HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_02 06 2003sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 6, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Judith Faust
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Fred Allen, Jr.
Gary Langlais
Jerry Meyer
Members Absent: Norm Floyd
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
III. Approval of the Minutes of the December 19, 2002 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 6, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Appeal of a Notice of Violation of the Land Alteration Ordinance located at
13000 Chenal Parkway
II. NEW ITEMS:
1. Montagne Court Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1344-A), located on the northeast
corner of Forest Lane and South Katillus Road.
2. Graham Smith Addition Revised Plat (S-1369-A), located north of Lee Avenue
near the intersection of Woodrow Street and Ozark Point.
3. Mayer Addition Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1370), located on the northeast
corner of West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road.
4. Parker Place Preliminary Plat (S-1371), located at 12011 Garrison Road.
5. Roland Heights Preliminary Plat (S-1372), located on Roland Heights Road.
6. Courtside Place Revised PD-R (Z-3454-M), located north of Otter Creek Parkway
on Courtside Place.
7. Saugey Short-form PCD (Z-5224-H), located on the northwest corner of Highway
300 and Pinnacle Road.
8. Henry Short-form PCD (Z-6467-A), located at 5301 Mabelvale Pike.
9. Breshears Short-form PCD (Z-6481-B), located on the northwest corner of
Woodlawn and Tyler Streets.
10. Levi Short-form PD-R (Z-7345), located at 4823 C Street.
11. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-16-01) in the Otter Creek Planning District
on the east side of Stagecoach Road south of Baseline Road from Office to
Commercial.
11.1 Townsend Short-form PCD (Z-7346), located at 9219 Stagecoach Road.
12. Brown Short-form PD-R (Z-7347), located at 2018 Commerce Street.
Agenda, Page Two
II. NEW ITEMS: (Cont.)
13. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-29-01) in the Pinnacle Planning District on
Highway 10 at Morgan Cemetery Road from Single Family to Mixed Office
Commercial.
13.1 Morgan Storage Facility Short-form PCD (Z-7348), located on the northwest corner
of Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road.
14. FC Partnership Short-form POD (Z-7349), located at 13616 Kanis Road.
15. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-04-01) in the Heights Hillcrest Planning
District for a portion of the area bounded by Markham Street, Van Buren Street,
B Street and Harrison Street from Commercial, Single Family and Office to Mixed
Use.
15.1 Markham Suite Short-form PCD (Z-7350), located on the northeast corner of West
Markham Street and Harrison Street.
16. Miracle Land Company Short-form PCD (Z-7351), located on the southwest corner
of I-430 and Stagecoach Road.
17. Johnson Daycare Family Home Special Use Permit (Z-7340), located at
1805 Glenda Drive.
18. Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Z-6178-G), located at 9222 Stagecoach Road.
19. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-24-01) in the Sweet Home Planning District
east of the intersection of Trust and Sanders Streets from Single Family and Low
Density Residential to Multi Family.
19.1 Fruit of the Spirit Short-form PD-R (Z-7353), located between Sanders Street and
Grey Street near the intersection of Trust Street.
20. Land Alteration Ordinance Variance for Forest Management, located at Kiwanis Park
and Morehart Park.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: A DAVIS PROPERTIES LAND ALTERATION
Name: Davis Properties Land Alteration
Location: 13000 Chenal Parkway, undeveloped lots east and
rear of Hearne Family Practice Center in Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Max Davis, owner of subject property.
Request: Install a pine tree buffer along southern and eastern
property lines instead of removing fill material
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Chenal Parkway is a principal arterial.
2. Development Potential
This approximate 2 acre site is adjacent to Chenal Parkway and the Hearne Family
Practice Center (“Hearne”). The zoning for this property along with Hearne is O3-Office.
Chenal Creek strip center, a PCD, is adjacent to the property on the east. On the west
the property is adjacent to the Landings Apartments zoned R5-multifamily along with
Hearne. The property to the north is owned by the City of Little Rock and contains the
floodplain of Rock Creek. It is believed the subject property will develop in the next 5 to
10 years.
3. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
The area along Chenal Parkway is retail, office, and multifamily developments with
Rock Creek bounding on the north. The northern portion contains a 400 to 600 feet
floodplain which is owned by the City of Little Rock. The southwest portion of this
original tract of land has been developed by Parkway Family Medical Center.
4. Neighborhood Position
No opinion position has been presented to Public Works.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Mr. Max Davis, owner of Davis Properties contacted Public Works pertaining to adding fill to
this property. Public Works inspected the property, contacted Mr. Davis and explained due to
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) DAVIS PROPERTIES LAND ALTERATION
2
construction not being imminent the northern portion of the property could not be filled due to
floodplain and the remaining property could only be filled with less than 1000 cubic yards, less
than 10 vertical feet of fill, and remove 7 trees or less as stated in the Land Alteration
Ordinance, Section 29-186(a,b,c,d).
On July 1, 2002, Mr. Davis wrote Public Works a letter complying with the fill stipulations for
this property. On July 12, 2002, Public Works conducted a site inspection and discovered
about 6000 cubic yards of fill had been placed on the property. Mr. Davis was issued a Stop
Work Order and a Notice of Violation.
The Notice of Violation directed Mr. Davis per Section 29-170(c) to restore the land to
maximum extent practicable to its original condition beginning with a site restoration plan within
30 days.
Mr. Davis agrees with the issuance of the stop work order and the notice of violation but
objects to restoring the land to maximum extent practicable to it original condition by removing
the fill material placed on the property. Mr. Davis is appealing to the planning commission to
replant pine trees on the south and east property lines to screen the fill material.
Public Works is in support of the concept of Mr. Davis’ plan but believes a 25 feet wide buffer
of 2–2.5 cal, 10-12 feet pine trees should be planted on the east and south property lines. The
western buffer is in need of repair and plantings are required in inadequate areas. Also, the fill
material must be hydroseeded with bermuda grass. Public Works requires a restoration plan
and warranty agreement be submitted prior to commencing work.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
indicating there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed restoration plan.
Staff stated they were agreeable with the restoration plan submitted by the applicant and
recommended approval of the plan.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1344-A
NAME: Montagne Court Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: On the northeast corner of Forest Lane and South Katillus Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Jim Smith White-Daters & Associates
5011 South Katillus Road #24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 14.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 60 FT. NEW STREET: 2200
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a 50-foot curve radii on the interior streets on the southern
two curves.
2. A variance to allow the interior street to be classified as a minor residential street.
3. A variance to allow a reduced front platted building line for Lots 18 – 26 (20-foot).
VARIANCES/WAIVERS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED:
1. A variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 19 - 36.
2. A variance to allow a 20-foot front platted building line on Lots 1 – 17 and Lots 27
- 60.
3. A variance to allow a reduced rear yard platted building line on Lots 1, 38 and 60.
4. A variance to allow a 5-foot side yard setback on all lots.
5. A variance to allow a reduced minimum lot width for Lots 18 - 21 and 24 - 27.
6. A waiver of internal sidewalk requirement.
7. A deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for improvements to South Katillus
Road.
