners abutting the
plat area.
10.Place the acreage for each lot on the plat.
11.Provide existing and proposed covenants or restrictions.
12.Provide the source of water supply.
13.Provide the means of wastewater disposal.
14.Provide drainage and flood control.
15.Provide Certificates of Approval for Pulaski County.
16.Provide the Bill of Assurance for the proposed subdivision.
17.Provide Fire Department verification of coverage.
18.Provide FEMA Panel Number.
19.Provide AEDQ Erosion control permit.
3
November 10,2005
S U BD I V I S I 0 N
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1507
20.Please indicate right-of-way dedication on the plat for Highway 10 and
Morgan Cemetery Road.
21.Please remove general note numbers 1,4 and 6.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route ¹25—Highway 10 Express
Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested the applicant provide
the names of owners of the plat area and the source of title of the landowner.
Staff also requested the applicant provide the names of owners of unplatted
tracts abutting the plat area and the names of owners of any landlocked parcels.
Staff requested the applicant provide the source of water and the means of
wastewater disposal for the plat area.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff questioned if the plat would be
final platted based on market demand and if the required street improvements
would be left for the final platting of Lot 2.Mr.McGetrick indicated only Lot 1
would be final platted at the current time.Staff also requested the applicant
provide a 10-foot drainage easement between the proposed lots.
Pulaski County comments were addressed.Staff requested the applicant
provide the certificate of approval for Pulaski County on the proposed preliminary
plat.Staff also requested the applicant provide the drainage and flood control
plan for the proposed subdivision.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has indicated the names of owners of the plat area,the source of title of
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1507
the landowner,the names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the plat area and
the source of water and means of wastewater disposal.The applicant has
indicated all necessary permits and perk test for the proposed septic system will
be acquired prior to construction of any buildings on the site.
The site is located outside the City Limits but within the City's Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction.Per the Subdivision Ordinance any development not
proposing to connect to the City's wastewater treatment system is to provide
approval of the disposal method.The applicant has not provided staff with the
required sanitary sewer disposal proposed for the site as required by Section
31-400.The applicant is to provide approval from the state department with
authority to approve septic tanks installations,or other individual wastewater
disposal methods.In the past staff has not recommended an application move
forward without the required approval for the wastewater collection system.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of this 3.462 acre tract into two (2)
lots.The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 as 1.197 acres and proposed
Lot 2 as 2.265 acres.The applicant has indicated a 100-foot building setback
adjacent to Highway 10 and a 25-foot building setback adjacent to Morgan
Cemetery Road.The applicant is requesting to phase the final platting of the
proposed lots.The applicant has indicated these lots will be final platted based
on market demand.
The applicant's indicated building line adjacent to Morgan Cemetery is 25-feet.
Morgan Cemetery Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street which would typically require a 30-foot platted building setback for
properties zoned residentially.
The applicant has indicated a 45-foot access and drainage easement along the
property line of proposed Lots 1 and 2.The applicant has also indicated
dedication of right-of-way per the Master Street Plan for the two abutting
roadways,Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.The proposed preliminary plat
does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District with regard to lot size.The required septic system approval from
the state agency regulating installation has not been provided.Staff feels the
integrity of the Design Overlay should be maintained for the proposed platting of
the tract.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
5
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1507
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff stated in light of the past history of the site and the applicant's
concurrence with the requirement of a PZD for future development of the proposed lots,
staff stated they were now supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff presented
a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D,E and F of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
NAME:Smith Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION:5900 Ranch Drive
DEVELOPER:
Kenneth Smith,DVM
50 Allen Chapel Road
Batesville,AR 72501
ENGINEER:
Richberg Engineering
11500 Rodney Parham Road,Suite 5
Little Rock,AR 72212
AREA:0.86 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-2,Shopping Center District
PLANNING DISTRICT:20 —Pinnacle
C E N S U S TRACT:42.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow the development of lots with a reduced side and rear yard
setback.
2.A variance to allow backing into the service access easement.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the construction of a new,state of the art,animal
hospital at 5900 Ranch Drive.The applicant has indicated the building will be
5,872 square feet and will be constructed as a single-story structure,wood and
metal-framed building.The applicant has indicated exterior finishes will be
generally brick masonry wall surfaces with vinyl soffit,fascia and trim.The roof
will be shingles applied over a sloping wood deck.
The applicant has indicated the hospital will serve the residents of the Ranch,
Highway 10 and Chenal areas of the City.The facility will be dedicated to the
treatment of dogs,cats and other companion animals;no horses,cattle or large
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
animals will be treated.The applicant has indicated there will be no outdoor
boarding or housing of animals.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and grass covered.There are office uses located to the east
and north of the site.The retail center at the Ranch is located to the west of the
site.There is vacant C-2 zoned property located immediately south of the site.
Ranch Drive has been constructed with curb and gutter.There is not a sidewalk
in place along the property frontage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners,the Margeaux Place Property Owners Association,
Bayonne Place Property Owners Association,Aberdeen Court Property Owners
Association,Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association and Johnson Ranch
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,
staff has not received any comment from area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Storm water detention applies to this property.Presently,the Ranch is
providing detention to meet city code for all properties.
2.Per Section 29-189(d),groups of trees and individual trees that are not to be
removed or are located within required undisturbed buffer areas shall be
protected during construction by protective fencing and shall not be used for
material storage or for any other purpose.
3.Traffic calming devices could be warranted by the property owner in the future
if speeds are excessive.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional information.
EntercnE:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
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.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 De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route 425 —Highway 10 Express
Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:No comment.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.An automatic controlled irrigation system is required.
3.Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance
requirements
4.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff questioned the number of
doctors and the proposed number of employees.Staff also requested the
applicant provide details of any proposed signage.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the storm water detention
ordinance applied to the proposed development.Staff also stated traffic calming
devices were needed along the proposed access drive to slow traffic.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the areas set aside for
buffers appeared to meet minimum ordinance requirements.Staff also noted
landscaped areas would require irrigation.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated there will be 2 —3 doctors and 10 —15 staff members when fully
operational.The applicant has also indicated the days and hours of operation
will be from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 pm
Saturday.Boarding will be provided with 10 canine inside runs,40 canine cages
and 18 feline condo-type cages.Grooming services will possibly be offered in
the future.
The applicant has indicated the sign will be a column sign with lettering on all
four sides.The sign footprint will be 70-inches by 70-inches with a total height of
12-feet.Each face of the sign will have a total sign area of 70 square feet.The
ordinance defines sign area as the area of the sign that is visible at any one time
from any one point.This area does not include the main supporting sign
structure but all other ornamental attachments.Based on this definition the total
sign area for the proposed sign would be 140-square feet.The property is zoned
C-2,which typically allows a sign of 36-feet in height and 160-square feet in area.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed signage.
The applicant has indicated the construction of a 5,872 square foot animal
hospital along with 30 parking spaces.The typical minimum parking required for
a medical office facility would be 18 parking spaces based on the applicant's
indication of 2 —3 doctors.The ordinance typically requires the placement of six
parking spaces per doctor.The indicated parking is more than adequate to meet
the typically minimum parking demand.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the backing into a service
easement.Per the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-210(g)(7)parking spaces
shall not be permitted to back into a service easement.Section 31-210(j)states
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
the Commission may approve a variance of this subsection for applications
before them.The applicant has indicated as a part of the site development of
properties to the south,features such as pedestrian tables and landscape islands
will be used to slow traffic.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the site to develop with a
reduced side and rear yard setback.The property is currently zoned C-2 which
typically requires the placement of a 40-foot setback from all property lines.The
applicant has indicated the western side yard setback at 21.98 feet and the rear
yard setback at 25-feet.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The
property to the south has developed as an office use and the property to the west
is currently vacant.The applicant has indicated a dog-walk area in this location,
which will be screened with a six foot white vinyl lattice fence.Staff is supportive
of this request.Staff does not feel the reduced setback will have a negative
impact on the adjoining properties.The applicant has indicated screening to limit
the visual impact on the adjoining properties.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing the
placement of a new animal hospital at 5900 Ranch Drive.The property is zoned
C-2 which requires a zoning site plan review prior to development.The applicant
is proposing the construction of a veterinary clinic,which is an allowable use
under the current zoning.To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request.Staff feels the development as proposed
should have minimal impact on the adjoining properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots with a reduced side and rear yard setback.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow backing into the
service access easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs
D,E,F and H of the agenda staff report.Staff also presented a recommendation of
approval of the requested variance to allow the development of lots with a reduced side
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4343-P
and rear yard setback and the requested variance to allow backing into the service
access easement.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
NAME:St.Mark's Church Revised POD
LOCATION:Located at 1024 N.Mississippi Street
DEVELOPER:
Wooden,Fulton 8 Scarborough,PC
c/o Verizon Wireless Communication
737 Market Street,Suite 620
Chattanooga,TN 37402
ENGINEER:
Excel Communications,Inc.
6247 Amber Hills Road
Birmingham,AL 35176
AREA:14.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-0
ALLOWED USES:Church Facility and Commercial Catering Service
PROPOSED ZONING:POD
PROPOSED USE:Church facility,a Commercial Catering Service and Cellular Tower
PLANNING DISTRICT:3 —West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT:21.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 1,2004,the Little Rock Board of Directors approved a rezoning request
for this site to PD-0 to allow the use of the existing church kitchen facilities as a catering
commercial business.The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed this request on
October 7,2004,and made a recommendation of approval of the request.The
applicant proposed to rezone the existing church site to PD-0 to allow a commercial
catering company to operate from the existing church kitchen facilities.The applicant
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
indicated there would not be any exterior modifications to the structure and there would
not be any activities on the site other than the preparation and cooking of the food.The
applicant stated there would not be any consumption of food or pick-up service
available on the premises.The applicant also indicated the days and hours of operation
would be limited to normal business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm daily with the
exception of special events.The applicant indicated there would be no more than four
employees of the business and no more than four vehicles parked on the site during
operation.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing a revision to the current PD-0 zoning to POD to allow
the placement of a cellular tower on the site.Verizon Wireless Communications
is proposing to lease a 75-foot by 75-foot site from St.Mark's Episcopal Church
to place a 120-foot monopole and communications facility.The applicant has
indicated the monopole is a state of the art telecommunication tower that will
create minimum intrusiveness into its surrounding neighborhood while providing
critical telecommunication services to the residents of Little Rock.The applicant
has indicated the successful construction and operation of the tower is critical to
the completion of Verizon Wireless's network.
The applicant has indicated Verizon Wireless has made every effort to find a
suitable structure to locate or collocate its antennas upon.The applicant has
indicated suitable structures have not been located that would allow for the
completion of the Verizon Wireless's network.The applicant has provided staff
with a letter of intent to allow collocation for proposed wireless
telecommunication facilities when collocation at the tower site is commercially
feasible and collocation is feasible within engineering parameters.The
applicant's statement indicates the proposed tower has the capability of providing
collocation for additional tenants.
The application includes a statement from the Radio Frequency Engineer
indicating the site's Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP)for this
installation is 890 watts or less.According to the applicant the current FCC rule
(reference:Code of Federal regulations,Title 47-Telecommunications,Chapter 1
Federal Communications Commission,Part 24 —Personal Communications
Services,Subpart E-Broadband PCS,Section 24.232 —Power and antenna
height limits)permits up to 1640 watts EIRP for this type of installation.
The applicant has indicated the property is not subject to any Bill of Assurance
filed with the Circuit Clerk's Office of Pulaski County.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing church with several buildings and activities on the
site.There are single-family uses located to the south and west of the site and
across Mississippi Avenue to the east.To the north of the site is also a church
facility.Evergreen Street is located along the northern boundary,which has
been constructed to Master Street Plan standard.Mississippi Avenue is located
on the eastern boundary of the property and has also been constructed to Master
Street Plan standard.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and all residents
located within 300-feet of the site,who could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
Site grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior
to the start of construction.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer service not required for this project.
Entercny:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:A license agreement will be required for installation of
utilities and roadway across the existing raw water right-of-way.Detailed plans
must be submitted to and approved by Central Arkansas Water.This right-of-
way,which is owned in fee by Central Arkansas Water,should be shown on the
plans.Care must be taken to protect existing raw water facilities in the vicinity of
the proposed access road to this site.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
~C
3
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route ¹8—Rodney Parham
Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property.The
applicant has applied for a revision to a POD to add a monopole cellular tower on
the site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan because the
proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:Evergreen Street is shown as a Collector while Mississippi
Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan.These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
r
That class only has special signage denoting the route.These routes use the
existing vehicular area with no physical separation.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan.There are no
objectives pertinent to this application.
~Landsca e:Landscape and screening comply with Article XII.Wireless
Communications Facilities of the Zoning Ordinance.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the request was for the
placement of a 120-foot cellular tower.Staff questioned if the developer was
considering any measures to blend the tower into the landscape such as stealth
technology and/or painting the tower.Staff noted the proposed landscaping plan
was in full compliance with Article XII Wireless Communications Facilities of the
Zoning Ordinance.Staff requested the applicant provide an overall site plan
showing the location of the existing buildings and the proposed tower site.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to development of the site.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYS IS:
The applicant failed to respond to staff comments raised at the October 20,2005,
Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has not indicated if the tower will
be painted to blend into the landscape or if the tower will be constructed utilizing
stealth technology.In addition,the applicant has not provided staff with a
requested overall site plan to provide the location of the existing buildings and
the proposed tower site to tie down the proposed location of the tower.
Staff is basing their recommendation on the original submission and is not
supportive of the applicant's request.The original proposal did fully comply with
the landscaping requirements as outlined in Article XII of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant's original submission included the construction of a 120-foot
cellular tower with an antenna array extending from the tower and no special
painting treatment.Staff feels the tower should be constructed to limit the visual
impacts on the adjoining properties and to blend the tower construction into the
landscape of the area.Staff feels by utilizing stealth technology and painting of
the tower,the tower would blend better into the landscape and be an acceptable
use for the site.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request,as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant requested the Commission defer his request to the December 1,2005,
public hearing.The applicant stated he needed additional time to meet with the
neighbors and to better prepare his court reporter.There was a general discussion
concerning the deferral request.A motion was made to waive the By-laws and allow
the deferral request.The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,8 noes,2 absent,1 abstain.
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had addressed their concerns
and staff was now supportive of the proposed request.Staff stated the applicant had
agreed to construction of a flagpole type tower utilizing the stealth technology and
provided staff with an updated site plan indicating the location of the tower outside an
existing Central Arkansas Water Easement.Staff recommended approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs
D,E and F of the agenda staff report.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
The applicant stated they had met with staff and tried to address staff's concerns.The
applicant also stated the proposed tower met with all minimum ordinance requirements
and if the site were not zoned PD-0 the review would have been a staff level review.
The applicant stated the proposed tower location was critical to allow Verizon to
complete their tower network.The applicant stated the tower would be placed in the
woods and the neighborhood would not notice the tower.The applicant indicated
collocation was not an option since there was not a tower in the area that would serve
their needs.
Mr.Jay Wisener addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated his home was located at 7805 Evergreen Drive,two houses from the proposed
tower site.He stated the neighborhood had been in place for 40 plus years and never
had a commercial development encroached into the neighborhood.He stated he did
not feel the proposed development was meeting the intent of the planned zoning district
criteria.He stated the applicant had not provided staff with any documentation
concerning collocation.He stated the only documentation provided was a letter from
Verizon indicating there were not available towers in the area for collocation.He stated
the neighborhood was a pristine neighborhood and did not need commercial
development encroaching into the neighborhood.
Ms.Paula Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated she had a petition with 129 signatures from residents who were opposed to
the proposed tower location.She stated the tower was located at the entrance to the
subdivision.She stated the neighborhood had fought to keep the area residential and
they did not want commercial activity at the entrance to their subdivision.
Mr.Charles Fogle addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated the neighborhood was bound on Mississippi Street with three churches.He
stated residential properties pay taxes and churches do not pay taxes.He stated he felt
commercial activities should not encroach into the neighborhood.
Ms.Jill Harbart-Pratt addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated no one in the area would benefit from the proposed tower other than the
church.She stated the proposed tower was ugly and felt this was not a good addition to
the neighborhood.
There was a general discussion concerning required documentation for collocation,the
location of other towers in the area and the Telecommunications Act.Staff stated the
applicant was required to provide a statement indicating the ability for collocation.The
applicant stated the location of the tower was critical to the building of the network.He
stated by moving the proposed tower this would potentially require additional towers to
be relocated.The applicant stated the tower location was based on radius coverage.
He stated the new towers and technology did offer the coverage the old towers offered
since the new services provided offered additional features.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5522-B
The Commission questioned if the City was covered by the Telecommunications Act.
Staff stated they were covered by the Telecommunications Act.The applicant stated
the proposed service was a service to the community.He stated his firm had worked
with staff to address staffs concerns and felt the tower location appropriate for the site.
There was a general discussion concerning the tower color.The Commission
questioned the proposed color of the tower.The applicant stated the color was gray to
blend with the winter sky.The Commission questioned if a flag could be placed on the
pole.The applicant indicated this was an option but the flag would have to be raised
and lower daily.
A motion was made to approve the request.The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,
4 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
NAME:Magnolia Terrace Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION:Located at 15100 and 15104 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Civil Design,Inc 8 J.J.Childers
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Civil Design,Inc
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:4.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:310 LF
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:General and Professional Office and a Photography Studio
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised POD
PROPOSED USE:Mixed Use Development —Office and Retail
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.16,690 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 7,1994,
established South Hills Terrace Addition Short-form POD,for a portion of this site,
Ordinance No.16,691 allowed for a deferral of the required sidewalk,the required
detention and the front yard landscaping for three years or to within sixty days of
completion of the sewer main which was proposed for constructed along the Highway
10 frontage of the property.The proposal included (Phase I)the utilization of an
existing residential structure located at the rear of the site as an office use for a civil
engineering company and (Phase II)was to consist of the construction of a second
office building (5,080 square feet)at the front of the property.The Phase I proposal
included the remodeling of the existing structure and the utilization of the existing
12-foot driveway.The Phase II portion included the abandonment of the existing
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-58'I7-A
driveway,closure of the existing curb cut,and construction of a new driveway and curb
cut.The new curb cut was to be 24-feet.A new septic system was proposed on the
site with connection to city sewer when service became available.The applicant
indicated upon availability of sewer service Phase II would be initiated.
Ordinance No.18,211 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15,
2000,established the Childress Short-form POD.The site contained a 9,400 square
foot,two-story brick building which was previously used as a non-conforming
photography studio.The applicant proposed the rezoning to allow redevelopment of the
site with building and parking lot additions.The applicant proposed 0-1,Quiet Office
District uses as allowable uses for the site.The applicant proposed a two phased
development for the property:Phase I included the construction of an asphalt drive
extending from Cantrell Road,construction of 24 parking spaces on the south side of
the existing building,dumpster location,use of the exiting building for 0-'I permitted
uses.Phase II was to consist of the construction of an 8,000 square foot addition to the
existing building,extend the driveway along the east side of the building,construction of
32 additional parking spaces on the north side of the building,relocation of the
dumpster area.The applicant noted a single sign would be placed near the entrance to
the property,which would conform to the Highway 10 Design Overlay Standards.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing a revision to the previously approved zonings as
a single development plan to allow the redevelopment of these two sites with the
construction of three new buildings.The applicant has indicated Civil Design inc.
proposes to construct a new building for its business operations and leasing to
others.The applicant has indicated they are partnering with the adjoining
property owner to the east to seek a rezoning and preliminary plat approval.
The proposed development is a continuation of the property owners'revious
cooperation through a sewer improvement district in bringing public sewer
service to this portion of Cantrell Road and adjacent areas of the tributary
sewerage basin.The applicant has indicated the proposed development should
encourage additional orderly development within the sewerage basin,thus
assisting to defray annual debt service retirement costs for all property owners in
the sewer improvement district.
The applicant has indicated the properties are located very near the existing
Rummell Road intersection with Cantrell Road.The applicant has indicated
Rummell Road is a substandard roadway in the City street system,but provides
the only access at present to a large piece of undeveloped property directly north
of and adjacent to the proposed development as well as access to a substandard
amount of currently undeveloped property farther north along and off of Rummell
Road.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
The applicant has indicated the proposed project recognizes the need for a
public street stub to the presently undeveloped properties to the north to facilitate
orderly development and allow the eventual abandonment of the existing
substandard Rummell Road intersection with Cantrell Road.A 60-foot public
street right-of-way and collector standard street construction is proposed
between the two properties to provide a collector street standard intersection with
Cantrell Road and accommodate future public street extension to serve multiple
properties located north of the proposed development.The development plan as
proposed will eliminate four existing driveway connections to Cantrell Road in
favor of a single public street access.The proposal will also allow future
abandonment of the existing substandard Rummell Road intersection at such
time as the property directly to the north of the proposed development develops.
The project property owners are separate entities.The owners have indicated
redevelopment of the properties will be independent.The applicant has indicated
the development will be architecturally compatible to ensure a uniform
development pattern for the area.
The applicant has indicated a total of three detached structures will be
constructed on two lots.The applicant has indicated Civil Design will construct a
single two story building containing 30,600 square feet and contained on
approximately 2.53 acres (Lot 1).The applicant has indicated the second lot will
contain two structures on 1.50 acres (Lot 2).The applicant has indicated the
northern-most building will be constructed as a two story building containing
12,000 square feet while the building located near Cantrell Road will be
constructed as a single story building containing 3,000 square feet.
The applicant has indicated the uses proposed are 0-2,Office and Institutional
District uses along with the conditional uses and accessory uses listed under the
0-2 District for the ground floor of the building on proposed Lot 1.The upper
floor will utilize only 0-2 uses.The applicant has indicated the proposed Lot 2
will utilize the 0-2,Office and Institutional District uses.The applicant has
indicated the total square footage for the site is 45,600 square feet with 30,300
square feet utilizing 0-2,District uses and 15,300 square feet utilizing 0-2,
District uses the allowable conditional uses and accessory uses with no limits
place on these allowed uses.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing office building being used by Civil Design,Inc.an
engineering firm and a vacant 9,400 square foot structure.Two single-family
structures have been recently removed from the western end of the site.There
is an existing gravel access drive from Cantrell Road extending to the eastern
most building and a gravel drive extending from Cantrell Road to the previous
home site.Civil Design has a paved access drive to their building.There is
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
undeveloped property located immediately north of the site and there is a
single-family residence located immediately west of the site adjacent to Rummell
Road.To the east of the site is a newly constructed branch bank facility.
There are single-family residences to the southwest across Cantrell Road,with a
pet grooming/boarding facility located to the southeast.
Cantrell Road is a five lane roadway with curb and gutter in place.There is no
sidewalk located adjacent to the sites being proposed for rezoning.There is a
sidewalk located immediately east of the site in front of the branch bank facility.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Westchester/Heatherbrae 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.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required along Cantrell Road
in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.Sidewalk on neighboring property to the east is deferred until
adjacent properties develop.
2.Private access is proposed west of these lots.In accordance with Section
31-207,private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets.A minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street
width of 24 feet from back of curb to back of curb.
3.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works.Contact David Hathcock at (501)371-4808.
5.The proposed right-of-way dedication and boundary street improvements
meet Master Street Plan requirements.Construct right turn lane into
Magnolia Drive off Cantrell Road.
6.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
EntercnEr:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.Provisions for water service to
the property to the north should be considered.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.This fee will apply to all meter connections including any
metered connections off the private fire system.Additional fire hydrant(s)will be
required.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding
the required placement of the hydrant(s)and contact Central Arkansas Water
regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s).This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system.Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:CATA requests that a bus turnout be included on westbound Highway 10
at the far side of Magnolia Drive.This improvement will enhance operating
safety,as it will allow the bus to pull out of the traveled lane while discharging
customers along Highway 10 at Magnolia Drive.As an alternative,a paved
shoulder with a width of 10-feet or greater would also be sufficient to ensure a
safe bus stop location.The site is located near CATA Bus Route ¹25—Highway
10 Express Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The
applicant has applied for a revision of two planned office developments to allow
the construction of two new office buildings.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
Master Street Plan:Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master
Street Plan.It may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements.
along the creek through Taylor Loop Park.The trail is located approximately 500
feet to the west of the property.A Class One bikeway is totally separated from
the automobile lanes.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood 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 "promote vigorous enforcement of
Landscaping and Excavating ordinances".This may affect the application in
relation to the height of retaining walls,and screening and buffering aspects of
surrounding properties.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.The plan submitted does not provide for the minimum 25-foot landscape
buffer along the western perimeter.The 15-foot access easement cannot
count towards this requirement.The plan submitted does not provide for the
15-foot landscape buffer minimum along Magnolia Drive.A portion of the
proposed parking lot encroaches into the required 40-foot landscape buffer
along Highway 10.These are requirements of the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District.
3.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the
sites northern,eastern,and western perimeters of the site;next to the
residentially zoned property.
4.In addition to the proposed interior landscaping,a small amount of building
landscaping between the proposed parking areas and buildings (or in the
general area)will be required.
5.Berming is encouraged along the scenic Highway 10 corridor.
6.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
7.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
8.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff stated the indicated site plan
did not meet the typically minimum requirements of the Highway 10 Design
Overlay District with regard to front landscape strip,building setback and
buffering.Staff also noted the proposed dumpster was located adjacent to the
residentially zoned property and adjacent to the proposed public right-of-way.
Staff requested the dumpster be relocated.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated sidewalks would be
required per the Master Street Plan along the property frontage.Staff also stated
the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the areas set aside for
buffers and landscaping did not comply with the minimum ordinance
requirements.Staff also stated the plan submitted did not provide for the 15-foot
minimum landscape buffer along Magnolia Drive.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a desire to redevelop the site with reduced standards than typically
required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The applicant has
indicated a reduced front landscape strip,reduced front building line and a
reduced street buffer along Magnolia Terrace.The applicant is proposing to
provide additional landscaped areas to offset encroachments and enhance
plantings in the provided landscaped areas.The applicant has indicated the
proposed parking along Highway 10 at the western end of the development
encroaches into the landscaped area by approximately 1080 square feet.The
applicant has indicated additional landscaped areas will be provided totaling
1448 square feet.The applicant has also indicated a 10-foot landscape strip
along Magnolia Drive on both proposed Lots 1 and 2.
The applicant's revised site plan indicates a portion of the building located on Lot
1 will be constructed within the 100-foot building setback.The applicant has
indicated building setbacks and buffer areas along the northern and western
7
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
perimeters of the site complying with the typical minimum requirements of the
Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The applicant is proposing the construction
of a two story building with access to the second floor in the rear of the site.The
site plan includes the placement of a service drive to the rear and parking for the
second floor uses.The applicant has indicated the encroachment is necessary
due to the shallowness of the lot.The applicant has indicated the building will
contain 30,600 square feet of office and retail space as allowed in the conditional
and accessory uses of the 0-2 zoning district.The typical minimum parking
required for a development as proposed would be 82 parking spaces based on
the square footage proposed for retail uses and square footage proposed for
office uses.The proposed site plan includes the placement of 107 parking
spaces.
The site plan includes two buildings on proposed Lot 2.The applicant has
indicated a two story building containing 12,000 square feet and a single-story
building containing 3,000 square feet.The proposed single story building is
indicated at a 50-foot building setback adjacent to Cantrell Road,which typically
requires a 100-foot building setback.The applicant has indicated the 40-foot
front landscape strip as required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Proposed Lots 2 contains 61 parking spaces.The applicant has indicated the
site will be developed utilizing 0-2,zoning district uses.The ordinance would
typically require 37 parking spaces.The indicated parking is adequate to meet
the typically minimum parking demand.
The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted monument style
commercial development sign located on each of the proposed lots.The
applicant has indicated each sign will be a maximum of ten feet in height and
100 square feet in area.The applicant has indicated building signage will
comply with typical building signage allowed per the zoning ordinance or a
maximum of ten percent of the facade area.
The applicant has indicated each of the proposed lots will contain a dumpster
location.The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be screened on three
sides with a visual screening to best blend into the overall site appearances and
be as visually appealing as possible.The applicant has indicated potential
materials are brick,split-faced block or wood.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant has not met the
minimum requirements of the Highway 10 Deign Overlay District with regard to
building setback or landscaped areas.Staff feels the integrity of the Design
Overlay should be maintained and therefore is not supportive of the applicant's
request as proposed.Additionally,staff does not support the applicant's request
to utilize the ground floor of the 30,600 square foot building on Lot 1 for unlimited
conditional uses and accessory sues listed in 0-2.This would potentially create
a commercial strip building.
8
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5817-A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 November 4,2005,requesting the item be deferred to the
January 5,2006,Public Hearing.Staff stated the applicant had indicated additional
time was necessary to meet with staff and the neighborhood to resolve outstanding
issues and concerns.Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's request.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver for the late deferral request.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for Deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
9
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:LU05-18-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:West of Bowman Road,south of 36"Street
Retiuest:Suburban Office to Low Density Residential
Source:Pat McGetrick
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Suburban
Office to Low Density Residential.Low Density Residential represents a broad
range of housing types including single-family attached,single family detached,
duplex,townhomes,multi-family and patio or garden homes.Any combination of
these and possibly other housing types provided that the density is between six
and ten dwelling units per acre.A Planned Residential District has been applied
for to construct a zero lot-line single-family subdivision of 57 homes.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the remaining suburban office designate area to the
south.With this change,the resulting Land Use Plan change would be for 17.1
acres.It is thought that the additional area would make the boundaries more
logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property requesting the change is currently zoned '0-2'Office and
Institutional and is twelve acres +in size.To the north,south,east and west the
land is zoned 'R-2'Single Family.To the south is a horse farm and home.To
the north are several homes and a non-conforming family business.To the
southeast are single family homes and a non-conforming business.To the
northeast and west is primarily vacant and wooded.To the far northeast is a new
church complex —Church of Rock Creek.This is a developing section of the City
near the current City Limits.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
July 20,2004,A change was made from Mixed Use to Mixed Office Commercial
along the north side of 36"Street between Bowman Road and 1-430 —just east
of the site.This change was made as a result of a re-zoning request for office
zoning.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-18-02
April 6,2004,A change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office at the
southeast corner of Kanis and Pride Valley —over a mile to the northwest of the
site.This change was for the redevelopment of a structure for an office use.
February 4,2003,A change was made from Multifamily to Mixed Office
Commercial south of Brodie Creek west of 1-430 —just to the east of the site.
This change was made to incorporate all the land south of Brodie Creek into one
large proposal for a shopping center development.
January 7,2003,A Change was made from Office to Commercial at Colonel
Glenn and Lawson Roads —a mile to the south of the site.This change was
made for the redevelopment and expansion of a non-residential site.
August 20,2002,A change was made from Low Density Residential to
Multifamily at Cooper Orbit and Capital Lakes Blvd —over a mile to the northwest
of the site.This change was made to accommodate a planned development for
apartments.
July 3,2001,A change was made from Low Density Residential,Mixed Office
Commercial,and Neighborhood Commercial to Single Family —to the northwest
of the site.This change was made to change the proposed 'Brodie Creek New
Towne'o the 'Woodlands Edge'esidential subdivision.
September 19,2000,A change was made from Mixed Office Commercial to Low
Density Residential —to the east and northeast of the site.This change was
made to accommodate a church complex planned development and other future
developments.
The adopted Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use to the northeast and Mixed Office
Commercial to the southeast.To the north is Suburban Office with Low Density
Residential to the north and northwest.Brodie Creek is shown for Park Open
Space,and is the southern boundary for the amendment application area.
Beyond the creek the Plan shows Single Family use.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Bowman Road and 36'"Street are both shown as a Minor Arterials on the plan.
Minor Arterial's primary purpose is to move vehicles and goods around and
through the urban area.Generally these roads provide a network at an interval
of around one mile.Neither roadway is built to standard in this area and there
are no funds committed for the construction of either.As the area develops,
additional right-of-way will be required for both roads.Widening to Master Street
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-18-02
Plan standards is a likely requirement with future development of land adjacent to
these roads.
BICYCLE PLAN:
The Little Rock Bike Plan proposes a Class 2 Bike route along Bowman Road.A
Class 2 route has a designated part of the paved roadway for bicycle use.The
Plan proposes a Class 1 Bike route along Brodie Creek.A Class 1 route is a
separate paved path for the sole use of bicycles.
PARKS:
The application area is within the West Central Parks Planning Area.The Little
Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommends using the existing
floodplains to connect recreation area within this district.Brodie Creek along the
south and west boundary of the amendment area is such a floodplain.This
application area is within a 'Deficit Area'dentified by the Parks and Recreation
Plan.There will be a need to identify open space and recreational opportunities
in this area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The Plan change area is near the current City Limits in an area that has been
within the City for several decades.Little to no development has occurred until
recent years.Residential,single-family,development has been approaching
from the north.First the Brodie Creek subdivision and then the Woodlands Edge
subdivision have been adding homes west of Bowman Road from Kanis south
toward this area.To the south at the Colonel Glenn Road and l-430 interchange
commercial and office development has started in the last few years.Along
36'treet,Church at Rock Creek has started a large multiple use complex.
During the last decade the areas east of Bowman Road at 36'"Street have
become less and less residential on the City Land Use Plan.Currently that area
south of 36"Street is Mixed Office and Commercial and the area north of 36'"
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-18-02
Street is Mixed Use.But the actual development has not changed with the
exception of the Church at Rock Creek.There are hundreds of acres of Mixed
Office Commercial,Commercial,Office and Suburban Office shown on the Plan
along I-430 from the Shackleford interchange to south of the Colonel Glenn Road
interchange,which are yet to develop.
There are two large shopping centers,incorporating some of the design ideas
from 'town centers',proposed at both Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn
Road.To date only a few auto dealerships,a movie theater,a couple of office
showroom developments,a couple motels and a scattering of retail have actually
been built.Most of the areas shown for non-residential use have been zoned
though a majority is still to be developed.
Single-family development has been moving south of Kanis over the last decade,
with Cherry Creek,Brodie Creek and now Woodlands Edge Subdivisions
developing most of the Panther Creek and now Brodie Creek watersheds.This
development is moving toward the application area from the north and northwest.
36'"Street,which is to be the north boundary of the proposed Planned
Development,will be the connection to this growing single-family neighborhood.
As noted the section of Little Rock from Kanis Road south of Colonel Glenn Road
had not seen development until the last few years.Significant zoning had been
put into place during the 1980s with modifications through the 1990s.Most of the
changes in the 1990s increased the non-residential uses and decreased the
residential.Development of single family has slowly moved south from Kanis
Road and recently started south of the change area around David 0 Dodd and
Stagecoach Roads.Commercial and office activity has started at the Colonel
Glenn —1430 interchange.There remains significant undeveloped land for single
family,commercial and office in the general area.
There is no multifamily zoning in this general area,though the Land Use Plan
shows two large areas.Both of these areas are current mobile home parks.
There is some Low Density Multifamily on the Plan,but not zoned,generally to
the west and northwest of the application area.The Plan shows a large
Park/Open Space area to the south of the application,which is Brodie Creek.
This section of Brodie Creek transverses a horse farm,thus the creek is a
channel through pastureland.It does not provide a visual buffer.As noted
above,this is a recreation deficit area based on the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.Thus the proposed open space corridor along Brodie Creek should be
preserved and other recreational options should be developed in the area.
With Single Family proposed south of the creek,residential north of the creek
would be appropriate.The introduction of differing residential types is a positive
for the area.The zoning application is for zero-lot line homes.At this time only
larger lot single family detached is being built in the area,with some moderate
size single-family subdivisions to the south.The proposed change returns some
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-18-02
of the lost potential residential units from changes in the 1990s,while leaving
abundant undeveloped areas of office type uses in the general vicinity.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Brodie Creek,
John Barrow,and Sandpiper.Staff has received one neutral comment from an
area resident.None of the Neighborhood Associations contact have indicated a
position to the City on the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant requested the item be deferred to January 5,2006 prior to the
meeting.The Commission placed this item on the consent agenda for deferral.
By a vote of 9 for,0 against,and 2 absent the consent agenda was approved.