8. A deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for Forest Lane.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1344-A
2
9. A variance to allow a 6-foot brick and wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot brick
columns along the west and south property lines and an eight (8) foot wood
privacy fence along the north and east property lines.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 20, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing an application was approved
for the Montagne Court Preliminary Plat. The applicant proposed the subdivision of this
14.62 acre site into 60 single-family residential lots for the development of garden style
homes. The lots were proposed as rear loading with alley access to garages. The
average lot size proposed was 60 foot by 120 foot or 7,200 square feet. The applicant
proposed the addition of 2,200 linear feet of internal street as a part of the development.
The applicant proposed nine waivers and variances from City Ordinances related to the
project. The Board of Directors approved these requested variances at their July 17,
2002 Public Hearing (Ordinance No. 18,721).
The approval included a variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 19 – 36. The
lots would have access from a new city street, Montagne Court and/or Forest Lane.
The applicant proposed a platted 10-foot no access easement along the rear of the lots
or along Forest Lane.
The applicant proposed reduced setbacks and platted building lines as a part of the
development. The applicant proposed adjacent to the interior street a variance to allow
a 20-foot front platted building line on Lots 1 – 17 and 27 - 60. The applicant also
requested the corner lots (Lots 1, 38 and 60) be allowed a reduced rear yard setback of
8-feet and reduced side yard setback on all lots of 5-feet.
The proposed development did not meet the minimum lot size width for a few of the lots
in the development therefore, a variance to allow a reduced minimum lot width for Lots
18– 21 and 24 – 27 was requested.
The applicant proposed fencing to surround the development. The proposal included
an eight-foot wood fence along the north and east property lines (the rear property lines)
and a seven-foot brick column and wrought iron fence adjacent to the west and south
property line or the street right-of-way. The ordinance standard for fencing height
adjacent to the street is four-feet and six-foot adjacent to the side and rear property line.
A variance was approved to allow increased heights of the fencing on all property lines
(6-foot brick and wrought iron fence with seven (7) foot columns along the west and
south property lines).
The applicant also requested a waiver of the internal sidewalk requirement and a
deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for improvements to South Katillus Road.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1344-A
3
The applicant proposed to phase the street improvements with the development of the
subdivision. The applicant also requested a deferral of Master Street Plan
improvements to Forest Lane until Phase IV developed.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant is now proposing a variance to allow a 50-foot radii on the interior
streets on the southern two curves. The applicant’s previous submittal included
the 50-foot radii on the drawing but a variance was not requested to allow the
reduced radii. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the interior
street to be classified as a minor residential street (without sidewalks).
The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a reduced front platted
building line within the development. The proposal is for lots (Lots 18 – 26) to
have the same reduced front platted building line as was approved for the
remainder of the subdivision.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family residence along with a stable and riding arena
(for personal use). The applicant has started with the installation of water and
sewer lines on the site working toward final platting. The area to the north
contains two converted single-family residences with POD zoning; a beauty
shop/tanning salon and an attorney’s office. A third structure was recently
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a rezoning request to
change the site to POD. There is a large tract of undeveloped R-2 zoned
property immediately to the east of the site and further east and to the south of
the proposed subdivision there are single-family residences, both stick-built and
manufactured homes, on large lots. The area to the west contains larger homes
on large lots. To the southwest of the site is a newly developing subdivision,
Valley Falls Estates.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comments from the neighborhood.
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association and the Johnson
Ranch Neighborhood Association along with the abutting property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. All comments made on the previous plat apply, unless modified by this filing.
2. As stated in the previous review, interior streets exceed the length permitted
by minor residential street standards. In the previous plat, staff supported a
waiver of a 24-foot street width in conjunction with rear access design of
subdivision but did not support a waiver of sidewalk construction. However,
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1344-A
4
recent comments from the Fire Department indicate that the federal fire code
standard is a minimum 26-feet street width.
3. A fifty foot street radius does not meet minimum design standards for a minor
residential street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, if service is
required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of
connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Water main
extensions will be required in order to provide service to this property. This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 982-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Maintain a 20-foot access at
Montagne and South Katillus Road. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at
918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the applicant. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the Commission had approved
a preliminary plat for the site in June of 2002. Staff stated the applicant was now
requesting three additional variances to the preliminary plat.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1344-A
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 24-foot street would be
required per the Master Street Plan. Mr. White stated the street did serve more
lots than was typical for a Minor Residential Street but the design and concept
was to make the subdivision more attractive by narrowing the streets, accessing
the garages from the rear and pulling the homes closer to the street. Mr. White
stated with the placement of two (2) cul-de-sacs he could accomplish the desired
effect but the cul-de-sac development would be a hindrance to the Fire
Department and Sanitation Department. Staff stated they would review the
request prior to the Commission meeting.
Staff stated the applicant had requested a fence height variance and would need
to file an application with the Board of Adjustment. Mr. White indicated he would
do so on the next available filing date.
There were no further issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated the streets at 24-feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Public Works
Staff has reconsidered the need for sidewalks in the development and has
determined even though the development is 60 lots, more than the maximum
number of lots allowable for this street classification, the development is served
by a loop street and the function is similar to a Minor Residential Street.
The applicant is also requesting a 50-foot curve radii on the interior street on the
southern two (2) curves. Staff supports this request. With the requested radii
the effect will act as traffic calming reducing the speeds of motorist.
The applicant has also indicated a 20-foot platted building line on Lots 8 – 26.
Staff supports this request. The applicant has indicated the request is to allow
the development more uniformity and the remainder of the lots were preliminary
platted with the 20-foot platted building line.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed preliminary plat. Staff is supportive of the request and the requested
waivers and variances.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1344-A
6
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a 20-foot platted
building line on Lots 18 – 26.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a 50-foot curve
radii on the southern two (2) curves on Montagne Court.
Staff recommends approval of the request to classify Montagne Court as a Minor
Residential Street (without sidewalks).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff recommended approval of the requested variance to allow a 20-foot platted
building line on Lots 18 – 26, the requested variance to allow a 50-foot curve radii on
the southern two (2) curves on Montagne Court and the request to classify Montagne
Court as a Minor Residential Street (without sidewalks).
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1369-A
NAME: Graham Smith Addition Revised Plat
LOCATION: North of Lee Avenue near the intersection of Woodrow Street and
Ozark Point
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Graham Smith Construction Co. LLC White Daters & Associates
2020 West 3rd Street #611 #24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 - Heights Hillcrest
CENSUS TRACT: 15
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this tract of land into two single-family
residential lots. The lots will be 8200 square feet (82-feet by 100-feet) and 8700
square feet (87-feet by 100-feet). Lot 1 will have access to Woodrow Street and
Lot 2 is a corner lot on Lee Street and Woodrow Street. The applicant is
proposing a 25-foot platted building line along Woodrow Street and a 25-foot
platted building line along Lee Street as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tract with a scattering of trees sloping significantly from north
to south. Uses in the area are predominately single-family along Woodrow Street
and Ozark Point. There are two duplex structures located across Lee Street to
the south. To the east of the site is Knoop Park and the Riverdale Day School;
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1369-A
2
formerly the Easter Seals School site. To the north of the site is a large water
treatment plant.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Hillcrest Residents Association and the Capitol View Stifft Station
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing along with all
abutting property owners. As of this writing, staff has received one informational
phone call from an area property owner.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Lee Street is classified as a local street under the Master Street Plan. A
dedication of right-of-way to 25-feet from centerline is required.
2. The plat should note this lot was originally platted as Lot 2 of the Worthern
and Walthour Addition to the City of Little Rock.
3. With Building Permit:
4. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to Lee Street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way on Woodrow Street prior to occupancy.
4. A 20-feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Lee and
Woodlawn.
5. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain a barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-
way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for
additional information.
6. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, to serve
Tract 1. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Existing waterline easement must be shown. Relocation
of an existing 16-inch water main at the expense of the developer will be
required. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 982-2438 for additional details.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1369-A
3
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Graham Smith were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item to the Committee stating the applicant had requested a
Staff level “lot split” a few months earlier and was now requesting the resulting
second lot be subdivided into two (2) lots. Staff addressed Mr. Smith indicating
there were additional items which would need to be shown on the proposed plat.
Staff stated the source of water, wastewater disposal, all easements and a
vicinity map to scale was required on all submissions. Staff also stated a 25-foot
platted building line would be required on all street sides of the proposed plat.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Lee Street was classified
as a local street under the Master Street Plan and a dedication of 25-feet from
centerline would be required. Staff also stated the street would have to be
widened to meet the current pavement width requirement. Mr. Smith questioned
a waiver of street improvements. Staff stated they were not supportive of the
idea since the street did provide access to a nearby school. Staff also stated a
20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersections of Woodrow and
Lee Streets.
Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and the Little Rock
Wastewater Utility. Staff suggested the applicant contact these agencies for
additional information.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff, as requested, indicating the
additional information on the plat and included in the general notes. The
applicant has indicated Central Arkansas Water as the source of water supply
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1369-A
4
and the Little Rock Wastewater Utility as the means of wastewater disposal. The
plat also indicates the dedication of right-of-way on Lee Street and a 20-foot
radial dedication at the intersection of Woodrow and Lee Streets.
The lots will meet the minimum requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance even
after the dedication of right-of-way. Lot 1 will be 8,700 square feet and Lot 2 will
be 8,200 square feet (7,000 square feet minimum required). The lots will also
conform to the minimum lot width requirement (60-foot minimum).
The Tract was platted as a single lot as were the lots to the east of the site many
years ago and has remained in this configuration. The lots to the west of the site
are the more traditional Hillcrest lot configuration, 50-foot widths. The applicant
is requesting the subdivision to construct two (2) single-family homes on the site
both of which will compare in square footage to the existing homes in the area.
Uses in the area include single-family, duplexes and a school. There is a large
water treatment plant located to the north of the site and a City of Little Rock park
located northeast of the site. Staff feels the use is consistent with uses in the
area. The request meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and the applicant has indicated dedication of additional right-of-way
on Lee Street and ½ street improvements to Lee Street as required per the
Master Street Plan.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of the request as filed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested plat subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Graham Smith and Mr. Joe White were present representing the application. There
was one objector present. Staff stated the proposed plat met all the minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated the applicant was not
requesting any waivers or variances. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of
the requested plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of the above report.
Mr. David Cowan addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed preliminary
plat. He stated parking was a concern of the neighborhood. Mr. Cowan stated Lee
Street was a narrow street and cars parked on both sides of the street making it near
impossible for fire engines to pass. He stated historically when fire engines could not
pass on Lee Street they would use Woodrow as an alternative route. Mr. Cowan stated
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1369-A
5
with the development of the site into two (2) residential lots this would only add to the
number of cars parked on the street. He stated his opposition was a safety concern.
Mr. Joe White stated parking on Woodrow was signed for parking on one side of the
street only. Mr. White stated the proposed homes would be built with a driveway to
minimize street parking by the occupants.
There was little discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the plat as filed.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1370
NAME: Mayer Addition Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson White-Daters & Associates
400 W. Capitol Avenue #24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 4.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3, West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 21.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement
for a right-turn lane on West Markham Street.
Waiver of the requirement for driveway spacing on the site.
Waiver of the number of required on-site parking spaces (23 proposed vs. 26 required).
Waiver of the dedication of right-of-way along West Markham Street.
Waiver of the dedication of right-of-way along Rodney Parham Road.
Waiver of landscaping requirements along the northern and eastern lease lines (City
Beautiful Commission issue).
A. PROPOSAL:
This site is occupied by a Burger King restaurant, which has been vacant since it
burned. The applicant proposes to rebuild the Burger King site in close proximity
to the original building. The applicant proposes some modifications to allow
additional perimeter buffering along the street frontage and allow for interior
landscaping islands.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
2
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the right turn lane on West Markham
Street along with a waiver of the dedication of additional right-of-way on West
Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road. The applicant is also requesting a
variance in the number of required on-site parking spaces. The site plan
indicates 23 parking spaces while the number of spaces required would be 26
spaces.
The applicant will seek a waiver of the required landscaping along the northern
and eastern lease lines of the site from the City Beautiful Commission.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has three (3) lease space areas and a common area containing parking.
Existing on the site is the “burned-out” Burger King building, a small kiosk
building once used as a gift shop and a strip retail center. Other uses in the area
include single-family to the east and north and office and commercial uses to the
west and south. The strip retail center contains a pawnshop, an antique store, a
clothing store and a used office furniture store.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Apache Crime Watch Neighborhood Association and all property
owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. West Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial with a special provision for an 80-feet wide right-of-way. A dedication
of right-of-way 40-feet from centerline is required.
2. Rodney Parham Road is also classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of the
streets.
4. The Master Street Plan calls for the construction of a right-turn lane at the
intersection of arterials. Provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to these streets
including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.
5. The drive-through driveway location does not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210 for spacing from the
intersection (300-feet) and spacing between driveways (150-feet).
Consolidate and relocate driveways on Rodney Parham Road. The width of
driveway must not exceed 36-feet.
6. The driveway on West Markham must be right turn in, right turn out only. Due
to the narrow lot width of West Markham, the proposed driveway location is
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
3
acceptable.
7. Plans for all work in the 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).
8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
9. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available on the Burger King site and not adversely affected.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape Issues: The average street buffer width requirement along West
Markham Street is 34 feet. The average buffer width proposed is 10 ½ feet. The
proposed landscape strip meets the Landscape Ordinance 6.7 feet minimum
width requirement.