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:12.1 FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
NAME:Thomas Park Estates Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:Located on the Southwest corner of West 36'"Street and
South Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Thomas and Thomas
P.O.Box 241 803
Little Rock,AR 72223
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:12.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:54 FT.NEW STREET:1,750 LF
CURRENT ZONING:0-2,With a height limit condition
ALLOWED USES:Office and Institutional Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Zero Lot Line Single-family
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:The applicant is requesting an in-lieu
contribution for the street construction of West 36"Street.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.18,813 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 18,
2003,rezoned this site from R-2,Single-family to 0-2,with conditions (a maximum
building height not to exceed three stories).
The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit on October
31,1995,for a church development on the site.The church development never took
place and the Conditional Use Permit expired.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
A.P ROPOSAL/REQ U EST:
The applicant is proposing the development of 12.7 acres located at the
Southwest corner of West 36'"Street and Bowman Road.The applicant has
indicated the owner is proposing to develop 54 zero lot line single-family lots
through a Planned Residential Development.The applicant has indicated lots
primarily of 40-feet by 110-feet or 4,400 square feet.Corner lots within the
development will be 75-feet by 110-feet or 8,250 square feet.The development
will be constructed in a single phase and the lots will be developed with a 45-foot
gated private access and utility easement.Access to the development will be
from Bowman Road and no access is planned from West 36'"Street.The
applicant has indicated four tracts of open space to be retained by the
Homeowners Association as open space and park areas.
The proposed site plan indicates three typical housing footprints for potential
development of the lots.House Typical A indicates a single story footprint of
1,400 square feet or a two story structure containing 3,240 square feet.House
Typical B indicates a building footprint of 1,840 square feet with a two story
structure of 4,120 square feet.House Typical C indicates a building footprint of
2,100 square feet with a two story unit containing 4,640 square feet.The
applicant has indicated each of the units will be rear loaded with a two car
garage.The applicant has indicated a 30-foot access and utility easement
located along the rear lot lines.
The applicant has indicated a six-foot fence will be placed around the perimeter
of the proposed development.Fencing within the required building setback along
West 36'treet is desired to separate the proposed homes from the adjoining
roadways.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two single-family residences located at the northeast corner of
the property,with the remainder of the property being undeveloped and partially
wooded.The western portion of the site is located in the floodplain.The uses in
the area are primarily residential uses.There is a horse farm located south of
the site.
Bowman Road is a two lane road with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalk
in place.West 36'"Street along the northern boundary of the property has not
been constructed.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The John Barrow 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.This property is traversed by the proposed re-alignment of Bowman Road
and the proposed extension of 36th Street.The proposed right-of-way
dedication appears sufficient as shown on the plans.Bowman Road is
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of
right-of-way 45 feet from proposed centerline will be required.36th Street is
classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of
right-of-way 45 feet from proposed centerline will be required.At
intersection dedicate 62 feet of right-of-way to accommodate dual left turn
lanes as required by Master Street Plan on both Bowman Rd and 36th
Street.
2.A 75 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the proposed
location of the intersection of Bowman Road and 36th Street.
3.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to 36th Street including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.Pay in-lieu for one-half street
improvement to Bowman Road including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.The minimum Finish Floor elevation of the lots in the 100-year floodplain is
required to be shown on plat and grading plans.
5.A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
6.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
7.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
8.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
9.Resubmit plans showing proposed re-alignment of 36th and Bowman to
create a 90-degree (closer to 90 degrees)intersection so signalization will
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
not be a problem in the future.
10.No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims
for operations on private property.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the proposed development.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at
688-1414 for additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.Care must be taken to protect
the existing 24-inch waterline crossing this property.Construction of permanent
facilities including patios in this easement will not be allowed.Fences without
foundations,driveways and parking areas will be allowed.A water main
extension to each lot will be required.A Capital Investment Charge based on the
size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered
connections off the private fire system.Please submit two copies of the plans for
the private fire line to Central Arkansas Water for review.Contact Central
Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of private fire line.Approval
of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little
Rock Fire Department is required.This development will have minor impact on
the existing water distribution system.Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.r~
CATA:The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The
applicant has applied for a Planned Residential District for a zero lot-line
residential subdivision.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a
separate item on this agenda (LU05-18-02).
Master Street Plan:Both Bowman Road and 36"Street are shown as Minor
Arterials on the Master Street Plan.A proposed collector extends from 36"
Street,west of Bowman Road and follows Brodie Creek to the north and west
toward the Woodlands Edge residential development.These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements.
Bowman Road.A Class 2 route has a designated part of the paved roadway for
bicycle use.The Plan proposes a Class 1 Bike Route along Brodie Creek.A
Class 1 route is a separate paved path for the sole use of bicycles.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~Landeca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff questioned if the development
would utilize West 36'treet.Mr.McGetrick stated the development would not
access West 36"Street and the only access would be from Bowman Road.Staff
also questioned any proposed fencing.Mr.McGetrick stated he would note
fencing on the revised site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the developers would be
required to construct West 36'"Street and Bowman Road.Mr.McGetrick stated
the developers were requesting an in-lieu contribution rather than street
construction.Mr.McGetrick stated he would follow up with staff on this issue.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYS IS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing some of the
issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The
applicant has provided fencing on the proposed site plan.The applicant has
indicated an eight-foot brick and iron fence will be constructed around the
perimeter of the site and a gate provided at the entrance along Bowman Road.
The applicant has revised the site plan to clearly indicate there is no access to
West 36'"Street.The applicant has provided a turn-around along the western
perimeter to allow an escape from the development other than traveling the
entirety of the development along the rear access alley.
The applicant has indicated 1 acre of common open space area.The planned
development ordinance requires 10 to 15 percent of the site be developed as
common open space area.The site contains 12.85 acres which would require
1.2 to 1.9 acres to be set aside as common open space.Staff would recommend
the applicant provide additional common open space to meet the minimum
requirement of the ordinance.The ordinance also requires a minimum of 500
square feet of usable private open space per unit.The applicant has indicated
each of the lots will contain the minimum private open space requirement.
The applicant is proposing the development of this 12.85 acre tract with
54 single-family zero lot line homes.The applicant has indicated an overall
density of 4.2 units per acre;consistent with single-family development.
The applicant is proposing the development with a single gated access point to
Bowman Road.The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for West 36'"
Street.The applicant's entrance is located very near the intersection of West
36'"Street and Bowman Road,two principal arterial roadways.Staff has
concerns with the placement of the entrance to the proposed subdivision at this
location.Based on potential traffic volume in the area,staff feels the location
would generate traffic conflicts and safety concerns.Staff would recommend the
applicant construct West 36"Street and take access from this roadway.Staff
feels with the entrance located on West 36'"Street,sufficient spacing could be
obtained to allow the future homeowners easy ingress and egress from the
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6049-B
proposed subdivision.Although staff is supportive of the development of the site
with residential housing,staff is not supportive of the applicant's indicated
access.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item stating the applicant submitted a request
dated November 8,2005,requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without
prejudice.Staff stated the withdrawal request would require a waiver of the By-laws
due to the late withdrawal request on the part of the applicant.Staff stated they were
supportive of the By-law waiver for the withdrawal request.
There was no further discussion of the item.A motion was made to approve the By-law
waiver for the late withdrawal request.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes
and 2 absent.The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent
Agenda for Withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
NAME:Breshears Revised Short-form PD-C
LOCATION:Located at 600 N.Tyler Street
DEVELOPER:
Nancy Johnson
Poncho's Villa Restaurant
600 North Tyler Street
Little Rock,AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.14 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-C
ALLOWED USES:Restaurant with a mixture of 36 seats;a catering-commercial use;
C-1 permitted uses.
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-C
PROPOSED USE:Revision to the PCD to allow extended hours of operation and allow
additional seating within the existing building
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 15,1998,the City of Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance
No.17,820,rezoning the site from R-3,Single-family to PD-C.Ordinance No.17,821,
which was also approved on September 15,1998,deferred the right-of-way dedication
on Tyler Street and Woodlawn Avenue for five years.
The approved PD-C allowed the continuing use of the building as a deli/restaurant with
seating for a maximum of 36 persons,allowing seating on a proposed 20 foot by 17 foot
deck with proper screening and no outside speakers.C-1 permitted uses were
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
approved as alternative uses.The hours of operation were from 11:00 am to 6:30 pm
Monday through Saturday.
On February 16,1999,the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.
17,933,approving two (2)minor revisions to the previously approved PD-C.The
applicant was allowed to add "catering-commercial"as a permitted use of the property,
in conjunction with the approved restaurant use.The applicant indicated there would be
no expansion of the existing kitchen facility or additional employees required.There
would also be no changes to the previously approved site plan.
The applicant also requested a modification to the hours of operation.The applicant
requested the daily hours of operation to be 10:30 am to 6:30 pm,Monday through
Saturday.The applicant indicated the delivery vehicle for the catering operation would
be a mini-van,the restaurant owner/manager's personal vehicle,which he would drive
to the restaurant daily.
On May 17,2001,staff approved a revision to the hours of operation allowing a
restaurant to be open from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm.
The applicant proposed to revise the previously approved PD-C and was scheduled to
be heard before the Little Rock Planning Commission on February 20,2003.The
applicant withdrew his request prior to the Public Hearing.The request was to allow
construction of a second structure on the site near the western property line adjacent to
the alley.The applicant proposed to use the building as a contractor's storage shed.
The applicant was not proposing any plumbing to be located in the storage building.
On April 4,2003,staff rescinded their approval of the extended hours of operation.On
June 12,2003,the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to extend the
hours of operation for the site.The requested hours for the site were to be as approved
at staff level on May 17,2001.The applicant proposed the hours of operation to be
from 'IO:30 am to 9:00 pm,Monday through Saturday.The applicant indicated all other
terms of the PD-C would remain in effect.The applicant appealed the Planning
Commission's recommendation of denial to the Board of Directors.The Little Rock
Board of Directors also denied this request at their July 15,2003,public hearing.
A.P ROPOSAL/R EQ U EST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved PD-C to allow the
hours of operation to be extended and to increase the number of allowable seats,
The applicant is requesting the closing hour to be extended from 6:30 pm to
9:00 pm remaining Monday through Saturday.The applicant is also requesting
to increase the number of seats from 36 seats to 56 seats.
Poncho's Villa Restaurant is the current lessor of the property.The applicant has
indicated the property was formerly occupied by Cafe Percito,which according to
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
the applicant operated from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm.The applicant has indicated
the hours of operation were curtailed and the applicant is trying to avoid being
penalized for the conduct of the previous operator.The applicant states to their
understanding,the primary complaints against Cafe Percito were noise,alcohol,
condition of the structure,live music and entertainment,outside speakers with
amplified noise,drunken late-night encounters,and late-hour parties.The
applicant has indicated these problems have been eliminated and will not be
permitted to exist in the future.The applicant states Poncho's does not serve
beer or alcohol and will not permit them to be brought on the premises.
The applicant states Poncho's Villa Restaurant's desire is to fill a legitimate need
in the neighborhood.The applicant has indicated restaurants in residential
neighborhoods have not been uncommon for many years in the Heights and
Hillcrest areas.Repairs to the building were conducted by the applicant to "bring
the building up to code".The applicant has also indicated they will police the
area daily to remove any litter and they will encourage customers to not park in
areas that will interfere with the residents parking.The applicant states
discussions have taken place with the school located across North Tyler Street
and a near-by church to allow customers to utilize their parking facilities when
there are not activities taking place at each of these facilities.
The applicant has indicated the Bill of Assurance is outdated and does not
prohibit the use of the site as proposed.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a one-story 1,373 square foot frame commercial building with a
16 foot by 10 foot deck on the rear corner.There are single-family residences to
the north,west and south.Fairpark Elementary School is located to the east,
across Tyler Street.There is a church located one block west of the site on the
corner of Taylor,Polk and Woodlawn Streets.
There is an existing wood fence running approximately V2 the distance of the
north property line.Woodlawn Street has been constructed with curb and gutter
but no sidewalk adjacent to the site.Tyler Street has not been constructed to
Master Street Plan Standards and has open ditches for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls many
indicating opposition and many indicating support from area residents.The
Hillcrest Residents Associations was notified of the public hearing along with all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who could
be identified,located within 300-feet of the site.
3
November 10,2005
S U BD I V I S ION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
D.ENGINE E R IN G COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Per City of Little Rock Ordinance No.17821 passed on September 15,1998,
a 5-year deferral was granted to this property for dedication of 5 feet of
right-of-way on Tyler Street and Woodlawn Avenue,including a 20 feet radial
dedication at intersection.Since 5 years has passed,the right-of-way must
be dedicated or a second deferral requested from the Board of Directors.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
CATA:The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a revision to the Planned Commercial development to expand
operating hours and dining area.
This is the location of an old (mid 20'"century)commercial structure,which has
been various businesses in the past.The proposal does not have a significant
impact on the Land Use Plan,which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan:Tyler and Woodlawn Streets are shown as a Local Streets
on the Master Street.These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
r"'"""r""s'"".'""'""""'*"
It is a Class Three bikeway,which shares the pavement with the automobiles
and only has special signage designating the route.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan.Most fitting goal is in
the Zoning and Lad Use section that states,"The City's land use and zoning
policies should be enforces to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale."
Further definition of the goal states,"The scale,density,and
commercial/residential mix of Hillcrest were conceived and built long before the
existence of the post-World War II suburb and prior to the emergence of modern
zoning and lad use practices.The look and feel of its neighborhoods and
commercial centers results from an earlier paradigm of development that ranked
the pedestrian over the car,mixed land use over separated uses and proximity
over sprawl.
~Landsca e:Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is
required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented an overview of the proposed
request to the Committee members present.Staff stated there were few
outstanding technical issues associated with the proposed request.There was
no further discussion of the item and the Committee then forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
There were no additional items necessary to complete the review process raised
at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant is
requesting to extend the hours of operation and the number of allowed seats for
the site located at 600 North Tyler Street.The applicant's request includes
extending the closing hour from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm.The applicant has also
indicated the number of seats are proposed to be increased from 36 seats to
56 seats.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.The original approval,allow for
the reuse of an existing non-residential building as a restaurant/deli with a limited
number of seats.Staff feels with the original approval the primary users of the
business were neighborhood residents.With the proposed expansion of the
seating capacity,the use is no longer a neighborhood establishment and
becomes a restaurant drawing from areas outside the neighborhood.Drawing of
customers from outside the neighborhood creates a parking concern.The site
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
does not contain any on-site parking and is served by on street parking only.
Without parking available and customers driving to the site,the number of
vehicles accessing the site creates a hardship on the existing residents,many
with single car drives and also trying to utilize street parking.Typically a
restaurant use is required to provide on-site parking at a rate of one space per
100 square feet of gross floor area.The building contains approximately
1550 square feet of gross floor area,which would typically require the placement
of 15 on-site parking spaces.As indicated,no on-site parking is provided or
proposed.
In addition,the original approval limited the hours of operation to hours,which
typically did not interfere with the surrounding residents.The original closing was
6:30 pm,the time when most residents are arriving home from work.Staff feels
by increasing the hours of operation until 9:00 pm this will infringe into the
residents "quiet time"and quality of life.
As previously stated,staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.Staff feels
the proposed use is too intense for the site.Staff feels the hours of operation
should remain as previously approved and the number of seats remain as was
previously approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVE M B E R 1 0,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request.
Mr.Sam Laser addressed the Commission on the merits of the request.He stated the
applicant was a hard working person who had been misguided by staff and the owner.
He stated the applicant was told prior to leasing the building the hours of operation were
from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm six days per week.He stated the applicant had invested a
great deal of her own money in the building restoring the site and bringing the building
up to code.
Ms.Jane Krutz addressed the Commission in support of the request.She stated the
site had historically been used as a business since construction.She stated part of the
charm of the neighborhood was the small businesses and residential homes all located
in close proximity.She stated the school was now a pre-k,which reduced the amount
of traffic to the area.Ms.Krutz stated she felt the development an asset to the
community and allowed the neighborhood a good clean business to enjoy.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
Mr.Brad Reed addressed the Commission in support of the request.He stated he
walked his dog in the area and did not feel there was a traffic problem in the area.He
stated the restaurant was a high quality restaurant and reasonably priced.He stated he
did not feel the restaurant was a negative on the neighborhood.
Ms.Johnson stated she had made improvements to the building totaling $30,000.She
stated if the restaurant were forced to close at 6:30 she would lose her "dinner run".
She stated without the "dinner run"she would not be able to meet her overhead.
Mr.Laser stated the site was zoned in 1998 for a deli.He stated later a restaurant was
allowed to locate on the site,which was not neighborhood friendly.He stated the current
business did not the problems with the neighborhood.He stated the problems were
with the previous tenant.
Ms.Amanda Prince addressed the Commission in opposition.She stated her home
was located at 501 N.Tyler Street.She stated she went home for lunch and parking
was a problem.She stated cars were double parked on Woodlawn Street and
encroaching into the intersection.She stated with the way cars parked it was
impossible to see around the cars and one was forced to enter the intersection causing
a traffic concern.She stated the restaurant did cause a problem in the neighborhood.
She stated the dinner hour interfered with the resident's quiet time.
Ms.Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the development did not comply with the City's minimum ordinance
requirements with regard to parking and hours of operation.She stated the site was
granted an extension of the hours of operation and the extended hours did not work with
the neighborhood.She stated with the expanded seating the parking problem would
only be increased.
Mr.Joe Justus addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated his home was located at 420 N.Tyler Street.He stated the hours and seating
were a problem for the neighborhood.
Ms.Sandi Formica addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated her home was directly across the street from the restaurant.She stated the
hours of operation and the number of seats were creating a hardship on area residents.
She stated she felt the applicant should be required to immediately comply with the
previous approval.She stated the property values in the area had increased from
$60,000 to $100,000 with minimal improvements.She stated with the restaurant she
felt property values would be decreased.She stated she was the most impacted since
she lived next door to the business.