The proposed street buffer along Rodney Parham Road meets the ordinance
average 22 feet width requirement but in one area drops below the 11 foot width
minimum by 4.3 feet. The proposed landscape strip meets the Landscape
Ordinance 6.7 feet minimum width requirement.
The proposed perimeter landscape strips along the northern and eastern lot lines
drop below the 5 feet minimum width allowed by the Landscape Ordinance.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
4
Proposed areas set aside for building and interior landscaping meet width
ordinance requirements.
Landscape Ordinance calculations take into account the 25% reduction allowed
for rehabilitation of an existing site.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Dickson Flake were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item with a brief overview of the proposed development.
Staff stated the review of the proposed development was different than the
review of a new development on the site. Staff stated the applicant intended to
rebuild a burned-out structure. Staff stated the applicant would however raze the
building and start from scratch.
Staff requested the proposed building height, the proposed signage details and
hours of operation be included in the general notes. Staff also requested any
additional site lighting must be low level and directional, directed away from
residentially zoned properties. Staff also requested the required screening of the
dumpster be indicated on the site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a right-turn lane on West
Markham Street was a requirement per the Master Street Plan. Staff also stated
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline of Rodney Parham Road
would be required.
Staff questioned the drive-through driveway location stating the location did not
meet the ordinance requirement for spacing from the intersection and the
spacing between driveways. Staff stated the applicant should consider
consolidation and relocation of the driveways on Rodney Parham Road.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was being review
as a whole and not as an out parcel to the site. Staff stated this gave
considerable flexibility in buffer and landscaping requirements to the site.
There were no further items for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the
common ingress-egress easement on the proposed site plan. The applicant has
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
5
also indicated dumpster screening as requested, indicating the screening will
conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirement.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of Master Street Plan requirements related
to the site. The request includes the waiver of a right-turn lane along West
Markham Street, the waiver of right-of-way dedication along West Markham
Street and a waiver of right-of-way dedication along Rodney Parham Road. Staff
supports these requests.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver in the number of required on-site
parking spaces. The proposed development includes 18 spaces and the drive-
through lane. This area can count toward the full-filment of the required spaces
allowing an additional five (5) spaces (a total of 23 parking spaces). The typical
minimum required parking spaces would be twenty-six (26) spaces based on one
(1) space per one-hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. Staff is
supportive of the requested waiver of the number of on-site parking spaces.
The proposal is the reconstruction of a burned fast food restaurant. The
applicant is rebuilding in close proximity to the existing structure and is not
requesting any additional curb-cuts. The applicant is narrowing the drive along
Rodney Parham Road and changing the drive to an exit only driveway. The
applicant is also installing landscaping around the perimeter of the lease lines.
Currently there is no landscaping in place. The area along the northern and
eastern lease line falls short of the required five (5) foot minimum width allowed
by the Landscape Ordinance. The applicant will seek a waiver of this
requirement from the City Beautiful Commission.
The applicant has not indicted on the proposed site plan the screening of the
menu board speaker for the drive-through window. The applicant will be required
to mount the speaker so the sound will baffled on all sides in a manner which will
direct the sound produced to the vehicle served. The applicant will be required to
provide a solid wall at least six (6) feet in height and twenty (20) feet in length
along the opposite lane line. This wall shall be constructed of masonry or wood
with a textured finish to diminish sound deflection.
With the current lease lines in place, to redevelop the site to meet all existing
Ordinance requirements would be near impossible. Staff supports the applicant
in their effort to redevelop the site and supports the requested waivers and
variances to allow reduced landscaping, a reduced number of on-site parking
spaces, a waiver of Master Street Plan requirements to construct a right-turn lane
on West Markham Street, a waiver of the right-of-way dedication to West
Markham and Rodney Parham Road and a waiver of the driveway spacing
requirement.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
6
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report, with the variances
and waivers listed below:
1. Staff recommends the applicant install the required screening of the menu
board per the Zoning Ordinance requirement.
2. Staff supports a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement for a right-
turn lane on West Markham Street.
3. Staff supports the waiver of the dedication of right-of-way along West
Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road.
4. Staff supports the requested variance in the driveway spacing requirement
for both West Markham Street and Rodney Parham Road.
5. Staff supports the request to allow a reduced number of on-site parking
spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the proposal was the reconstruction of
a burned Burger King and the review by Staff was as such. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested waivers and variances when viewing the site as a
redevelopment.
Mr. Dickson Flake addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Flake
stated the site was a redevelopment. He stated should the city require the Master
Street Plan dedications and street construction the site would not be developable.
Mr. Flake stated the Burger King was rebuilding in near the exact location as the current
building with minor revision to the building location to allow the addition of landscaping
on the site, which was currently not in place.
Mr. Flake stated the site plan indicated parking was not sufficient to meet the needs of
the building but there were two areas on the site which had not been striped and could
be striped to add additional parking. Mr. Flake stated Staff had requested written
permission from the owners to proceed. He stated the use of the ingress/egress
easement by the Burger King lease holder had been secured. Mr. Flake stated the
owners of the property had indicated the full use of the site for the Burger King
restaurant with regard to parking and access.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1370
7
Mr. John McKay addressed the Commission stating he was a major lease holder of the
site. He stated Mr. Dick Downing would represent him before the Commission.
Mr. Dick Downing addressed the Commission stating he was representing Mr. McKay
who was the single lease holder of the remaining property. Mr. Downing stated
Mr. McKay had a ground lease with the owners as did the Burger King owners. He
stated according to a lease agreement signed by Burger King and the Mayer Family 30
years ago the Burger King owners were responsible for maintenance of the parking lot.
He stated the Burger King owners had never provided any financial participation to
maintenance. Mr. Downing stated the Burger King lease was expired.
Mr. Downing stated there were other possibilities for redevelopment of the site. He
stated Mr. McKay was working with a potential client which would not require the
number of waivers and variances as the currently proposal would require to redevelop.
Mr. Downing stated the development was a new deal and should be reviewed as such.
He stated the City should not repeat the same mistakes made thirty years ago by
allowing this site to redevelop in the currently proposed configuration. He stated traffic
and safety were the two primary concerns.
Ms. Ruth Bell spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the site
was not a good location. Ms. Bell stated the grade at this location on Markham Street
caused patrons traveling west bound on West Markham to not see automobiles turning
into the restaurant or would mistakenly think the driver was turning at the intersection of
Markham and Rodney Parham Road.
There was a general discussion concerning the site plan and the time period of the
approval. Mr. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, stated the site plan was approved
until a situation prompted change and a new site plan was submitted and approved.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, stated the Commission should review the plan
from one of two ways; a humanitarian or from a planning perspective.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed to include all Staff comments and
recommendations and the requested waivers of the Master Street Plan requirements.
The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1371
NAME: Parker Place Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: 12011 Garrison Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Ronald Thompson, Sr. Blaylock, Threet, Phillips & Associates
12011 Garrison Road 1501 Market Drive
Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 9.96 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 30 - Buzzard Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow the creation of two (2)
pipe-stem lots.
A variance from the minimum width of the pipe-stem at the street right-of-way (30-feet
minimum).
A variance from the maximum depth of a pipe-stem (300-feet maximum).
Waiver of Master Street Plan requirement to construct ½ street improvements to
Garrison Road.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 9.96 acre site into two single-family lots.
Lot 2 will be approximately 1.38 acres while the second lot will consist of the
remainder of the area. The creation of the plat will require a variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-232(f)] to allow the creation of a pipe-stem lot
for both Lots 1 and 2. Both Lots will be served by the existing driveway located
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1371
2
on the site but will have public street frontage to Garrison Road should access
become an issue in the future.
In addition the definition of a pipe stem lot requires the width of the pipe-stem at
the street to be no less than thirty (30) feet and a maximum depth of three
hundred (300) feet. The proposed plat does not meet the minimum requirement
of the definition.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement
to construct one-half street improvements to Garrison Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site with an existing single-family structure located on
proposed Lot 1. A single-family structure is located nearer Garrison Road on a
tract of land that is not a part of this plat providing a driveway to the lots being
considered as this preliminary plat. Other uses in the area include single-family
homes located on large tracts of land and a scattering of non-residential uses in
a rural setting.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There
is not a neighborhood association located in this area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Garrison Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Obtain waiver or provide contribution in-lieu of construction for Master Street
Plan requirements.
3. Driveway location and width must meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 31-210. Driveway width must be less than 20-feet
and spaced more than 5-feet from the property line.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No comment. The site is located outside the service boundary.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Request a 10-foot utility easement from Garrison Road to 1.3805 acres along
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1371
3
the western boundary of the pipe stem. Contact Charles McDonald at 373-5112
for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: This area is served by the Maumelle Water Corporation.
No water is available form Central Arkansas Water.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee the request was to
create a plat, which contained two (2) pipe-stem lots, in the City’s Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated they would work with the applicant to resolve
any issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat prior to the Commission
meeting.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
Staff met with the applicant and informed the applicant of the additional
information required on the preliminary plat. The applicant has indicated the plat
will be revised prior to final submission to Staff and the request for final platting.
A platted building line will be shown on the plat at least ten (10) feet outside the
pipe-stem. The area around the plat is currently zoned R-2, Single-family and
will be indicated as such.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement to
construct ½ street improvements to Garrison Road. Public Works indicated
street construction or an in-lieu contribution should be made for the street
construction to the roadway. Staff supports the waiver of the street construction
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1371
4
since it is unlikely Garrison Road will be constructed in ten (10) years, the limit on
holding in-lieu contributions by the City. The applicant has indicated they will
dedicate right-of-way per the Master Street Plan.
The creation of two pipe-stem lots should have no adverse impact on the
surrounding area. The lots will be accessed by an existing driveway and should
access to these lots become an issue in the future, provisions have been made
to provide access to a public street; the pipe-stems.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff recommends approval of the request along with the
requested waiver of street construction and variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested plat subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report with the variances and
waivers listed below:
1. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-232(f)] to allow the creation of two (2)
pipe-stem lots as a result of the platting and the variance to allow an
increased pipe-stem depth and a variance to allow a reduced minimum
width of the pipe-stem.
2. Staff supports the request of a waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement for street construction to Garrison Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Ron Thompson was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the proposed plat with a recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff also presented a positive recommendation of the variances and waivers listed
below:
1. The requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-232(f)] to
allow the creation of two (2) pipe-stem lots as a result of the platting and the
variance to allow an increased pipe-stem depth and a variance to allow a
reduced minimum width of the pipe-stem.
2. The request of a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement for street
construction to Garrison Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1372
NAME: Roland Heights Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Roland Heights Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Reeda Williamson King’s Surveying, Inc.
91 Sunset Loop P.O. Box 599
Perryville, AR 72126 Perryville, AR 72126
AREA: 5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 29 - Barrett
CENSUS TRACT: 42.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the lot width to depth ratio.
A waiver of Master Street Plan requirement for construction of ½ street improvements to
Roland Heights Road.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this five (5) acre tract into two single-family
residential lots. One lot will contain approximately three (3) acres and the
second lot will contain the remaining two (2) acres. Both lots will have access to
Roland Heights Road.
The lots will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-
232(b). The Ordinance requires no lot be more than three (3) times as deep as it
is wide, except in cases were lots abut a freeway, expressway or occupied
mainline railroad right-of-way. The proposed lots do not meet this requirement.
The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication will be made but is requesting
a waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement for ½ street construction to the
roadway.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1372
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant wooded site sloping significantly to the south from the road.
Other uses in the area are predominately single-family on large tracts of land.
Pinnacle State Park is located east of the site along State Highway 300. The
roadway is a narrow chip-seal road with open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All abutting property owners were notified of the public hearing. There is not a
neighborhood association located near the site. As of this writing, staff has
received one informational phone call from an area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Roland Heights Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a local street
with a 50-foot right-of-way width. Dedication of right-of-way to 25-feet from
centerline will be required.
2. Obtain waiver or provide contribution in-lieu of construction for Master Street
Plan requirements.
3. Driveway location and width must meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 31-210. Driveway width must be less than 20-feet
and spaced more than five-feet from the property line.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No comment. The site is located outside the service boundary.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: This area is served by the Maumelle Water Corporation.
No water is available form Central Arkansas Water.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1372
3
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff gave an overview of the proposed
preliminary plat to the Subdivision Committee members. Staff stated the
applicant was proposing to subdivide a five (5) acre tract into two (2) lots. One
(1) of the lots would contain three (3) acres and the second would contain the
remaining two (2) acres. Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat would require
a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased width to depth
ratio.
Staff stated they would contact the applicant and work to resolve any outstanding
issues associated with the proposed plat. There being no further items for
discussion the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff. The applicant has included the additional information requested
including the certifications, the proposed source of water and the proposed
source of wastewater disposal. The applicant has also indicated a fifty (50) foot
platted building line adjacent to Roland Heights Road.
Lot 2, although will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an
increased width to depth ratio is somewhat similar to the lot configuration of the
area. Most of the lots in the area have developed on five (5) acre tracts which
are in most cases have a greater depth than is allowable under the Subdivision
Ordinance in relation to their width.
Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision would meet the minimum requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance for lot width and minimum square footage, but with the
current configuration, 70-feet by 686-feet, Staff would recommend the applicant
combine the 1.89 acres with the acreage currently owned by the applicant
located to the west. The area is not served by a wastewater collection system
and requires the placement of a septic system on site for wastewater treatment.