Mr.James Robinette addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request
He stated his home was located at 500 N.Tyler Street.He questioned if the
Commissioners had received an e-mail he sent earlier in the day.He stated a brief
7
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6481-D
overview of the power point related to the impact traffic would have on the
neighborhood.He stated the area was not appropriate for a commercial development
of the intensity being proposed.He stated the 56 seats increased the commercial
aspect of the development.He stated the applicant had moved from a four-lane
roadway in North Little Rock to this quiet residential neighborhood.He stated with the
restaurant the residents of the area were not able to fully utilize their property.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the extended
hours of operation and the increased number of seats.The Commission questioned
Ms.Johnson as to if the number of seats was critical to her business.Ms.Nancy
Johnson stated it was important she have the number of seats and the hours of
operation to meet her overhead.The Commission questioned where the break down
occurred concerning the hours of operation.Staff stated the zoning enforcement desk
did not fully review the files and did not see the letter,which resend the hours of
operation nor the file,which denied the extended hours by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Directors previously.Staff stated this was an oversight and once the
oversight was caught Ms.Johnson was issued a notice immediately.Staff stated there
was no more than one week between the issuance of the privilege license and the
notice of violation.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed.The motion failed by a vote of
3 ayes,6 noes and 2 absent.
8
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
NAME:Fox Ridge at Chenal Revised PD-R
LOCATION:Located on the Northwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal
Parkway
DEVELOPER:
Saline Investment Group
9625 Rowlett Drive
North Little Rock,AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:7.4 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
ALLOWED USES:Assisted Living Facility
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Assisted Living Facility —increased building height
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:A variance request to allow advanced grading
of the site per Section 29-186(b).
BACKGROUND:
On December 4,2003,the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a request to
allow the development of a two-story elderly housing assisted living facility on this
9.41 acres.The units would each contain a single bedroom and bath.There was a
common dining room,commercial kitchen,commercial laundry facility,a media room
with theater style seating,library and arts and crafts center.The facility would also
contain a small laundry facility for residents or their families to wash their delicate
clothing.The facility was to contain 130 rooms.The applicant indicated 91 parking
spaces on the site plan.The applicant indicated there would be no more than
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
18 employees working at any given time.The applicant stated residents of the facility
did not drive;a private bus would pick up the residents several times during the day in
order to provide access to shopping and services.
The applicant's requested variance for driveway spacing on Chenal Valley Drive was
approved as a part of the overall site development plan.The circular drive would serve
the residents'us and visitor parking.The circular driveway was to be one way and
was to function as one curb cut.The driveway on the west end of the Chenal Valley
Drive frontage would serve mainly the employees and service entrance.The applicant
indicated this would limit the number of trips from the driveway as most employees
would only come and go at the beginning and end of their shift.
A variance request to allow an increased wall height along the northwest corner of the
site was also approved as a part of the overall development plan.The area was to be
buffered to the north by an undisturbed buffer area.The applicant indicated the
increased wall height was necessary to allow the ground level units access to light and
air.
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.19,022 on January 6,2004,
establishing Fox Ridge at Chenal Short-form PD-R.
A.P ROPOSAL/REQ U EST:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow
the originally approved two-story building to be increased to a three-story
building.The applicant has indicated the developers have discovered that
economically the building should go up instead of covering so much land.The
applicant has indicated the revised site plan also reduces the number of allowed
beds from 130 to 106.The applicant has also increased the number of parking
spaces from 91 to 105.The site plan includes the placement of
70 resident/visitor spaces and 35 employee parking spaces.The applicant has
indicated signage will comply with current city ordinance.The signage typically
allowed would be a maximum of eight feet in height and 100 square feet in area.
The applicant has indicated all other features of the development will continue to
apply.The applicant has indicated the units will be constructed as one and two
bedroom units and the facility will have a common dining room,commercial
kitchen,commercial laundry facility,a media room with theater style seating,
library and arts and crafts center.The facility will also contain a small laundry
facility for residents or their families to wash their delicate clothing.
The applicant has indicated the property has not been previously platted and is
not covered by a Bill of Assurance.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The wooded site is currently zoned PD-R.There is a vacant OS zoned tract
located to the north of the site which slopes downward to the north.There is a
vacant C-2 zoned tract located on the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and
Chenal Valley Drive and a large church is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection.Immediately south of the site is a vacant R-2 zoned tract.To the
southwest,new single-family homes are being developed.
At the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Chenal Valley Drive,the median ends
and the parkway becomes a two lane roadway to the north.Future plans include
the development of the divided parkway to continue to Cantrell Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
Margeaux Place,the Bayonne Place and the DuQuesne Place Property Owners
Associations,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:
Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
2.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Terraces and plantings on terraces must comply with Section 29-189 of the
Land Alteration Regulations.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,Capacity Analysis required.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for details and additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
3
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI S I QN
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
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.Please submit two copies of the
plans for the private fire line to Central Arkansas Water for review.Contact
Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of private fire line.
Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division
and Little Rock Fire Department is required.This development will have minor
impact on the existing water distribution system.Proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.The minimum drive width
allowed around the structure is 20-feet.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department
at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
CATA:The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUESfTECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Multi-family for this property.The applicant has applied for
a revision to an existing Planned Unit Residential development for construction of
an assisted living facility for seniors.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:Chenal Valley Drive is shown as a Collector on the Master
Street Plan and is built to standard.This street may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements.
O i C
point.It requires a paved area on both sides of a roadway with a painted stripe
separating the vehicular traffic from the bikeway.These routes may be a smooth
paved shoulder or a section of the paved roadway.Additional signage is
required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance
requirements.
3.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
4.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
5.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request.Staff stated the request was previously approved as an elderly housing
facility,limited to two stories.Staff stated the request was to increase the
building height to a three story building with all other aspects of the previous
approval remaining the same.Staff requested the applicant define the
undisturbed area indicated on the plan.Staff also requested the applicant
provide the total square footage of the building envelope.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated terraces and plantings on
terraces must comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance.Staff also stated the
City's Storm Water Detention Ordinance would apply to the proposed
development.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated areas set aside for buffers
appeared to meet with minimum ordinance requirements.Staff also stated an
irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYS I S:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated all other aspects of the previous approval with regard to services
and amenities of the assisted living facility remain as was previously approved,
The applicant has also indicated the undisturbed portion of the site will remain in
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
the present natural state.The applicant has indicated the building square
footage has been reduced from 105,000 to 100,000 square feet and the number
of units has been decreased from 130 units to 106 units.The applicant has
indicated the units will contain approximately 385 square feet to 505 square feet
with one and two bedroom units.The site plan also includes the placement of
105 parking spaces.The typical minimum parking required for a elderly housing
development would be 0.5 parking spaces per unit;or 53 parking spaces.
The applicant has indicated large areas of the site to remain as undistributed.
The applicant is requesting two areas near the front of the development be
cleared of underbrush to increase aesthetics,visibility and security.The two
areas are located along the eastern perimeter near the intersection of Chenal
Valley Drive and Chenal Parkway and along the western perimeter adjacent to
the proposed parking lot.Staff is supportive of this request.Staff is agrees with
the applicant that selective clearing of underbrush will enhance the overall
appearance of the development and provide a park like setting in this area.
The developer is requesting a variance to allow advanced grading of the site
prior to issuance of a building permit (Section 29-186(b)).The applicant has
indicated site development would begin after approval of the requested rezoning
by the Board of Directors but prior to submission of plans for a building permit.
According to the applicant,the site has approximately 40,000 CY of material that
must be hauled off-site.The applicant has indicated if site grading could begin
after Board of Directors approval,another construction project in the vicinity
requiring fill could take all of the excess material.
The applicant has indicated the developer has obtained a license from the State
for this Level II assisted living facility.This license requires that the developer
must have footings completed before April 15,2006.According to the applicant,
if required to wait until a building permit has been obtained,this deadline will be
very difficult.The applicant has indicated the owner has an architectural firm on
board and they have begun construction documents.If requested,when a
grading permit is issued,the applicant will submit architectural plans to date.The
applicant has stated the architects believe they will complete their plans after the
first of January.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to revise the previously approved
PD-R.The applicant is requesting to increase the overall building height from a
2 story building to a 3 story building;not to exceed 65-feet in height.The
development standards of the planned unit development criteria require a
minimum of 10 to 15 percent of the gross planned residential district area be
designated as common usable open space.The site contains large areas within
the proposed development as common open space areas as well as large areas
of undistributed buffers.In staff's opinion the applicant has adequately
addressed the common open space requirement of the ordinance.
6
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7530-A
To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.Staff feels the proposed revision to the PD-R should have
minimal impact on the adjoining properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to compliance with
the conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow advanced grading
of the site per Section 29-186(b).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEM B ER 10,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the applicant's request subject to compliance with the
conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the agenda staff
report.Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request to
allow advanced grading of the site per Section 29-186(b).
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
NAME:Mosley Revised Short-form PD-C
LOCATION:Located at 14309 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Steve Mosley
14309 Kanis Road
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:1.11 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-C
ALLOWED USES:Dog Kennel and grooming facility
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-C
PROPOSED USE:Dog Kennel and grooming facility —increase the number of kennel
spaces from 30 to 70 kennel spaces
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 26,2004,the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request to allow
the redevelopment of the site as a dog kennel and grooming facility.The applicant
indicated there would be approximately 30 stalls within the enclosed building.The
applicant indicated there would be no outdoor runs or kennels located on the site.The
proposed hours of operation were from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm seven days per week.
The applicant did not propose any exterior modifications to the site.All existing parking
was to be maintained and no new on-site paved areas would be added.The applicant
indicated one-half street improvements would be put in place for an existing 40-foot
right-of-way located along the eastern property line.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.19,203 on October 5,2004,
rezoning this site from R-2,Single-family to PD-C.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to increase the number of kennel spaces allowed
on the site.The previously approval allow for approximately 30 kennel stalls all
contained within the existing structure.The applicant is requesting the total
number be increased to 70 kennel stalls.The previous approval also did not
allow for outdoor runs or kennels and all dogs were to be leashed for outdoor
activities.The applicant is requesting the placement of six pens located along
the southwest portion of the site for outdoor activities.The applicant has
indicated the dogs will be left alone in these areas for 20 to 30 minutes to allow
outdoor activities and exercise for the dogs.The applicant has also proposed an
area of covered kennels along the rear of the building extending most of the
length of the structure.
The applicant has indicated all other provisions of the PD-C remain in effect.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located outside the City limits but within the City's Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction.The site contains a recently renovated industrial building,
the former FMC manufacturing company.South of the site is an area currently
zoned MF-6 which once housed several manufactured homes;this site is now
vacant with the exception of one unit.
North of the site are single-family homes along with a non-conforming retail shop.
North and west of the site are vacant R-2,Single-family zoned properties.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received two informational phone calls from area
residents.The Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association along with all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents located within
300-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
Right-of-way was never dedicated as conditioned by previous replatting,
Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Right-of-way was never dedicated as conditioned by previous replatting,the
proposed land use would classify the undeveloped road to the south on the
Master Street Plan as a commercial street.Dedication of right-of-way 30 feet
from centerline will be required.
3.Radial dedication of right-of-way at undeveloped road to the south and Kanis
Road was never dedicated as conditioned by previous replatting,30 foot
radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Kanis and
undeveloped,platted street.
4.The existing driveway should be relocated west to the shared drive location
when Master Street Plan improvements occur.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary.
EntercnEr:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: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 992-2431 if you would like to discuss
backflow prevention requirements for this project.
Fire De artment:Approved as submitted.
Count Plannin:Approved as submitted.
CATA:The site is not located near a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The
applicant has applied for a revision to a Planned Commercial Development for
the expansion of a kennel.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
This site was the subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment in August 2004 for this
original use and was reviewed by the Planning Commission at that time.The
request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and is built to a two-lane section at this time.These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
of Kanis Road.It is approximately one-quarter mile from the application.It is a
Class Three bikeway,which shares the pavement with the automobiles and only
has special signage designating the route.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.Because of the size of the building expansion proposed,an upgrade in
landscaping in the amount of thirty-one percent (31 %)toward compliance
with the landscape ordinance will be required.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the request was an
enforcement case.Staff stated the Commission approved a development in
August 2004,to allow an existing building to be utilized as a grooming and
boarding facility.Staff stated the total number of kennel spaces approved was
30 spaces with no outdoor activity.Staff stated the site currently contained
70 kennel spaces as well as outdoor runs and pens.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated right-of-way was not
dedicated as required by the previous approval for the undeveloped roadway to
the east and for Kanis Road.Staff also stated the existing driveway should be
relocated to the west and be a shared driveway at the time Kanis Road
improvements are constructed.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated landscaping upgrades
would be required based on the building expansion which had been completed.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
There were few outstanding issues associated with the proposed request raised
at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated dedication of right-of-way will be provided per Public Works comments.
The applicant has also indicated landscaped areas currently located on the site.
The landscaped areas include a small upgrade based on the building
construction but do not include the total 31%upgrade required.
The applicant is proposing to increase the number of kennel spaces allowed on
the site from 30 kennel stalls,all contained within the existing structure,to
70 kennel stalls.The applicant is also requesting the placement of six pens
located along the southwest portion of the site for outdoor activities.The
applicant has indicated the dogs will be left alone in these areas for 20 to
30 minutes to allow outdoor activities and exercise for the dogs.The applicant is
also requesting an area of outdoor runs and covered kennels along the rear of
the building,extending most of the length of the structure.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request.The original approval allow for
a grooming facility and a limited number of kennel stalls.Staff felt this would be
a low volume,low traffic generation business and an acceptable reuse of a
former industrial building.Staff feels the current proposal is too intense for the
area.The proposed operation is somewhat similar to an animal pound or kennel,
a public or private facility including outside runs for enclosure of animals,
especially stray or unlicensed pets or for pets being boarded for short periods of
time.The number of kennels being proposed is similar to the number of stalls
available at the City's kennel or the Pulaski County Humane Society.This use is
a by-right use in the 1-2 zoning district and as a conditional use in the C-4 zoning
district.Staff does not feel this location is an appropriate location for an intense
commercial or industrial use as being proposed.The use as proposed will
negatively impact the viability of developing single-family homes on the nearby
R-2 zoned properties.Staff feels the development should remain as was
previously approved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
5
C
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7701-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present represent the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the
request.
Mr.McGetrick stated the applicant had taken an abandoned industrial building and
converted the building into a kennel.He stated when the applicant began the
renovations he discovered there was room for 70 stalls.He stated the development
should in no way be compared to the pound or the Humane Society.He stated the
units all had television sets for the animals and each was decorated with a theme.He
stated the development was never to have grooming as the primary service.He stated
grooming was an activity provided prior to the animals being picked up by their owners.
Mr.McGetrick stated there were six pens for outdoor activities.He stated the animals
were allowed to go outdoors to potty and were then returned to their stalls.He stated
the animals were taken out three times per day and were kept in a pen,which had a
six-foot fence.He stated no animal was left outdoors overnight and the outdoor runs
were closed at night.He stated the potty areas were cleaned often.He stated the
waste was bagged and disposed of properly.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
previous application and approval.The Commission stated staff would not have
supported the original application if the request would have been for 70 animals.The
applicant stated the number was a miscommunication.He stated based on the size of
the building 30 animals would not cash flow the business.There was a question as to if
approved would the use be limited to the current owner.The applicant agreed this
would not be a transferable use.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended.The motion failed by a vote of
4 ayes,5 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:16 F I LE NO.:LU05-29-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Barrett Planning District
Location:Northwest corner of Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road
Receueat:Single Family to Suburban Office
Source:Ed Willis,Agent
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Amendment in the Barrett Planning District from Single Family to
Suburban Office.Suburban Office represents 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.A Planned Office District
has been applied for to allow quiet professional office use —photo studio and
office.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to include the remaining Single Family designate area to the
east.With this change,the resulting land use plan change would be for 3.75
acres.It is thought that the additional area would make the boundaries more
logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The application area is vacant,currently zoned R2,Single Family and is 3.75
acres s in size.To the north,south,east and west all the surrounding area is
zoned R2,Single Family.To the east and southeast are public school,Joe T
Robinson Elementary,Middle and High School.To the west is a non-conforming
auto repair facility.To the south is vacant and developing single family.To the
north is rural and residential development.This area is adjacent but outside the
City Limits.It remains primarily rural in nature.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
January 4,2004,A change was made from Single Family and Suburban Office to
Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial north of Highway 10 south and east
of Nawlin Creek.This change was to better reflect the existing use pattern and
facility a proposed rezoning (the site is over 4 miles to the northwest of the
application area).
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-29-01
The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional use to the east and southeast of
the application area.Single Family use is shown to the north,west and south of
the application area.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Hwy10 is shown as Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Morgan
Cemetery Road is shown as a Collector.Neither of these streets are built to
standard,additional dedication of right-of-way and street improvements would be
required to meet the Master Street Plan Standards.
BICYCLE PLAN:
The Little Rock Bike Plan proposes a Class 2 Bike route along Highway 10.A
Class 2 route has a designated part of the paved roadway for bicycle use.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan shows no existing recreation
facilities within the '8-block'adius recommended.There are school recreational
facilities to the east and the Little Maumelle Creek to the west.Efforts should be
made to develop recreational and open space options for the general public and
those living and working in the general area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The application area is adjacent,across the street,from the City Limits.The
current City Limits have been in place since 1997.Those areas outside the City
are generally developed in a rural form.The predominant land use is residential
with a couple of non-residential uses,generally non-conforming.Within the City
immediately to the south the construction of new subdivisions started a couple of
years ago,with homes of moderate to high value being constructed in a
suburban to urban density.Immediately to the east and southeast are three
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-29-01
Pulaski County Special School Districts schools (Joe T Robinson Elementary,
Middle and High).These school campuses are either side of Highway 10.
State Highway 10 is a Principal Arterial,which extends west to Fort Smith.
Morgan Cemetery Road is a Collector,which is proposed to extend north to
connect with West Pinnacle Road.Neither of these streets is built to standard.
Based on the classification of Highway 10 and the school uses to the east,
access to the highway from this site should be limited.Access to Morgan
Cemetery Road would be preferable.
There is a significant drainage way through the amendment area.This together
with the proposed road improvements could have a significant impact on the
future development of the site(s).Without annexation,large lot development will
be required to handle the wastewater on site.The existing development pattern
is primarily large lot (tracts)residential in the vicinity beyond the city limits.
The Highway 10 Overlay does cover this site and recommends for non-
residential a minimal lot size of 2 acres with one structure.The total area
included in the amendment is about three and a quarter acres.If this is limited to
one development fronting Highway 10,it could meet the design standards.If it
were split in to two or three tracts fronting Morgan Cemetery Road and
developed residential it too would meet the standards.Since the lot size already
meets the standard,Staff sees no reason why,if developed non-residentially this
site should not meet the Highway 10 Overlay standards.
To the east of the proposal about half a mile at Highway 300 and Highway 10,
there is some Suburban Office shown which has not been zoned or developed.
Some of this has been on the Plan for over a decade,other parts were added
with the recent review of the Land Use Plan east of Joe T Robinson Schools.
Further to the east at Chenal and Cantrell Road (Highway 10)there are large
areas of Office and Commercial planned and zoned property,which remains
undeveloped.This later land is within the City with sewer service available.
Currently there is only a convenience store,miniwarehouse development and
Walmart SuperCenter at this location.
To the west between one half and one mile,at Ferndale Cut-Off Road and
Highway 10 is a small amount of commercially shown and zoned land.This,yet
to be redeveloped,land was rezoned in the last few years.There is an existing
wholesale nursery (located partially in the floodplain)and a volunteer fire station
located at this intersection.Further to the west at Barrett Road and Highway 10
there is a larger area of commercial both on the Plan and Zoned.This area is
partially developed with commercial uses.
Based on the Land Use Plan and current zoning pattern there are available
parcels for Office,Commercial or Single Family in the general area.The City
policy for Land Use Plans is to concentrate commercial and non-residential uses
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-29-0'I
at or near the intersection of major streets (Arterials).This location is not such
an intersection.
The Plan proposes further intensification at the Highway 10 and 300 intersection
with both Suburban Office and Low Density Residential as a step down from the
intensity at the Chenal Parkway-Highway 10 intersection with commercial and
office uses.Most of this zoning is in place,though the majority of the area is not
developed.
The Schools provide a good transition from the higher intensity mentioned above
and single family uses further to the west,northwest and southwest.With an
elementary school across the street and rniddle and high school in the immediate
area,the location is ideal for young families with children.While it is true
Highway 10 is a major traffic carrier with the property set backs and orientation,
homes can and are located along this roadway.The orientation of future
development to Morgan Cemetery Road would keep this area as a prime
residential area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Du Quesne Place
and Greystone Manor.Staff has received no comments from area residents.
None of the Neighborhood Associations contacted have indicated to the City a
position on the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.Staff believes residential
development of this property is in the best interest of the surrounding area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant amended their application to 'Transition with a PZD required'rior
to the meeting and presented Staff with new information on the history of the site.
Based on the past actions of the City relative to this site and the reduction of
intensity in the requested Land Use,Staff felt comfortable with recommending
approval of the revised request.Mr.Malone,Planning Staff reviewed the general
use pattern and indicated that Staff still believes residential oriented toward
Morgan Cemetery is a possible and good thing.The zoning item was reviewed
and both were discussed together.For a complete review of the minutes see
item 16.1 Z-7948.By a vote of 9 for,0 against,and 2 absent item was approved.
4
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:16.1 FILE NO.:Z-7948
NAME:Gillum Photography Studio Short-form POD
LOCATION:Located North of Highway 10,just West of Morgan Cemetery Road
DEVELOPER:
Corey Gillum —Gillum Photography
315 N.Bowman Road
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:1.16Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
PROPOSED USE:Photography Studio
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On February 6,2003,the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to allow
the rezoning of this site from R-2,Single-family to PCD.The development plan for a
3.462 acre site included office/warehouse and storage facilities;including one building
for boats and RV's.The site contained 418.22 feet of frontage along Highway 10 and
the office/warehouse buildings were to run parallel with the highway.A forty (40)foot
landscaped buffer was proposed in the front and the building was to be set back
100-feet from Highway 10.The buildings was proposed at 25-feet from the property line
on the remaining three sides.
The storage buildings were proposed as metal with steel beams located behind the
office/warehouse building with screening on both sides as well as in the back.There
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948
will only be one entry way located approximately in the middle of the property with a
minimum width of 25-feet wide.The driveways were proposed as asphalt with concrete
curbs,gutters and aprons.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 1.16 acres from R-2,Single-family to
PD-0 to allow the development of a new photography studio on the site.The
applicant has indicated the new building will be a two story building totaling
3400 square feet.The building will be residential in character and constructed as
a country cottage.The applicant has proposed a 50-foot tree and landscape
buffer along the north property line and adequate parking for the development.
The applicant has shown a forty foot landscape buffer and a 100-foot building
setback line along Highway 10;consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District standard.The applicant has also indicated a shared ingress and egress
easement along the property line to serve both this site and the 2.2 acres located
to the east of the site.
The applicant is requesting the creation of a two lot plat as a separate item on
this agenda (S-1507)—Morgan Addition Preliminary Plat and a Land Use Plan
amendment (File No.LU05-29-01).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and tree covered,with a drainage ditch running through the
middle of the site from north to south.The Joe T.Robinson Elementary School
is located to the east of the site,across Morgan Cemetery Road and the Joe T.
Robinson Middle and High School campus is located to the southeast across
Highway 10.The land adjacent to the site to the west contains a non-conforming
auto garage and a single-family home.
Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located
directly south of the site and are currently vacant.The owners previously
proposed this property for commercial zoning but later withdrew their request.
Chalamont is located south of the site,adjacent to Joe T.Robinson High School.
Chalamont extends from Highway 10 to Chenal Parkway by way of Northfield,
There are several single-family subdivisions currently under construction
accessed from Chalamont and Northfield.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Margeaux Place 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.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
2.Private access is proposed for these lots.In accordance with Section 31-207,
private streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets.A
minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street width of
24 feet from back of curb to back of curb.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Outside the service boundary.Provide staff with approval from
the Arkansas Department of Health and/or Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality concerning the proposed wastewater disposal.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.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.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter
connection(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.This fee will
apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private
fire system.Contact the fire department having jurisdiction to obtain information
regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s)and contact Central Arkansas
Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s).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.
0 d ryj».pr
volunteer fire department serving the area.
3
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI S ION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948t1~i:p d
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route 425 —Highway 10 Express Bus
Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Barrett Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied
for a Planned Office District for a quiet professional office.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item
on this agenda (LU05-29-01).
Master Street Plan:Highway 10 is shown as a Principle Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Morgan Cemetery Road is shown as a collector.These streets
may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
9
Highway 10.A Class 2 route has a designated part of the paved roadway for
bicycle use.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.An automatic controlled irrigation system is required.
3.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the
sites northern,eastern,and western perimeters of the site.
4.Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance
requirements
5.The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this tree-covered site.Credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch
caliper or larger
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed planned development indicating there was an
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948
associated plat to subdivide the property into two lots and a land use plan
amendment.Staff stated the applicant was requesting the development of
proposed Lot 1 with the current zoning request.Staff stated the second lot would
remain zoned R-2,Single-family.Staff requested the applicant provide additional
information to complete the review process.Staff stated the site plan indicated
the placement of a septic system to serve as the wastewater collection facility.
Staff requested an approval letter from the Arkansas Department of Health
concerning the proposed wastewater system.Staff also requested the applicant
provide details of the proposed fencing to be added to the site.Staff noted the
proposed development did not comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay
District standards with regard to lot size and building setback along the western
perimeter.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the private access
indicated should be constructed in accordance with private street standards.
Staff requested the applicant provide a 45-foot street width and 24-feet of
pavement.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated screening would be
required along the eastern,western and northern perimeters of the site.Staff
also stated an irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas.
Staff noted the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appeared to meet
minimum ordinance requirements for the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a 30-foot building setback along the western perimeter of the site to
comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District standards.The applicant
has indicated screening will be placed along the eastern perimeter of the site
near the rear of the development.The remainder of the abutting property line is
a shared 45-foot access and drainage easement,which typically does not require
screening.The applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the
northern and western property boundaries as well.
The applicant has proposed the construction of a building totaling 3576 square
feet.The site plan includes the placement of 10 on-site parking spaces.The
minimum ordinance requirements for an office development would be 8 parking
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948
spaces.The indicated parking is adequate to meet the typical minimum parking
required for the development.
The applicant has proposed a single ground mounted monument style sign to be
located near along Highway 10.The sign will comply with the Highway 10
Design Overlay District requirements or a maximum of six feet in height and
72 square feet in area.
The site is located outside the City limits but within the City's Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction and without annexation can not receive City sewer service.
Per the Subdivision Ordinance,any development not proposing to connect to the
City's wastewater treatment system is to provide approval of the disposal
method.The applicant has not provided staff with the required sanitary sewer
disposal proposed for the site as required by Section 31-400.The applicant is to
provide approval from the state department with authority to approve septic tanks
installations,or other individual wastewater disposal methods.In the past,staff
has not recommended an application move forward without the required approval
for the wastewater collection system.Staff feels it important to determine if the
proposed system is properly located and the proposed lot contains the
appropriate acreage to allow the system to function properly.The proposed
rezoning request is a planned unit development,a site plan review,in which staff
has very little flexibility once approved for modifications and adjustments.If the
applicants system will not function as proposed,the applicant will be forced to
revise the site plan through Planning Commission and Board of Directors
approval.Staff feels it is important to address the outstanding issues associated
with the request prior to final approval.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a new two story building to be
used as a photography studio.The applicant is requesting a rezoning of this site
from R-2 to PD-0 to allow the development to occur.There are two additional
items on the current agenda related to the site.One a preliminary plat request
(S-1507)and the second a Future Land Use Plan amendment (LU05-29-01).
The preliminary plat does not comply with the typical minimum lot size
requirements of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and staff is not
supportive of the platting request.The site is currently indicated on the Future
Land Use plan as Single-family.Staff is also not supportive of the land use plan
amendment for the site.Based on these two recommendations and the
outstanding issues associated with the request,staff is not supportive of the
applicant's proposed rezoning request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7948
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOV EM B E R 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There was one registered objector
present.Staff presented the item stating the property was previously approved as a
PCD in 1990.Staff stated a three-year time extension was approved in 1993.Staff
stated they had continued to study this issue and the past history of the site.Staff
stated upon further review,they were supportive of the applicant's request to rezone
proposed Lot 1 to PD-0 for the development of a photography studio subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of the agenda staff
report.
Mr.Bill Lessenberry addressed the Commission with concerns.He stated his request
was for the placement of a six-foot fence along the western property line and
compliance with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.He stated he understood from
the developer his concerns were being addressed and he was no longer opposed to the
development.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:Z-7949
NAME:Tree Frog-Sweet Dreams Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located at 8013 and 8025 Mabelvale Cut-off
DEVELOPER:
Tree Frog-Sweet Dreams
8013 Mabelvale Cut-off
Mabelvale,AR 72103
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:1.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Residential,Office,Hobby Shop,Office-Warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
This is an area of large-lot homes,which was developed primarily in the
late 50's /early 60's,and annexed by the City in 1980.Two properties are
proposed for the rezoning from R-2,Single-family to PCD by the applicant;the
property located at 8013 and 8025 Mabelvale Cut-off.The total area
encompassed by this application is approximately 1.5 acres.There are currently
2 houses,2 garages,2 storage buildings,and one open carport on these
adjacent and contiguous properties.Both properties have paved driveways and
parking areas for up to 4 vehicles at one,and up to 6 at the other.Additionally,
both properties have extensive "permeable parking"areas in the rear,consisting
of grass growing over crushed stone.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
The current owners of 8013 Mabelvale Cut-off have lived on this site for
approximately 11 years,and no changes in current use,or construction,is being
proposed.The residence is used as a residence and home-based business,with
a one-person office.There are currently no visitors to the office.The
2400 square foot garage!shop building is used for storage and as a garage for
repairs to the owner's automobiles.The owners are also involved in amateur
sports car racing,and do some light fabrication and engine building,on occasion.
The applicant has indicated only automobiles owned by the owners are worked
on.The applicant has also indicated the additional small enclosed building is
used as a "garden shed",for storage of lawn maintenance items.
The current owners of 8025 Mabelvale Cut-off have lived on this site for
approximately 5 years,and no changes in current use,or construction,is being
proposed.The residence is used as a residence and home-based business,with
a one-person office.There are currently no visitors to the office.The
1200 square foot garage /shop building is used as a garage for repairs to the
owners'utomobiles.The owners are also involved in amateur drag racing,and
do some light fabrication and engine building,on occasion.Additionally,the
owners do minor automobile bodywork and painting.The applicant has indicated
only automobiles owned by the current property owner are repaired.The
applicant has indicated the additional small enclosed building is used as a
"garden shed",for storage of lawn maintenance items.
The applicant has indicated both properties currently exceed the maximum
square footage allowable for accessory buildings.The applicant has also
indicated the owners of 8013 will be changing residences around the end of this
year,and wish to continue using the property as they have been,except for the
residential component.The applicant has indicated the owners of 8025 are not
planning any changes,at this time.The applicant's request is to have the
houses approved for 0-1 uses,and the garages approved as office /warehouse.
Additionally,the applicant's are requesting one specified C-4 use:that they be
able to store non-running vehicles,outside,on the properties.The applicant has
indicated in the normal course of the fabrication of racecars,one of the elements
is;from time to time,"parts"cars are purchased from which to salvage usable
pieces.The applicant has indicated a voluntarily limit would be no more than
4 cars per property,and all cars would be stored so as to not be visible from any
public thoroughfare.All disassembly and major work would occur inside the
garages,and no cars will ever be stored "up on blocks"or in a state of visibly
severe disassembly.The applicant has indicated the C-4 component of the
application be granted only during occupancy by the existing tenants,and do not
wish it to transfer to any new tenant or owner.
Additionally,the owner of 8013 requests that if there are any driveway and front
yard parking area paving requirements,be deferred until the completion of the
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
Mabelvale Cutoff widening project (currently planned for the summer of 2006).
Upon completion of that project,the driveway entrance will be realigned and the
driveway reconstructed and repaved.
In keeping with the applicant's desire to maintain the residential appearance of
these properties,they are also asking for a waiver of additional screening,
landscaping and paving requirements,beyond what is currently existing.There
is currently a 6'7'hain link fence around the rear of both properties.The west
side fence is opaque.The south and east exposures are contiguous with
properties with higher or equal grandfathered uses.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two single-family homes along with two large shop buildings
each located on individual lots.Mabelvale Cut-off is an unimproved roadway
scheduled for widening as a part of the 2003 City's Bond Project.Other uses in
the area include a non-conforming heavy equipment yard,an Adult Day Care
center,"Service Master"a cleaning service office and warehouse,a
non-conforming commercial automobile-related business (formerly "Roy's Starter
and Alternator Repair")currently operated as a race shop and a non-conforming
commercial area,of approximately 3 acres,containing multiple buildings used as
private warehouses.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Legion Hut 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:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Mabelvale Cut-off will be improved along this frontage by 2003 bond project.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
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 if additional water service is
needed.Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s)are required.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s)will apply to new connections 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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Routes ¹17and 17A —Mabelvale
Downtown and Mabelvale UALR.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use on the frontage and Single Family
in the rear for these properties.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Commercial Development for a mixed-use development.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan since one half or
more of the property is shown as Mixed use on the plan.
Master Street Plan:Mabelvale Cutoff is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan with an alternative design standard of 70 feet right of way with a four
lane section and five lanes at major intersections with additional right-of way.
These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements.There is a project ongoing for the widening of this segment of
Mabelvale Cutoff Road.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
and Stardust Road and is approximately 500 feet from the application.It is a
Class Three bikeway,which shares the pavement with the automobiles and only
has special signage designating the route.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Chicot West 1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Economic Development goal listed three objectives relevant to this case.They
are:"Attract neighborhood oriented businesses"."Identify and try to attract
desirable businesses that are oriented toward the middle class consumer.
Attempt to locate these businesses in currently vacant buildings"."Extend quality
development west of Mabelvale Road into Mabelvale.Combination of
commercial and office should be possible when improvements are completed on
Mabelvale Cutoff."
~Landeca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the
sites southern,eastern,and western perimeters of the site.
3.The plan submitted is to schematic for a complete review of the cities minimal
landscape and buffer ordinance requirements.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the request was to allow the
sites to continue to function as they were currently functioning.Staff stated the
applicant was requesting alternative uses for the site if and when the site were no
longer occupied by the applicant as their primary residences.Staff stated the
applicant was requesting the residential structure to be occupied as an office use
with the rear building being an office/warehouse use.Staff stated the applicant
was requesting a waiver of the screening requirement for the southern and
eastern perimeters.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated per current ordinance
requirements screening would be required along the southern and eastern
perimeters.The applicant questioned this requirement since the abutting
properties were not used as residential properties.Staff stated the ordinance
stated properties zoned residentially or properties used as residential units.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
5
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding issues raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision
Committee meeting necessary to address.The applicant at 8013 is proposing to
utilize the site as is currently being used with the addition of an office use in the
residential structure should the home no longer be used as a single-family unit.
The applicant has also indicated the storage buildings located on the rear of the
site would be utilized as office/warehouse but would not be leased to a separate
business than the office user.The applicant is also requesting outdoor storage
of non-running automobiles for the current users.The applicant has indicated
this is not a transferable use.
The applicant at 8025 is also proposing to utilize the site as is currently being
used with the addition of an office use in the residential structure should the
home no longer be used as a single-family unit.The applicant has also indicated
the storage buildings located on the rear of the site would be utilized as
office/warehouse but would not be leased to a separate business than the office
user.The applicant is also requesting outdoor storage of non-running
automobiles for the current users.The applicant has indicated this is not a
transferable use.
The applicants are requesting a waiver of the screening requirement along the
southern and eastern perimeters of the overall site.Staff is supportive of the
applicants'equest.The property to the south and east are currently zoned R-2,
Single-family but are not functioning as residential units.Staff does not feel the
screening in these areas would be of a benefit to those adjoining properties.
Staff is supportive of the applicants'equest.The site is shown as Mixed Use on
the City's Future Land Use Plan and in staff's opinion the applicants'roposal for
a future office/office/warehouse development is within the allowable activities of a
mixed use development.The applicants have indicated the outdoor storage
activities are not transferable uses to potential future users.Staff recommends
this condition being placed on the development.To staff's knowledge there are
no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.Staff feels if the
site is developed as proposed there should be minimal impact on the adjoining
properties.