The Health Department has indicated 1.89 acres is not sufficient to allow a septic
system to “perk”. If Lot 1 remains as currently configured, additional acreage will
be required if the applicant desires to sell Lot 1 to allow the site to “perk”. Staff
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1372
4
feels the combining this lot with the applicant’s lot to the west should happen at
this time to avoid any future confusion or misunderstandings.
Staff supports the applicant in their request for a waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement of ½ street improvements to Roland Heights Road. The applicant
has indicated the right-of-way will be dedicated but feels Roland Heights Road
will not be constructed to Master Street Plan requirement at any time in the near
future. Staff agrees with the applicant in this assessment.
Otherwise, to Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed plat. The variance requested, the variance to allow an increased
width to depth ratio, should not adversely affect the adjoining property owners.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested plat subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report with the following
waivers and variances:
1. Staff recommends Lot 2 be recombined with the property to the west
currently owned by the applicant.
2. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-232(b)] to allow an increased lot width
to depth ratio.
3. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow a waiver of the Master
Street Plan requirement of ½ street improvements to Roland Heights
Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Ms. Reeda Williamson was present representing the application. Staff presented the
item with a recommendation of approval of the requested plat subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff
presented a positive recommendation of the following waivers and variances as well:
1. Staff presented a recommendation that Lot 2 be recombined with the property
to the west currently owned by the applicant.
2. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from
the Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-232(b)] to allow an increased lot width
to depth ratio.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1372
5
3. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request to allow a
waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement of ½ street improvements to
Roland Heights Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-3454-M
NAME: Courtside Place Revised Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Courtside Place north of Otter Creek Parkway
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Paul Jones McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 E. President Clinton Avenue 319 E. President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Patio Homes
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Reduced rear platted building line.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 1996, with Ordinance No. 17,151, the Little Rock Board of Directors
approved a Planned Residential Development for Courtside Place. The proposal
included the development of 35 “patio homes” on a 12.68 acre tract. The individual lots
on which the homes were to be constructed occupied a 5.9 acre tract and the remainder
of the area (Tract A, the floodway of Calleghan Branch Creek with maintenance being
the responsibility of the Otter Creek Racquet Club) was to be zoned Open Space. The
proposal involved the creation of a loop street, with a single entrance onto Otter Creek
Parkway. The proposed lots were to be an average of 53 feet by 90 feet in size with the
front building setback line to be set at 10 feet off the right-of-way line, except at two lots
at the northeast corner of the tract, where the front building line was to be set at 20-feet
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-M
2
off the right-of-way line. Rear building lines were proposed at 20-feet off the rear lot
lines. The homes were to be constructed at a minimum of 1400 square feet in size with
one and two story homes being constructed and a two-car garage for each home.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site has developed as a “patio home” development and most of the homes
have been constructed or the lots have sold. As indicated in the Background
Section the rear yards have a platted building line of 20-feet in the entire
Subdivision.
The proposal includes six (6) lots (Lots 9 through 14 of the Courtside Place
Subdivision) located in rear of the Subdivision adjacent to Tract A. The request
is to reduce the rear platted building line on these six (6) lots from 20-feet to 10-
feet for decks, porches and patios. The request would allow for the construction
of decks and porches on the rear of the homes planned for these specific lots but
would not allow the primary structure to be constructed any nearer Tract A than
the 20-foot previously approved. The proposed request reduces the rear building
line to coincide with a platted 10-foot utility easement located along the rear of
these lots. The lots abut a green space located to the north of the site adjacent
to the floodway.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lots have been cleared but no footings or foundation have been poured on
the site. With the exception of these lots and a few others across the street the
subdivision has almost entirely developed. The development is a single-family
neighborhood with minimum side yard setbacks.
Other uses in the area include the floodway located to the north of the site, multi-
family located south and east of the site and vacant land located to the west of
the site. Single-family homes are located further to the west of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners within 200-feet of the site, all residents, who could be
identified, and the Otter Creek Home Owners Association and Southwest 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. Floodway easement width will be adequate.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-M
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer is available and not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. The water service is existing to serve
the proposed lots being considered for platting. This development will have
minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities
will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection if Tract A is
developed.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision of the PDR for a revised building line in the rear. The
request is consistent with the Land Use of Single Family.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in
the area covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.
The Residential Development Goal listed an objective of promoting a community
structure and design, which promotes and maintains the rural, residential nature
of the area. An action statement that encourages the development of owner
occupied properties within the planning area also supports the Residential
Development Goal.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-M
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff presented the
item with a brief overview of the request. Staff suggested the applicant indicate
two platted building lines on the proposed plat. The first would be for the
principal structure with the second allowing for the construction of decks, porches
and patios.
Staff noted comments from the other agencies suggesting the applicant contact
these agencies if there were any questions. There were no other issues for
discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing the issues raised by
Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated a 20-foot
platted building line for the principal structures and a 10-foot platted building line
for decks, porches and patios.
Staff supports the request to reduce the building line. The lots affected abut a
zoned Open Space tract and the applicant is not reducing the principal structure
building line. The reduction will allow decks, porches and patios to be
constructed on the rear of the homes, which is currently difficult while maintaining
the desire square footage of homes in the Subdivision.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The Subdivision is primarily “build-out” and the requested
building line placement abuts a zoned Open Space strip. The request should
have minimum to no effect on the surrounding residents.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request of amend the PRD and the Final Plat
to allow a reduced building line on the rear of Lots 9 – 14 of the Courtside Place
Subdivision subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to
amend the PRD and the Final Plat to allow a reduced building line of 10-feet for decks
porches and patio’s and 20-feet for the principle structure on the rear of Lots 9 – 14 of
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-M
5
the Courtside Place Subdivision subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
NAME: Saugey Short-form PCD
LOCATION: on the northwest corner of Highway 300 and Pinnacle Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Phyllis Saugey Donald Brooks Surveying
3725 Lakeshore Drive 20820 Arch Street Pike
North Little Rock, AR 72116 Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 1.28 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
ALLOWED USES: Limited retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-1 uses and the addition of an auction – general merchandise.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements to
construct ½ street improvements to Pinnacle Road and to Highway 300.
A waiver of the landscaping requirements for the site.
A waiver of the dedication of right-of-way requirement to Highway 300 and Pinnacle Road.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors zoned this site on February 6, 1990, by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 15,813. The rezoning was a part of a larger effort to rezone the area “west of
the city limits and north of Denny Road” as a part of implementation of the land use regulation
of the extraterritorial planning area.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site contains three buildings, one of which serves as a beauty shop, one as an
antique store and the third as a quiet office. The applicant proposes to rezone the site
from C-1 to PCD to allow all three buildings to be removed and a new retail center and
auction house to be constructed on the site. The proposal includes 14800 square feet
of covered space and the addition of 50 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting
proposed uses of the lease space to be uses such as an attorney, a real estate office, a
video rental store and/or a beauty shop along with all C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
uses. The applicant is proposing an auction house to be located on the site contained
within the single-structure.