6
November 10,2005
S U BD IV I S I ON
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7949
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to compliance with
the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends the allowable outdoor activities and storage of non-working
vehicles be limited to the current owners'ccupancy.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested waiver of the screening
requirements along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were no registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
applicant's request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in
paragraphs D,E,F and H of the agenda staff report.Staff presented a
recommendation that the allowance of outdoor activities and storage of non-working
vehicles be limited to the current owners'ccupancy.Staff also presented a
recommendation of approval of the applicant's requested waiver of the screening
requirements along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:LU05-10-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Boyle Park Planning District
Location:Northwest corner of Stannus and 41"Street
Receuest:Public Institutional to Suburban Office
Source:Mark 8 Pat Pollack
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Public
Institutional to Suburban Office.Suburban Office represents 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.
An application for a Planned Office District to allow quiet professional office use-
insurance office,has been submitted.
Staff is not expanding the application.With the existing development and zoning
pattern no logical expansion was apparent to Staff.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property requesting the change is currently zoned 'R-3',Single Family and is
one acre a in size.To the north,south,east and west the land is zoned 'R-3',
Single Family.To the north,west and south are single family homes.To the
east is an elementary school and to the northwest is a church.The area is
developed and stable.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
March 6,2001,A change was made from Single Family to Office for an area
between Parkview High School and the Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood,east
of John Barrow Road.This is over a mile to the northwest.The change was
made to facilitate a rezoning request for a larger new development in the area.
July 17,2001,Changes were made from Low Density Residential and Single
Family to Park Open Space for First Tee south of Colonel Glenn Road between
University Avenue and Western Hills Blvd.This is about a quarter of a mile from
the application area.The change were made to recognize existing Public Parks.
November 4,2002,Changes from Single Family,Office and Commercial to
Mixed Office Commercial,Commercial and Multifamily between Kanis Road and
1-630 generally along Riley Drive.The change is about two miles to the
northwest.These changes were made related to a zoning request to allow for
proposed development in the area.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-10-02
January 20,2004,A change from Mixed Use to Commercial for an area south of
Colonel Glenn Road between Cobb and Walker.This is about half a mile to the
southwest.The change was to recognize existing zoning and use in the area as
well as to support a proposed zoning.
July 13,2004,A change from Office to Single Family and Mixed Use for an area
north of Colonel Glenn Road between Whiffield and Stannus.This is a block to
the south.The change was to better recognize the existing and likely future use
pattern as well as to support a proposed rezoning.
The Land Use Plan shows this site for Public Institutional (for a Lodge).To the
east and northwest of the application area are Public Institutional use areas.
Single Family is shown to the north and south as well as to the southwest.Mixed
Use is shown a block to the south along Colonel Glenn Road.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Both Stannus and 41"Street are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street
Plan.If a non-single family use is permitted,the Master Street Plan requires
these roads be built to Commercial Street standard,which is greater than
residential Local Street standard.These streets may require dedication of right-
of-way and may require street improvements.
BICYCLE PLAN:
The Little Rock Bike Plan shows no bike routes in immediate area of the
application.
PARKS:
The application area is within the West Central Parks Planning Area.The Little
Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommends using the existing
floodplains to connect recreation area within this district.The application area is
within the recommended 8-blocks of an existing park or open space.Boyle Park
is to the north,West End Park is to the northwest and First Tee is to the south,
southeast of the application area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-10-02
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is within the John Barrow Neighborhood Plan area.
This Plan does not have Objectives directly related to the proposal.However it
does recommend that the neighborhood develop a climate that would attract job-
creating businesses to the area and that efforts should be made to improve
sidewalks,curbs,gutters and streetlights.If this project would create job
opportunities for neighborhood residents and make site improvements with
added sidewalks,curbs and streetlights,then it would help achieve the Plans
Goals.
ANALYSIS:
The application area is within the John Barrow Addition,which is a developed
area of town.There have been a few single family homes built in the John
Barrow area.The new homes have been built on lots that were 'skipped
over'hen
the area was developed.In this section of John Barrow the homes are
several decades old.This is a stable part of John Barrow and close to Colonel
Glenn Road (former Asher Avenue).
This section of Colonel Glenn Road has seen some turn over in businesses in
the last few years.Several new businesses targeting the Hispanic community
have located along Colonel Glenn Road.In addition a few businesses have
been built between 36'"and John Barrow Road near the application.While it
may not be a 'prime'etail area,there is activity and signs of strengthening.
Across the street (Stannus)is an elementary school with bus pick-up and drop-
off along Stannus.Stannus is very congested with parents and buses at the end
of the school day.The resulting traffic impacts 41"Street as well.Many of the
streets are not built to full Master Street Plan standards with curbs gutters and
sidewalks.
To the west of the application between Potter and Whitfield along the southside
of 40'"Street is the recently approved development for a new private school.A
Planned Development was approved for a mosque,school and 22 single-family
homes in October 2004.There is a remaining 5 acres of vacant MF12
(Multifamily 12 units per acre)zoned land and similar amount of vacant C3
(General Commercial)zoned land at Whitfield from 40'"to Colonel Glenn Road.
The site requesting zoning and plan change is an existing non-residential
structure surrounded by single-family detached homes,with a public elementary
school across the street.The land surrounding the structure has been paved.
The former use was a fraternal organization.Wilson Elementary School does
have frontage along Colonel Glenn but access is along either 40 Street or
Stannus.Rosedale Baptist Church is located along 40'"Street between Stannus
3
November 10,2005
S U B D I V IS ION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:LU05-10-02
and Whiffield.The Church property is adjacent to a part of the application
property.The single-family neighborhood is accustom to these public/quasi-
public institutional uses within rather than adjacent to the neighborhood.All
these uses were originally built to service the residents of the neighborhood.
Suburban Office use is intended to allow office development near or adjacent to
Single Family homes.The intention is to review the proposed office use to
assure the design is such that it is compatible with the adjacent homes.The
location of the proposal is at the intersection of two local residential streets.
These streets are already impacted (adversely)by the school traffic.Both school
buses and parents waiting to pick-up students line Stannus in the early
afternoon.
The structure is clearly not single family.With the values of property in the area
and the way property is currently developed,it is very unlikely to ever be
redeveloped into single family.It is possible to redevelop this site for multifamily
or nonresidential use.With its location away from a major street and across the
street from an elementary school,any new use's impacts must be carefully
reviewed.
The best use for the site would be one which creates little to no traffic.The use
should not bring additional traffic into the area from other parts of the city.The
preferred development would be to remain pulbic or quasi-public with little to no
customers or clients arriving at the site during school hours.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:John Barrow,
Westwood and Campus Place.Staff has received no comments from area
residents.None of the Neighborhood Associations contacted have indicated a
position to the City on the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff reviewed the requested Plan change and
surrounding use pattern.This is an established stable neighborhood with
Public/Quasi-public uses in place.With the existing use pattern and traffic
pattern any new use should have low to no traffic generation and preferable be a
quasi-public use.Staff can not support the proposed amendment.The zoning
item was reviewed and both were discussed together.For a complete review of
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:LLI 05-10-02
the minutes see item 18.1,Z-7950.By a vote of 0 for,9 against and 2 absent the
item was denied.
5
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:18.1 FILE NO.:Z-7950
NAME:Carpenter Short-form POD
LOCATION:Located on the Northwest corner of West 41"Street and Stannus Road
DEVELOPER:
Affirmative Risk Management,Inc.
c/o Mark and Patricia Pollack
127116 Hunters Field Road
P.O.Box 22717
Little Rock,AR 72221-2717
ENGINEER:
Stuck Associates
1308 South Main Street
Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:0.98 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
PROPOSED USE:General and professional office uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow a reduced right-of-way dedication (50-feet)along West 41"
Street and Stannus Road.
2.A waiver of the required street improvements to the abutting roadways.
A.P ROPOSAL/R EQ U EST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site from R-3,Single-family to
PD-0 to allow this existing vacant structure to be utilized as an office use.The
site is located across from Wilson Elementary School and adjacent to Rosedale
Baptist Church.Currently the parking lot is being utilized as overflow parking for
Wilson Elementary School and Rosedale Baptist Church Interior renovations will
be performed to the structure and the existing parking lot will be resurfaced.The
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
applicant has also proposed a six foot fence along the street right-of-way of West41"Street and Stannus Road.A gate will be placed along Stannus Road.The
applicant has also indicated the fencing will be placed along the mid-point of the
property with the remainder of the parking to be left open for employs of Wilson
Elementary School and Rosedale Baptist Church to utilize as overflow parking.
The structure contains 5600 square feet and was constructed as a Masonic
Lodge in 1951.The applicant's cover letter indicates the structure has been
vacant since 1998.
The applicant is proposing to utilize the site as Affirmative Risk Management Inc.
The applicant has indicated the use is an office use and provides opportunity for
neighborhood revitalization.The applicant has indicated the firm employees 25-
30 employees and the typical hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
The applicant has indicated there are situations when employees must remain
after 5:00 pm closing.
The applicant has also shown a Phase II portion on the site plan.The applicant
has indicated future plans include the construction of a second building on the
site not to exceed an additional 5600 square feetAall required parking to satisfy
an office development will also be included in the redevelopment of the Phase II
portion of the site.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements
related to full right-of-way dedication and street improvements to the abutting
roadway.The applicant has indicated a 50-foot right-of-way (25-feet from
centerline)will be provided along West 41"Street and Stannus Road verses the
60-foot typically required for a commercial street.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a two story structure which appears to be vacant.The parking
lot is in a state of disrepair with grass growing in several locations.There is a
narrow drive,which extends from Stannus Road to the rear parking area on both
the north and south sides of the building.There is very little landscaping or
green space located on the site.
Wilson Elementary School is located to the east of the site and Rosedale Baptist
Church is located to the southwest of the site.There are single-family homes
located to the south,across West 41"Street,and to the north,fronting 40'"
Street.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The John Barrow Neighborhood Association,the Westwood
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
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.The proposed land use would classify Stannus Road on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.The proposed land use would classify 41st Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Stannus Road and 41st Street.
4.With site development,provide design of 41st Street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to 41st Street including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
5.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required on Stannus Road in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
6.Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.The lot must have a single
driveway.Close proposed driveway closest to 41st Street.The width of
driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
7.Proposed parking configuration does not provide sufficient space to back out
of parking spaces.Angled parking is recommended.
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
9.Due to heavy bus traffic no parking is allowed on Stannus Road.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.An existing 6"sewer main
is located on the site.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:No objection.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
p'""i d
N
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route ¹14—Rosedale Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property.Single Family
surrounds the Public-Institutional Use;therefore for non-public uses Single
Family is taken as the Plan proposed use for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office District for a quiet professional office.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item
on this agenda.
Master Street Plan:Both Stannus and 41"Street are shown as Local Streets on
the Master Street Plan.If a non-single family use is permitted the Master Street
Plan requires these roads to built to Commercial Street standard,which is
greater than residential Local Street standard.These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
of the application.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under is within the
John Barrow Neighborhood Plan area.This Plan does not have Objectives
directly related to the proposal.However it does recommend that the
neighborhood develop a climate that would attract job-creating businesses to the
area and that efforts should be made to improve sidewalks,curbs gutters and
streetlights.If this project would create job opportunities for neighborhood
residents and make site improves with add sidewalks,curbs and streetlights then
it would help achieve the Plans Goals.
~Landaca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.A perimeter-planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street.This strip must
be at least nine (9)feet wide.The plan submitted does not reflect this
minimum amount along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site.A
variance from this requirement will require both City Beautiful Commission
approval and the Board of Adjustment approval.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
3.The proposed parking areas do not provide for the eight percent (924 square
feet)interior landscaping required.The plan submitted is 620 square feet
less than this requirement.A variance from this standard would require City
Beautiful Commission approval.
4.In addition to the proposed interior landscaping,a small amount of building
landscaping between the proposed parking areas and buildings (or in the
general area)will be required.
5.A six-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen planting,is required along the
sites northern and western perimeters of the site.
6.Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff questioned the days and hours
of operation.The applicant responded that the normal hours of operation were
from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.Staff also stated the site plan
showed 26 parking spaces to serve the use and the cover letter indicated there
were 25 to 30 employees.Staff stated the indicated parking was adequate to
meet the typical minimum parking demand for an office use but questioned the
total number persons who would be accessing the site.The applicant indicated
there was additional parking the owner planned to provide to Wilson Elementary
School as overflow parking.He stated any additional parking needs could be
met.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the classification of the
development would require a dedication of right-of-way 30-feet from centerline
for both West 41"Street and Stannus Road.Staff also stated the indicated
driveway widths did not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of
current City Ordinances.The applicant stated currently the asphalt extended to
the roadway around the perimeter of the site.He stated the proposed driveway
locations were better than what currently existed.The applicant also stated the
right-of-way dedication along West 41"Street was not necessary.He stated the
site was not taking access from West 41"Street and he felt the dedication was
excessive.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed site plan did
not allow for the minimum landscaping required between the street right-of-way
and the perimeter.Staff stated screening would also be required along the
perimeters of the site.Staff questioned the indicated fencing.The applicant
indicated the fence would be a six foot fence to act as security for the site.Staff
stated the indicated parking areas did not allow for the eight percent interior
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance.Staff stated a variance from
this standard would require City Beautiful Commission approval.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and 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 issue
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm,
Monday through Friday.The applicant has shown landscaping along the
northern perimeter of the site at a minimum of nine feet.The applicant has not
indicated dedication of right-of-way along West 41"Street or Stannus Road per
the Master Street Plan requirement.
The applicant has indicated on the revised site plan the placement of a six foot
fence along the perimeter of the site.The fence will be constructed of wrought
iron with brick columns.The applicant has also proposed that the development
be gated.The applicant has indicated the gate location along Stannus Road
placed 20-feet from the right-of-way.The applicant has shown the gates will be
open during normal business hours allowing the site to be closed during the
evenings and weekends.Staff is not supportive of the placement of the gates in
this location.Stannus Road is a heavily traveled road.Wilson School is located
to the east of the site and the buses load and unload students adjacent to this
site.The proposed location of the gate does not allow stacking of automobiles
waiting to access the site.Staff would recommend the gates be relocated near
the front of the building to allow additional stacking for persons entering the site.
The applicant has indicated landscaping will be provided along the northern
perimeter of the site per ordinance requirements.The site plan shows the
required landscaping along West 41"Street to be contained within the right-of-
way.This request will require a waiver of the landscape ordinance requirements
approved by the City Beautiful Commission.
The applicant is proposing the utilization of this existing non-residential building
as an office use.The applicant has indicated the company employs
25-30 employees.The site plan includes sufficient parking to meet the typically
minimum parking required for the development.
Although staff is supportive of the redevelopment of the site as an office use,
staff is not supportive of the reduced right-of-way dedication and the location of
the proposed gates to secure the development.The proposed development
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7950
would classify Stannus Road and West 41"Street as commercial streets.Staff
feels the right-of-way dedication for the proposed development is critical for the
redevelopment of the site.In addition,staff does not feel the location of the
proposed gates allows for sufficient stacking.In staff's opinion,the automobiles
stacking onto Stannus Road will cause traffic conflicts and safety concerns for
the area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Jack Caston was present representing the request.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of denial.Staff stated the reason for the recommendation was based
on the applicant's indicated gate design for the site and the reduced right-of-way
dedication.Staff stated the indicated gates did not allow for stacking as typically
required by the ordinance.
Mr.Caston addressed the Commission on the merits of the request.He stated the gate
was set at 32-feet from the right of way.He stated the call box was set at 20-feet from
the right-of-way which would allow for one car to enter the site and open the gate.
Mr.Caston stated based on the gate location the gate would be set at 47-feet from the
edge of pavement.Mr.Caston stated the gate would be open during business hours.
He stated the owner was willing to commit that the gate would be opened at 7:00 am to
address staff's concerns with the traffic conflict.
The applicant stated staff was requesting a dedication of 60-feet of right-of-way for both
Stannus Road and West 41"Street.Mr.Caston stated the owners were willing to
dedicate 50-feet,25-feet from centerline as required for a residential street.Staff stated
the use of the street would classify the roadway as a commercial street.There was a
general discussion concerning the road and the likely hood there would be additional
commercial development along the street in this area.Staff agreed to a 50-foot right-of-
way dedication,25-feet from centerline and a 20-foot radial dedication at the
intersection of the two roadways.
There was a general discussion concerning the required street improvements.
Mr.Caston stated the owner was requesting a deferral of street improvements for five
years or until the Phase II portion of the development.Staff stated they would support
the deferral request.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended.The motion carried by a vote
of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:Z-7951
NAME:La-Z-Boy Short-form PCD
LOCATION:Located at 1000 South Shackleford Road
DEVELOPER:
Gary Lanier
c/o Drew Basham
1701 Centerview Drive,Suite 201
Little Rock,AR 72211
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.70 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:C-3 and 0-3
ALLOWED USES:General Commercial District uses and General Office District uses
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Furniture Store
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.P ROPOSAL/R EQ U EST:
The La-z-Boy Showcase center is proposing a building expansion of
12,000 square feet.The applicant has indicated 6,000 square feet will be
showroom and 6,000 square feet will be warehouse.The applicant has indicated
building construction will take place along the western side of the site covering
eight existing parking spaces.With the expansion,the site will not meet the
current parking requirements for a development of this nature.The applicant is
proposing to purchase a vacant tract located to the west of their existing site,
currently zoned 0-3,for future development.The applicant has indicated the
area as detention and indicated the possibility of a future employee parking lot
The applicant is proposing if a use other than a furniture store is proposed or if
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7951
development occurs on the western lot a revision to the PCD zoning will be
requested.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing La-z-Boy Furniture Store with the proposed
detention area being vacant and wooded.Mason Drive is a narrow roadway,
which provides access to this site and to properties located north of Kanis Road;
both east and west of the roadway.The area is currently vacant and wooded.
Portions of this area are zoned 0-3 and portions are zoned C-3.
North of the site are office uses and south of the site are commercial uses.
There is a extended stay hotel located south of the La-z-Boy site.There is a
multi-story office building located immediately north of the La-z-Boy site with a
second office building located north of the proposed parking lot.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Gibralter Height/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Association,the John Barrow 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.Mason Drive (private)is proposed to access this lot and surrounding
commercial zoned properties.In accordance with Section 31-207,private
streets must be designed to the same standards as public streets.A
minimum access easement width of 60 feet is required and street width of 31
feet from back of curb to back of curb and 5 foot sidewalk on one side.
2.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct street improvements to Mason Drive including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
3.Construct a right turn lane off Kanis Road into Mason Drive.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
5.A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c)and (d)will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.Site
grading,and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
6.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the proposed
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7951
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
7.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.Contact Central Arkansas
Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s)are required.A Capital
Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to
new connections 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).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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the I-430 Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied
for a Planned Commercial Development for a parking lot and an addition to an
existing furniture store.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan:Shackleford Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and is built to standard at this point.Mason Drive is shown as
a Local street and is not built to standard.Both streets may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7951
h
Road north of Kanis Road is a Class Three and on Centerview Road south of
Kanis is a Class Two.A Class Three bikeway shares the pavement with the
automobiles and only has special signage designating the route.A Class Two
requires a paved area on both sides of a roadway with a painted stripe
separating the vehicular traffic from the bikeway.These routes may be a smooth
paved shoulder or a section of the paved roadway.Additional signage is
required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Birchwood Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
plan did not address this type of application specifically.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.Areas set aside for buffers and landscape appear to meet with ordinance
requirements.
3.Because of the size of the building expansion proposed,an upgrade in
landscaping in the amount of thirty-six percent (36 %)toward compliance with
the landscape ordinance will be required on the existing site.
4.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
5.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating
there were additional items necessary to complete the review process.Staff
stated the proposed development was increasing the overall building square
footage and expanding over an existing parking area.Staff stated although the
site plan did require the indicated additional parking due to the expansion,the
site was only losing eight parking spaces.Staff questioned the need for
55 additional parking spaces.Mr.White stated the developers were trying to
comply with ordinance requirements.There was a general discussion
concerning the proposed expansion and the placement of the additional parking
spaces on the site.Staff noted the access to the parking spaces was
substandard.Staff stated if the applicant intended to utilize Mason Drive,a
60-foot right-of-way and 36-feet of pavement would be required.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the development of the site.Staff also stated a grading
permit would be required prior to construction.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7951
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated an upgrade in landscaping
would be required as a result of the building expansion.Staff also stated prior to
the issuance of a building permit,a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a
registered landscape architect would be required.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant is
proposing to purchase a vacant tract located to the west of their existing site,
currently zoned 0-3,for future development.The applicant has indicated the
area as detention and with future plans for an employee parking lot.The
applicant has removed the proposed parking area from the western lot and
indicated if parking should become an issue in the future,they will seek a
revision to their PCD zoning to allow a parking facility to be developed on the
site.The applicant has indicated a landscaping upgrade and final landscape
plans will be submitted at the time of building permit for the proposed expansion
area.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The La-z-Boy Showcase center is
proposing a building expansion of 12,000 square feet;6,000 square feet
showroom and 6,000 square feet warehouse.Building construction will take
place along the western side of the site covering eight existing parking spaces.
The current square footage and the proposed building expansion does not
comply with the current typical minimum parking requirements for a development
of this nature.The development would typically require 89 parking spaces.The
site plan includes the placement of 35 parking spaces.Staff is supportive of the
reduced number of parking spaces provided.The site contains a furniture store
which typically does not generate a great parking demand.
To staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request.Staff feels if the site is developed as proposed,there should be minimal
impact on the adjoining properties.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7951
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOV EM B E R 10,2005)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
There were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments
and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO.:Z-7952
NAME:Pinnacle Valley Court Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:Located on Pinnacle Valley Road,just North of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
St.Pat Properties,LLC
17 Portland Road
Little Rock,AR 72212
ENGINEER:
Central Arkansas Surveying
1012 Autumn Road
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:6.93 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:30 FT.NEW STREET:973 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Single-family —Zero Lot Line Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow the placement of a six-foot privacy fence within the required
building setback along Pinnacle Valley Road.
2.A variance to allow a reduced terminus (65-feet and 75-feet)of two cul-de-sac
streets from the property line.
3.A variance to allow the development of double frontage lots.
4.A variance to allow a reduced setback adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the development of this 6.93-acre tract (303,177
square feet)with 30 single-family residential lots.The applicant has indicated 22
of the lots will be zero lot line single-family homes with the remaining 8 lots being
developed as typical R-2,Single-family zoned properties.The applicant has
indicated an average lot size of 7,663 square feet and the total green space
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
provided is 129,213 square feet or 42 percent of the development.The applicant
has indicated the total proposed building footprint as 93,497 square feet.The
applicant has indicated a front building line of 15-feet and a rear yard setback of
20-feet along Pinnacle Valley Road.The applicant has indicated one side yard
setback of eight feet for the zero lot line lots to allow each lot outdoor living area.
The applicant has indicated Lots 2,17,25 —30,the traditional single-family lots,
will have an eight foot side yard setback on each lot line.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of double
frontage lots for Lots 2 -14.The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow
a reduced building line adjacent to an arterial street for Lots 2 —14.
The applicant has set aside an area for detention along the southern portion of
the site.The applicant has also indicated dedication of right-of-way (45-feet from
centerline)to meet the current Master Street Plan standard.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is wooded with varying degrees of slope.Pinnacle Valley Road is a
narrow two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage.There is a veterinary
clinic located to the south of the site on property zoned PD-O.The primary use
in the area is single-family.There is a new single-family subdivision currently
being developed to the northwest of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Westchester Neighborhood Association and the River Valley
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.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to Pinnacle Valley Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
3.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
4.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpott)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
6.On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
7.Proposed driveway location should be located at the crest of the hill to
alleviate site problems.
8.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.
9.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
'IO.Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works.Contact David Hathcock at (501)371-4808.
11.Cul-de-sac should be designed with a right-of-way diameter of 100 ft and
pavement width diameter of 80 foot.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to this property.This development will have minor impact on the existing
water distribution system.Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
~C
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family with some Transition on the
southern portion.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development—
Residential for a residential development of 30 detached homes.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.The overall
density is less than what Single Family allows even though the development has
zero lot line homes in part of the development.
Master Street Plan:Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements since it is built to a two-lane section at this time.
Road/Rahling Road and is located about one-quarter mile to the west of the site.
A Class One bikeway is totally separated from the automobile lanes.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential
Development goal lists objectives of "Develop Neo-traditional neighborhoods
(pedestrian and bicycle friendly,which are less dependant on automobiles)in
areas that have not yet been developed"and an action statement of "Enforce the
construction of sidewalks with all types of developments.".Additional action
statements are to "Require street lighting be in place in new subdivisions at the
time streets are opened"and to "Require developers to install underground
utilities in all new subdivisions."
~Landaca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed request indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff stated a 10-foot restrictive
access easement would be required along the rear of the lots abutting Pinnacle
Valley Road.Staff also stated the site plan included a building footprint and the
maximum buildable area.Staff requested the applicant provide the maximum
buildable area only.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated with the site development
street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road would be required.Staff also
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
stated the proposed driveway location should be placed at the crest of the hill to
alleviate site distance problems.Staff stated the applicant was requesting a
variance to allow the terminus of a cul-de-sac nearer the property line than
typically allowed.Staff stated they were supportive of this variance request.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a maximum building area for each of the lots.The applicant has
also indicated a ten foot restrictive access easement along the rear of the
proposed lots abutting Pinnacle Valley Road.The applicant has indicated a rear
yard platted building line as 25-feet.The ordinance would typically require the
placement of a 35-foot building line for lots abutting an arterial street
classification.Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed building setback
adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road.
The site includes the placement of 2.96 acres of green space,both public and
private.The ordinance typically requires a planned residential development to
set aside a minimum of 10 to 15 percent of the total development as common
open space.The ordinance also requires a minimum of 500 square feet per lot
of private open space.The applicant has indicated .59 acres of common open
space.The ordinance would typically require the placement of .69 acres of
common open space.The applicant has indicated each of the lots will have in
excess of 500 square feet of private open space.Staff is supportive of the
indicated open space both public and private.
The applicant is proposing the development of this site with 30 single-family
residential lots.The applicant has indicated 22 of the lots will be developed as
zero lot line single-family lots with the remaining 8 lots to be developed as typical
R-2,Single-family zoned lots.The applicant has proposed an average lot size of
7,663 square feet and a front building line of 15-feet.Side yard setbacks are
typically eight feet for the zero lot line lots.The applicant has indicated Lots 2,
17,25 —30,the traditional single-family lots,will have an eight foot side yard
setback on each lot line.The ordinance typically requires a minimum lot width of
40-feet and a minimum lot area of 4,000 square feet for zero lot line
developments.The applicant has proposed an average lot width of 48-feet for
the proposed zero lot line lots.The applicant has also included the buildable
5
November 10,2005
SU BD IVI SION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
areas as required by the ordinance.The applicant has indicated a minimum lot
width at the front building line for each of the "traditional"single-family lots as
60-feet.
The applicant has proposed the placement of a six foot fence within the required
building setback of Pinnacle Valley Road.The fencing is being proposed to allow
homeowners the option of placing a fence on the property line to add to privacy
and security.Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has set aside an area for detention along the southern portion of
the site to comply with the City's storm water detention ordinance.The applicant
has also shown dedication of right-of-way (45-feet from centerline)to meet the
current Master Street Plan standard.The applicant is requesting an in-lieu
contribution for the construction of Pinnacle Valley Road.Staff is supportive of
this request.The roadway will be constructed per Pulaski County standard for an
arterial street.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the development of the
subdivision with double frontage lots.The applicant has indicated Lots 2 —14 as
double frontage lots.The applicant has also requested a variance to allow a
reduced building line adjacent to an arterial street.The ordinance typically
requires the placement of a 35-foot building line adjacent to an arterial roadway.
The applicant has proposed the placement of a 20-foot building line.The
applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the terminus of a cul-de-sac
street nearer the property line than typically allowed.The applicant has indicated
the terminus at 15-feet from the property line.The ordinance typically requires
the terminus to be 75-feet from the property line.Staff is supportive of the
applicant's requested variances.Staff does not feel the development with the
indicated variances will have a significant impact on the proposed subdivision or
the adjoining properties.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing the
development of the site as a single-family subdivision resulting in a density of
4.32 units per acre.To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request.Staff feels the proposed development of
the proposed single-family subdivision should have minimal impact on the
adjoining properties.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow the
placement of a six foot fence within the required building setback along Pinnacle
Valley Road.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the terminus of
the cul-de-sac street nearer the property line than typically allowed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 2 —14 to
develop as double frontage lots.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 2 —14 to
develop with a reduced building line adjacent to an arterial roadway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
The applicant was present representing the request.There were registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request
subject to compliance with the conditions and comments outlined in paragraphs D,E,F
and H of the agenda staff report.Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of
the applicant's requested variance to allow the placement of a six-foot fence within the
required building setback along Pinnacle Valley Road.Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the applicant's requested variance to allow the terminus
of the cul-de-sac street nearer the property line than typically allowed,the requested
variance to allow Lots 2 —14 to develop as double frontage lots and the requested
variance to allow Lots 2 —14 to develop with a reduced building line adjacent to an
arterial roadway.
Mr.Wingfield Martin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he felt the subdivision out of character with the neighborhood.He stated
Pinnacle Valley Road was a narrow road with 21-feet of pavement and open ditches.
He stated there was a light at Pinnacle Valley Road and Highway 10,which the
neighborhood was grateful for,but the light was long and did not allow motorist from
Pinnacle Valley time for exiting.He stated traffic would back up on Pinnacle Valley
Road several cars deep before the light would change.He stated the addition of the
subdivision would create safety concerns for residents of the area and the new
homeowners.
Mr.Jimmy Greenfiled addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he felt the use of the property over powered the site.He stated with the
development there would be an additional 60 cars per day waiting in line for the light to
change at Pinnacle Valley Road and Highway 10.He stated he felt the development to
intense for the site and the site should be developed as the current development pattern
in the area.
7
November 10,2005
SU BD I VI SION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7952
Ms.Laura Mehaffy addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated her opposition was to the traffic the proposed development would generate.
She stated her business was located next to the proposed development and at times it
was difficult to exit her driveway.She stated with the addition of the new homes in the
area this would only compound the problem.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development,the proposed
density and the development pattern in the area.Staff noted the density was within the
allowable density of single-family.Staff stated there was a mixture of residential types
located in the area.The discussion included the applicant's request for an in-lieu
contribution for construction of Pinnacle Valley Road.Staff stated they were supportive
of the in-lieu contribution.Staff stated they were not sure at what point the road would
be widened.Staff stated the roadway had been designed but there was not funding for
the construction.The Commission raised concerns with the road not being
constructed to serve the development.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item.The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,4 noes and 2 absent.
8
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:21 FILE NO.:Z-7954
NAME:McCormick Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:Located on the Southeast corner of West Markham Street
and Donna Drive
DEVELOPER:
John McCormick
2608 West 7"Street
Little Rock,AR 72205
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
10 Otter Creek Court,Suite A
Little Rock,AR 72210
AREA:0.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:0 LF
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Single-family —Zero Lot Line Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this 0.69 acre site from R-2,Single-
family to PD-R to allow development of the site with five zero lot line single-family
homes.Three of the homes will front on West Markham Street and two of the
homes will front on Donna Drive.The applicant has indicated an average lot size
of 5,680 square feet.The applicant has also proposed the maximum square
footage of the homes proposed as 1,685 and a minimum square footage of 1,450
square feet of heated and cooled space.The units are proposed with a single-
car garage.
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure facing West Markham Street.
There are single-family homes located along West Markham Street to the North,
East and West of the site.There are also single-family homes located to the
south of the site,abutting Donna Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents.The Santa Fe Heights 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.Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with
special design standards.A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline
will be required.
2.With site development,provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Close old curb cuts.
5.Due to safety concerns and traffic volumes on Markham Street of 21,000 trips
per day in 2003,no access is allowed on Markham Street.Access should be
taken on Donna Drive instead.
6.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Markham Street and Donna Drive.
7.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information.
8.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the proposed
location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional information.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
EntercnE:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.This 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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route 45 —West Markham
Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Rodney Parham Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the creation of five single
family detached homes.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan,which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment.This project area is small in scale and the
uses are similar to the surrounding uses of single-family houses.
Master Street Plan:West Markham Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and Donna Drive is shown as a Local Street.These streets
may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements.
Markham is built to a four-lane section and Donna Drive is built to a two-lane
section.
pl:rr ik y i i I g r ki
the I-630 freeway.It is about one-quarter of a mile to the south of the
application.A Class One bikeway is totally separated from the automobile lanes.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the West Markham Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Infrastructure goal listed objectives of "Have Neighborhood Associations lobby
the city to not grant variances for sidewalk construction requirements for any
redevelopment or new construction in the neighborhood"and "Seek federal
enhancement moneys for sidewalk construction along arterials.The Housing
Goal listed objectives and action statements of "Increase the amount of owner
occupied homes in the area"and "Market the are to young families with children.
A.)Low market values encourage investment in rental properties.B.)Keep
property values up.n
~Landeca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant.Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff questioned if there were utilities
located in the indicated 'l5-foot easement.Mr.McGetrick stated he was not
aware of any utilities within the easement but felt the development could be
designed without the abandonment of the easement.Staff stated the proposed
site plan included the placement of three drives along West Markham Street.
Staff stated they were not supportive of the proposed driveway locations.Staff
suggested Mr.McGetrick relocate the drives to Donna Drive.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated all old curb cuts would be
required to be closed.Staff also stated the storm water detention ordinance
would not apply to the proposed development due to the total land area being
less than one acre.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant
has indicated a single drive to the proposed development from Donna Drive.
Each of the units will be rear loaded with a cross access easement for the drive.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
The applicant has indicated the development of the proposed lots with a 25-foot
building line adjacent to Donna Drive and a 35-foot building line adjacent to West
Markham Street.The applicant has proposed a minimum lot width of 40-feet and
a minimum lot area of 5,260 square feet.The applicant is proposing the
development of the lots as a zero lot line single-family development.The
ordinance typically requires a minimum lot width of 40-feet and a minimum lot
area of 4,000 square feet.The applicant has indicated sufficient lot widths and
area to meet the typical minimum requirements.
The zoning ordinance also typically requires a planned residential development
to contain a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of the site to be developed as
common green space and a minimum of 500 square feet of private open space
per lot.The applicant is not proposing the development of common open space
but each of the lots will have a minimum of 1,750 square feet of private open
space.Staff feels this is sufficient to meet the open space needs of the new
homes.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant is proposing the
development of this 0.69 acre site with five zero lot line single-family lots resulting
in a density of 7.2 units per acre.The applicant has indicated the maximum
square footage of the homes will be 1,685 square feet and the minimum square
footage of the homes will be 1,450 square feet of heated and cooled space with a
single-car garage.The applicant has indicated the homes will be developed as
owner occupied housing and be constructed with brick or brick and vinyl siding.
Staff feels the proposed development is appropriate for the location.To staff's
knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
request.Staff feels the proposed development will meet a need for affordable
quality housing as an in-fill development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions and comments as noted in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the request.There were registered
objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the
request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs
D,E and F of the agenda staff report.
Mr.Pat McGetrick stated the applicant was proposing the development of the site as a
single-family development.He stated each unit would be sold as a single-family home.
5
November 10,2005
S U B D I V I S I ON
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
He stated the units would average 1600 square feet of heated and cooled space.He
stated he did not feel the traffic on Donna Drive would be significantly increased as a
result of the development.
Mr.Gary Hutcheson addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.He stated
there were 15 homes located on Donna Drive and the developer was proposing to add
five additional homes to the site.He stated the proposed development did not allow
areas for children to play since the lots were relatively small.He stated he felt the
development too intense for the area.
Ms.Mary Hutcheson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the area was primarily elderly residents and couples without children.She
stated the area was now the old west Little Rock.She stated the units were proposed
at 35-feet from West Markham Street which in her opinion was very close.She stated
she had walked to the post office in the past and the cars traveled very fast down West
Markham.She stated the traffic in the area backed up from Barrow to Donna Drive in
the mornings making it impossible to travel east.She stated it was also very difficult to
exit Donna Drive to travel west since the volume of traffic in the area both east and west
bound was great.She stated the development was too intense for the area.She stated
the site would accommodate two homes but not the five as being proposed.