The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be Monday through Saturday from
8:00 am to 10:00 pm for all the users of the site including the auction house. The site
will be used three (3) times per month for auctions; the first Monday of each month a
general merchandise auction will be held and the second and fourth Friday of each
month a antique auction will be held.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication to both Pinnacle Road
and Highway 300 and the Master Street Plan requirement for ½ street construction to
these roads. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the perimeter and parking lot
landscaping requirements.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three (3) buildings currently being used as a variety of non-residential
uses. There is a beauty shop, a general office and Saugey’s Antiques located on the
site. Across Highway 300 there is a convenience store/gas station located on the
northeast corner of Highway 300 and East Pinnacle Road. The area to the north of the
site is a vacant lot with a sign indicating “Future Home of New Hope Baptist Church”
and single-family to the north of the church site. The area to the south of the site is
vacant with a scattering of homes on large tracts of land. The area to the east contains
single-family homes also on large tracts and two (2) cemeteries.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property 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.
There is not a neighborhood association located in this area.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Highway 300 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. Pinnacle Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. Dedicate
right-of-way 30-feet from centerline.
3. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half
street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of the
streets.
5. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. However, since the property lies outside the city limit, no permits from Public
Works will be required.
6. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD,
District VI.
7. Driveway locations and widths must meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: This area is served by the Maumelle Water Corporation. No
water is available form Central Arkansas Water.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at
918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
4
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Barrett Planning District. The Land
Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for C-1 uses
and to add an auction house at this site. The request is consistent with the Land Use of
Commercial.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located
in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape Issues: Insufficient information to review.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Ms. Phyllis Saugey and Ms. Betty Saugey were present representing the proposed
development. Staff gave an overview of the proposed development indicating there
were additional items needed on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the proposed
building along with the required parking did not appear to “fit” once the right-of-way was
dedicated. Staff suggested the applicant redraw the proposed development and allow
for all the required landscaping and right-of-way dedication and then determine if the
proposed building would work.
Landscape comments were addressed. Staff stated the landscaping requirement along
Highway 300 would be 12.6 feet and in no place less than 9-feet. Staff stated the
western perimeter would have the same requirement. Staff stated along Pinnacle Road
and the northern perimeter a 15.9-foot landscape strip would be required and in no
place could the strip drop below 9 feet. Staff stated the applicant would be required a
six (6) foot screen to the north and west either dense evergreen plantings or a wood
fence with its face side directed outward. Staff stated if the site were more than one (1)
acre an irrigation system would be required to water landscaped areas.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way from
centerline of Highway 300 would be required at 45-feet and from centerline of Pinnacle
Road would be required at 30-feet. Staff stated the applicant would be required to
construct ½ street improvements to these streets, provide an in-lieu contribution or
request a waiver of street construction. Staff stated they would support a waiver of ½
street construction requirement but would not support a waiver of the dedication of right-
of-way.
Staff noted comments from the other agencies. There were no further items for
discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
5
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised survey and drawing to Staff which addressed most of
the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The proposed site plan
indicated the existing right-of-way of Highway 300 at 40-feet and of Pinnacle Road at
30-feet. The required right-of-way for Highway 300 per the Master Street Plan
requirement is 45-feet from centerline. The applicant has requested a waiver of the
required dedication of the additional five (5) feet. Staff does not support this request.
Staff feels the applicant should dedicate the right-of-way and franchise the parking,
which will be located in the new right-of-way.
The applicant has also indicated approximately 50 parking spaces on the site. The
proposed development would typically require a minimum of sixty-two (62) spaces; if
development per the shopping center criteria of one space per 225 square feet. Staff
does not feel the proposed parking is an issue. Staff feels since the auction house
(8000 square feet) will not be operating during the normal business hours of the retail
businesses (6000 square feet) parking should not be an issue. The applicant has also
indicated agreements for off-site parking could be reached if parking were to become an
issue.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of landscaping requirements for the site. The
applicant has indicated the area is primarily undeveloped and still in its natural form.
The applicant has also stated the properties to the west of the site are owned by the
applicant and landscaping is not desired. Staff feels the applicant should place a
screening fence to the north and west of the site to screen the single-family homes and
allow for changing of ownership at some point in the future. Staff also feels the
placement of parking lot landscaping should be installed to soften the effect of the hard
surface parking area. The site is located on a route to the Pinnacle State Park and is
traveled by numerous visitors yearly. The natural beauty of Highway 300 should be
preserved and the placement of some landscaping will assist in this preservation.
Staff is supportive of the concept of the proposed development but not with all aspects
of the request. Staff supports the proposed uses of the site and the auction house to be
located on the site. Staff supports a reduction of the required landscaping on the site
but not the entire waiver of landscaping.
Staff supports the waiver of the required ½ street improvements to both Highway 300
and Pinnacle Road. Staff does not support the request for a waiver of the right-of-way
dedication to these roads. Staff feels the right-of-way should be dedicated and the
applicant utilize the right-of-way for placement of parking until such time as the road is
widened.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5224-H
6
Staff feels with the number of requested waivers and variances the applicant is trying to
do too much on the site and the development would not lend itself to a quality
development or enhance the scenic corridor of Highway 300.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Ms. Betty Saugey was present representing the application. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the applicant had
agreed to the dedication of right-of-way and the installation of landscaping as indicated in the Staff
write-up.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6467-A
NAME: Henry Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 5301 Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
David Jacks Jim Bagwell Surveying
8209 Stanton Road 122 Gravel Lane
Little Rock, AR 72209 Sherwood, AR 72120
AREA: 0.316 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Non-conforming auto repair garage
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: To recognize the non-conforming auto repair garage and to resolve
an illegal expansion of the building by adding two additional bays in 1997.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site being considered has a history of events including an illegal expansion of the
building. On December 19, 1997, a courtesy notice was issued to Calvin Davidson for
expanding a non-conforming use, by adding two (2) bays to the existing building. A
stop work order was issue by the Building Code Division of Planning and Development.
Mr. Davidson was instructed to not continue work until the site was rezoned.
On December 29, 1997, Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, instructed the
Enforcement Staff to issue a court citation to Mr. Davidson after receiving information
Mr. Davidson was continuing to construct the two bays without a building permit and
zoning clearance. The overhead doors were not installed and Mr. Davidson was told to
stop work and not to install the overhead doors.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6467-A
2
Mr. Davidson filed for a rezoning application on January 8, 1998 and the Planning
Commission reviewed and made a recommendation of approval for the rezoning of the
site from R-2 to C-3 (the applicant amended his request from C-4 to C-3 prior to the
Commission meeting) at their April 2, 1998 Public Hearing. After the hearing the
applicant filed a Conditional Use Permit scheduled to be heard by the Commission at
their June 11, 1998 Public Hearing. The Board of Directors denied the request for the
rezoning from R-2 to C-3 at their May 5, 1998 meeting. Staff pulled the requested
application for the Conditional Use Permit.