Ms.Kathleen Oleson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated the development was adding a substantial number of units to the site.She
stated the Commission should consider the request and the impact on the adjoining
properties prior to approving the development as proposed.
Mr.Walter Binz addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.He
stated his property adjoined the proposed development.He stated Donna Drive was
270 feet long and ended in a cul-de-sac.He stated the developer was proposing a
20 percent increase in the number of homes located on Donna Drive.He stated traffic
in the mornings was a concern in the morning.He stated turning left was very difficult.
He stated based on the design of the subdivision there was nowhere for the children to
play except on the street.He stated Donna Drive was not a street for children to be
playing on based on the traffic and the speed of the traffic.
Ms.Anita Spence addressed the Commission in opposition of the request.She stated
her family lived on Donna Drive.She stated the proposed development of the site with
zero lot line patio homes was out of character for the area.She stated there were
appropriate locations for developments as proposed but this was not the area for this
type development.She stated she felt two homes were appropriate for the site,which
would allow yard area.She stated the proposed development was not a benefit to the
neighborhood only the developer.
Mr.Charles Ready addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated the lived on Donna Drive since 1967.He stated he took his grandchildren to
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:21 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7954
school four mornings per week and he exited the subdivision going westbound.He
stated this was a very difficult turn since the traffic on West Markham was very heavy
and traveling very fast.He stated he felt the site should be left,as was currently platted.
Mr.John McCormick stated he was the developer of the site.He stated the homes
would range in size from 1400 square feet to 1600 square feet and priced around $100
per square foot.He stated the units would be single-story units and be constructed of
brick,brick and stucco with some stone fronts.He stated the construction materials
would be consistent with other homes in the area.He stated the development was for
one-story patio homes with the target market 55 plus and empty nesters.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the
appropriateness of the development for the area.A motion was made to approve the
request.The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes,5 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:22 FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
NAME:Chevaux Revised Short-form POD
LOCATION:Located South of Cantrell Road,approximately 500 feet East of
Chenonceau Boulevard
DEVELOPER:
Orion Capitol Ventures
2200 N.Rodney Parham Road,Suite 206
Little Rock,AR 72212
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
¹24Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:3.4 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:POD
ALLOWED USES:Planned Office Development —0-3 General Office District uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised POD
PROPOSED USE:Planned Office Development —0-3 General Office District uses—
creation of lot lines
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance request to allow backing into a service easement.
2.A variance to allow the development of lots without public street frontage.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No.19,098,adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 18,2004,
established Chevaux Short-form POD.The project consisted of 33,600 square feet of
proposed building space containing 0-3,General Office District uses.The applicant
requested ten percent of the building square footage be allowed the Accessory uses
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
allowed in the 0-3 zoning district.The applicant indicated 142 parking spaces or 4.23
spaces per 1000 square feet.The proposed building was indicated as an "L"shaped
building and turned away from existing residential property to the south and east.The
rear of the building was to act as screening to the adjoining properties to the east and
south since no doors or windows were proposed other than those required by fire code.
A cross access easement and shared driveway would be utilized to provide adequate
circulation with the adjacent development to the west.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved Planned Office
Development to allow the creation of seven lots and the construction of seven
buildings each on individual lots.The applicant has indicated the smaller
individual building footprints will allow the developers to more closely match the
existing topography.The applicant has indicated site improvements and
perimeter landscaping will be constructed as an overall development.The
applicant has indicated each of the lots will be final platted in a single phase.
The applicant has indicated buildings will be constructed based on market
demand.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and sloping slightly from Cantrell Road.There are single-
family homes located to the south and east of the site.To the west of the site is
property recently developed with a strip retail center.
Cantrell Road adjacent to the site is a four lane roadway with a turn lane at
Chenonceau Boulevard.A traffic signal has been installed at the intersection of
Chennonceau Boulevard and Cantrell Road.There is not a sidewalk in place
adjacent to the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident concerning the proposed use of the property.All residents who could be
identified located within 300-feet of the site,the Bayonne,Margeaux Property
Owners Association,the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and all
owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public
hearing.
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1.Per the Land Alteration Regulations,Section 29-186 (h),a one time approval
was given by Public Works to allow stockpiling of construction spoil material
on site for a period of six (6)months.The six (6)month period has been
exceeded and the material must be removed.
2.Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.Show the
proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan.
3.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
4.Highway 10 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required.
5.Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
6.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
8.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
9.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.
10.Currently,higher grades exist on northwest corner of property at utility pole
compared to western access driveway.Installation of sidewalk and access
ramp in this area could affect stability of utility pole and should be accounted
for in grading plan.
11.Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main on site.Indicate easements on the plan and
no construction within the existing easements will be permitted.Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
~Enter:No comment received.
Center-Point Ener:No comment received.
SBC:No comment received.
3
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
Central Arkansas Water:All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met.A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s)will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges.A water main extension will be required in order to provide
service to this property.Adequate easements must be provided for installation of
water mains.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 De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3700 for additional information.
Count Plannin:No comment.
CATA:The site is located near CATA Bus Route 025 —Highway 10 Express
Bus Route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
~Landsca e:
1.Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
2.Prior approval was granted for the buffer and landscape areas proposed on the
plan.
3.The proposed parking areas do not provide for the eight percent (3,414 square
feet)interior landscaping required.The plan submitted is 1,155 square feet less
than this requirement.A variance from this standard would require City Beautiful
Commission approval.
4.Interior islands are to be a minimum of 7 V2 feet in width and 150 square feet in
area to receive credit towards the cities minimal interior landscaping
requirements.
5.Berming is encouraged along the scenic Highway 10 corridor.
6.A controlled automatic irrigation system is required.
7.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
4
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 20,2005)
Mr.Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the
request.Staff presented an overview indicting there were additional items
necessary to complete the review process.Staff requested Mr.Daters include
the utility easement located along the eastern perimeter of the site.Staff also
stated the ordinance typically prohibited the backing of automobiles into the
service easement.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the storm water detention
ordinance would apply to the proposed development.There was a general
discussion concerning the eastern most drive and the indicated parking spaces
along the drive.Staff stated the parking was acceptable.Staff stated Cantrell
Road was a five lane road at this location and the drive allowed for sufficient
stacking.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed development
did not comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District but was previously
approved as indicated.Staff stated they would continue to support the reduced
landscaping and building setback.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies;suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further
clarification.There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan addressing most of the issues raised
at the October 20,2005,Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has
indicated the 15-foot sanitary sewer easement located along the eastern
perimeter of the site and has shown the proposed drives as a cross access and
utility easement.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the backing into a service
easement.Per the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-210(g)(7)parking spaces
shall not be permitted to back into a service easement.Section 31-210(j)states
the Commission may approve a variance of this subsection for applications
before them.Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The applicant has
indicated as a part of the site development,features such as pedestrian tables
and landscape islands to be used to slow traffic on the site for both motorist and
pedestrians.
5
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
The applicant is proposing the development of the site as an office park
development.The applicant has indicated seven lots will be created through the
rezoning process and the development of seven buildings on these lots.The
applicant is proposing the development of lots without public street frontage.The
lots will be served by a 24-foot access and utility easement.The applicant is
requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of lots
without public street frontage.Staff is supportive of this variance request.The
applicant has indicated the buildings will range in size from 3,500 square feet to
7,000 square feet.Each of the buildings is proposed as a single-story building.
The applicant has indicated the buildings will be constructed as smaller scale
buildings similar to buildings located at the Ranch Subdivision.The applicant
has proposed 127 parking spaces.The site will contain a total of 32,000 square
feet of office space.Based on the total square footage,80 parking spaces would
typically be required.
Site lighting will be low level and directional,directed inward away from
residentially zoned properties per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District
requirement.A single dumpster will serve the development and will be fully
screened to comply with City ordinance requirements.The hours of operation
will be from 6 am to 6 pm seven days per week.The applicant has also indicated
the proposed uses are 0-3,General and Professional Office District uses.
The applicant has proposed a single development sign within the landscaped
area along Highway 10 and each individual lot will have an identification sign.
The applicant has indicated the signage along Highway 10 will be a ground
mounted monument style sign a maximum of ten feet in height and 100 square
feet in area.Each of the development signs will be a maximum of six square feet
in sign area.
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request.The proposed site plan does not
fully comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to
landscaped area and building setback along the eastern and southern property
line.The ordinance would typically require a 30-foot building setback along the
eastern perimeter and a 40-foot building setback along the southern perimeter.
The previous approval allowed for the reduced setbacks and a larger scale
building.Staff feels with the proposed development being smaller scale
buildings,the reduced setbacks continue to be acceptable.The applicant's site
plan indicates screening will be provided along the eastern and southern property
line as a six foot opaque fence.Staff recommends the fencing be designed to
match the existing fencing within the subdivision as a wood fence with brick
columns.
6
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:22 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7605-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of the above
agenda staff report.
Staff recommends the fencing be designed to match the existing fencing within
the subdivision as a wood fence with brick columns.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow backing into a
service easement.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the development
of lots without public street frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs
D,E,F and H of the above agenda staff report.Staff presented a recommendation that
the required screening be a fence and the fencing be designed to match the existing
fencing within the subdivision as a wood fence with brick columns and the fence be
installed prior to any building construction or site development related to building
construction.Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested
variance to allow backing into a service easement and a recommendation of approval of
the requested variance to allow the development of lots without public street frontage,
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
7
November 10,2005
ITEM NO.:23 REQUEST FOR TIMBER HARVEST
Name:Atoka Timber Harvest request to
Harvest Trees,Chap 29-166
Location:Tire Curing Bladders,LLC.at 5701
Murray in Little Rock,Pulaski County,
Arkansas
Owner/A licant:Mr.Mark M.Hampton
~Re uest:A request to issue a grading permit to
harvest trees on 34 acres.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Master Street Plan
Murray Street is an industrial street.
3.Develo ment Potential and Land Use
This 34 acre property is zoned I-2 and fronts Murray Street.The property
is owned by Tire Curing Bladders,LLC.The property consists of an
undeveloped area with dense trees on the northern and eastern portions
and a plant facility on the southern portion.Adjacent properties to the
north is undeveloped Fourche Creek bottomlands zoned residential,R-2.
Adjacent property to the east,west and south are zoned industrial,I-2
and I-3.
4.Nei hborhood Position
Public Works has received one inquiry that objected to the percentage of
trees to be harvested.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Per Section 29-187(e)(2),the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to
harvest timber on approximately 34 acres of land on Murray Street.Staff at
Public Works is unable to issue a grading permit because construction to develop
the site is not imminent as required per Section 29-186(b).Since no construction
at the site is proposed,the ordinance would allow only 7 trees to be harvested on
an industrial zoned property of this size.
November 10,2005
S U B DIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 Cont.REQUEST FOR TIMBER HARVEST
The proposal is to harvest approximately 80%of the marketable timber on the
34 acre property.As part of the variance request,a forest management plan was
prepared by an Arkansas registered forester and submitted.The plan stated,"To
maintain forest health,improve economic growth and return on the investment,
and improve complementary land uses,such as potential future property
development,wildlife habitat,and recreational values,a selective thinning of
timber is recommended.The selective thinning should target removal of many of
the maturing pines and hardwoods,and removal of diseased,dying,deformed,
and suppressed stems."The plan catalogs that approximately 1510 tons of pine
sawtimber and 400 tons of oak sawtimber exist.Of those totals,the harvest will
remove 90%of the pine sawtimber (1359 tons)and 50%of the oak sawtimber
(200 tons)within the property excluding the 40 foot buffer zone along Murray
Street frontage.Work will be staged in the asphalt parking lot on the west side of
the property.Erosion controls consisting of hay bales will be placed on the east
side of the property and once harvesting is completed,disturbed areas of the site
will be seeded with appropriate native vegetation to establish cover necessary to
prevent erosion.
If the Planning Commission approves this variance request,staff requires
compliance with the following conditions:1.)A 50 foot undisturbed buffer must be
maintained along the northern property boundary due to adjacent R2 zoning;2.)
A 40 foot undisturbed buffer must be maintained along the eastern,southern,
and western property boundaries;3.)Treetops and debris generated from the
harvest activities must be removed at the conclusion of harvest to reduce the
potential fire hazard,4.)Harvest activities must be conducted according to state
tree harvest guidelines and regulations,5.)Damage to off site property must be
repaired by the applicant in a timely manner,6.)A grading permit must be
obtained from Public Works prior to beginning activities,and 6.)all activities and
processes pertaining to this harvest must comply with the forestry management
plan.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for further requirements and
conditions.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:(OCTOBER 20,2005)
Staff met with properties representative.Staff requested a 50 feet buffer along
the northern property line and 40 foot buffer along the eastern,southern,and
western property lines.Staff also requested all tree tops,scraps,and waste
materials be removed from site at conclusion of activities and harvest activities
must be conducted according to state tree harvest guidelines and regulations.
STAFF UPDATE:
To date,no violations of the land alteration ordinance have occurred at this
property.Proof of issuance of public notices was submitted to staff.Staff has
2
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:23 Cont.REQUEST FOR TIMBER HARVEST
received one inquiry that objected to the percentage of trees harvested and
suggested harvest of approximately 50 to 60%of the sawtimber instead of the
80%as proposed.
Staff and applicant agreed on all conditions and requirements as outlined above.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 10,2005)
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 indicating staff and the applicant agreed on all conditions as
outlined in the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item.The Chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval.The motion carried
by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
Adopted:
PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR -2006 DRAFT
SUBDIVISION HEARINGS:
Subdivislcii
~pi tin Date Legal Ad Committee (2)sharira Date (1)(3)
11-14-05 11-25-05 124845 01-05-06
014946 01-2046 01-2606 02-1646
02-21-06 03-03-06 03-0946 03-3046
0443-06 04-1446 04-20-06 05-11-06
05-15-06 05-26-06 064146 06-2246
06-26-06 07-07-06 07-13-06 08-03-06
0847-06 Ihh'IS-06 08-2446 09-1d46
09-18-06 09-2946 10-0546 10-2646
10-30-06 I t-1046 11-16-06 12-0746
12-11-06 12-22-06 12-2846 01-18-07
PLANNING —REZONING -CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS:
Subdivision
~Filin Date ~al Ad Committee (2)~riOate H)D)
I 24545 12-1645 12-22-05 1247-05 12-21-05 01-04-06 01-1946
01-2346 0243-06 024946 01-25-06 02-0646 02-2246 034246
034546 03-17-06 03-23-06 034846 03-22-06 04.05-06 04-1346
04-1745 gd-2846 0544-06 Od-I 9-06 05-0346 05-1746 05-2546
05-3046 054946 06-15-06 0541-05 06-td46 06-28-06 074646
07-1046 07-21-06 07-27-06 07-12-06 07-2546 084B06 08-1748
08-2146 0!LOI-05 094746 06-2345 09-0646 09-20-06 GF2846
10-02-06 10-1346 10-19-06 104d-06 10-18-05 11-0146 11-09-06
11-1346 11-2a-Ot!I 14046 11-15-06 11-2946 12-1346 12-2146
12-22-06 01-05-07 01-11-07 12-2746 01-10-07 01-24-07 024147
AVAI FORMAL MEETING DATES:
(to be scheduled as required)
~rn Date(5)
12-1545
024246
03-16-06
04-2746
06-08-06
07-2046
08-31-05
10-12-06
NOTE'I)Ag public Hearings shag be held st 4:00 P.M unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(2)Ag meetings shall be held at 12:00 P.M.unless changed by the Subdivision Committee.
(3)An agenda meegng will be held prior to each public heanng date and will begin al 330 P.M.in the Meter Cities
Conference Room
(4)Reserved.
(5)Ag informal meetings shall be held at 330 P.M.unless otherwise changed by the Commission.
(6)Ag meetings shall be held at 12:00 NOON unless otherwise changed by the Plans Commmee.
NOTICE.AN INTERPRETER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED UPON REQUEST.REQUEST SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR
TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING DATE.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
u
c)
E
L
ME
M
B
E
R
A,
l
i3
E
-F
.
6.
d'
7
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
L
U
C
A
S
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
TA
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
YA
T
E
S
,
JE
F
F
Cc
gg
cc
T.
3
(~
~m
&
ME
M
B
E
R
j,
s
F
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
LU
C
A
S
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
TA
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
YA
T
E
S
,
J
E
F
F
M
d
g
Ad
j
d~
d
P
,
M
.
V
AY
E
NA
Y
E
+A
B
S
E
N
T
~A
B
S
T
A
I
N
RE
C
U
S
E
/o
F
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
'
l.
0
M)
h&
'
F
&
c
~
ME
M
B
E
R
Ia
C.
I
C.
C.
i
9
lc
J
I
I
L.
I
Z
zu
n
i
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
o
v
v
~
~
g
v
v
4
~
+
e
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
h-
A
A-
%-
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
LU
C
A
S
0
I
I
0
4
v
v
t
4
v
v
0
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
v
~
~
4'
v
g
v
o
o
ME
Y
E
R
,
J
E
R
R
Y
y
v
4
0
v
v
~
~
v'
y
v
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
y
o
o
v
~
v
0
z
y
c
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
~
y'
0
v
v
v
~
v
v
v'
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
0
0
0
o
~
v
v
v
u
v'
'
4
tv
4
TA
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
a
0
e
g
e
v'
v
~
0
v'
l
u
e
v
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
V
~
+
v
v
v
v
g
v
v
YA
T
E
S
,
J
E
F
F
A'
I
A
A.
6
A
ME
M
B
E
R
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
HA
R
G
R
A
V
E
S
,
L
U
C
A
S
LA
N
G
L
A
I
S
,
GA
R
Y
ME
Y
E
R
,
JE
R
R
Y
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
ST
E
B
B
I
N
S
,
RO
B
E
R
T
TA
Y
L
O
R
,
CH
A
U
N
C
E
Y
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
,
DA
R
R
I
N
YA
T
E
S
,
J
E
F
F
M
tI
gA
d
j
de
a
l
%
P.
M
,
AY
E
NA
Y
E
AB
S
E
N
T
AB
S
T
A
I
N
RE
C
U
S
E
8
Po
~
~
November 10,2005
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjournedat10:13p.m.
2
Date
u.L,
Chai e etary