During the time after the application was filed for rezoning and the Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission the Applicant plead guilty before Judge Stuart for the previous
citations on February 5, 1998. On March 2, 1998 a citation was issued for installing the
overhead doors and Mr. Davidson plead guilty to the charge. On March 6, 1998
Enforcement Staff issued Mr. Davison another citation for continuing to develop the site
(paving the parking area).
No additional improvements have been made to the site since the enforcement cases in
1998.
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the March 20, 2003 Public
Hearing. The request is related to right-of-way issues associated with the widening of
Mabelvale-Pike.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the item be deferred to the March 20, 2003 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the reason for the request was related to right-of-way issues associated
with the widening of Mabelvale-Pike. Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6481-B
NAME: Breshears Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: On the northwest corner of Woodlawn and Tyler Streets
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
D. R. Breshears Donald Brooks Surveying
6605 Kenwood 20820 Arch Street Pike
Little Rock, AR 72207 Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.14 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Restaurant with 36 seats; a catering-commercial use; C-1 permitted
uses.
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Same as above with the addition of a second structure adjacent to
the alley to be used as a contractor’s and personal storage shed.
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
approved as alternative uses.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-B
2
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 the
restaurant to be open from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm.
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the February 20, 2003 Public
Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant failed to notify property owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as required by
the Planning Commission By-Laws. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the February 20, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-7345
NAME: Levi Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 4328 “C” Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Lance Levi Dee Wilson
320 North Monroe P.O. Box 604
Little Rock, AR 72205 North Little Rock, AR 72115
AREA: 0.56 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and duplex development through a Conditional Use
Permit
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Duplex
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requsted.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to convert this existing single-family structure into a
duplex. Unit 1 will occupy approximately 1350 square feet and Unit 2 will occupy
the remaining 850 square feet. Each unit will have covered parking one of which
is an existing two (2) car garage; the second a covered overhang along the
eastern side of the structure.
There are no exterior modifications proposed to the structure with the exception
of needed maintenance and rehabilitation. The only interior changes will be the
addition of a bathroom in Unit 2 and the addition of a wall to separate the units.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a structure, which has been added on to on several previous
occasions and has the appearance of a duplex. The driveway for the site is a
gravel drive. “C” Street is a very narrow unimproved street (alleyway) with open
ditches for drainage. The area appears to be exclusively single-family with the
exception of a house with a garage apartment located on the corner of “C” Street
and North Jackson Street.
A PRD was approved to the south of the site to allow the development of
reduced setback detached single-family homes on eight (8) lots.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Hillcrest Residents and the Capitol View Neighborhood Associations were
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.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Any future driveway locations and widths must be approved by Public Works.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Contact Central Arkansas Water if
additional and/or larger meter(s) are required at 992-2438.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345
3
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Height/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a PDR for a duplex. The proposal does not have a significant
impact on the Land Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in
the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Housing Goal
promotes the preservation and maintenance of the existing architectural
character and charm of the neighborhood. The plan also contains a list of
supplemental issues, which includes a housing objective of insuring a variety of
housing types that fit the context of Hillcrest.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Lance Levi was present representing the application. Staff give an overview
of the proposed project indicating there were no exterior modifications proposed
as a part of the application. Staff stated the only modifications would be those
related to maintenance. Staff also stated the interior modifications were be
minimal.
Staff requested additional information from Mr. Levi to include an updated survey
of the site including the street right-of-way and building setbacks. Staff also
requested any proposed fencing be shown on the site plan. Mr. Levi stated the
existing chain link fence would remain but no additional fencing was proposed.
Staff also questioned if the existing two car garage would remain as a garage or
be converted to living space. Mr. Levi stated the garage would not be converted
to living space.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has received an
updated survey indicating the building placement and existing setbacks, and the
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345
4
proposed layout of the units. The applicant has also indicated the parking areas
on the site plan.
Staff is supportive of the request to convert the structure to a duplex. The
Hillcrest area is scattered with single-family and duplex development throughout.
The proposed use is consistent with the neighborhood and since the applicant is
not proposing any exterior modifications or structural changes with the exception
of an interior wall to separate the units, this would not alter the character of the
structure or the neighborhood in Staff’s opinion.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the
existing single-family structure to be converted to a duplex.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested PD-R subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Lance Levi was present representing the application. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested
PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the
above report.
Ms. Rita Sklar spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated she and
the other property owners had invested into the neighborhood to “turn the neighborhood
around”. She stated with rental property and multi-family creeping into the
neighborhood this would decrease property values.
Mr. Levi addressed the Commission stating he was a property owner in the
neighborhood and did not want to decrease property values. He stated his desire was
to improve the neighborhood and refurbish a structure, which was in dire need of repair.
Mr. Levi stated his home was located adjacent to the site and he would definitely police
the premise to keep unwanted elements out of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Rector stated the Commission could not zone for rental units. He stated
density was a concern the Commission could address and the lot was more than
adequate to house two (2) single-family homes.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345
5
A motion was made to approve the item as recommended by staff subject to
compliance with the conditions in the staff recommendation and write-up. The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Otter Creek Planning District
Location: 9219 Stagecoach Rd.
Request: Office to Commercial
Source: Vester Nathan Townsend
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District from Office to
Commercial. 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.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the
area of review to include neighboring land to the north zoned C-3 General Commercial
that is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan. With this change, the area
changed to Commercial for the applicant’s property would be linked to the area currently
shown as Commercial on the east side of Stagecoach Road.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant’s property is a house built on a large lot currently zoned R-2 Single Family
and is approximately 2.15+ acres in size. The expanded area includes the neighboring
lot to the north that is zoned R-2 Single Family for a house built on a large lot, and all of
the vacant property to the north zoned C-3 General Commercial that is shown as Office
on the Future Land Use Plan. The zoning surrounding the expanded area includes
vacant land to the north zoned C-3 General Commercial, vacant land to the east zoned
R-2 Single Family, a house built on a large lot to the south zoned R-2 Single Family.
The land to the west consists of a small shopping center zoned PCD and houses built
on large lots zoned R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On May 16, 2000 multiple changes were made from Commercial, Mixed Commercial
and Industrial, Single Family, and Industrial to Single Family, Public Institutional,
Commercial, Mixed Office Commercial, Suburban Office, Service Trades District, and
Park/Open Space within a 1 mile radius of the expanded area of review to reflect
existing conditions and to protect the integrity of the residential areas located on Crystal
Valley Road and Otter Creek Parkway.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
2
On October 6, 1998 a change was made from Community Shopping to Commercial at
the northwest corner of the I-430/I-30 interchange about 1 mile southeast of the study
area to accommodate a proposed development.
On May 19, 1998 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office on Crystal
Valley Road at Goldleaf Drive about ¾ of a mile northeast of the expanded area to
accommodate a proposed development.
The study area is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Single Family for the two
houses to the south and Office for the vacant land to the north. The property to the
north is shown as Commercial, while the land to the east is shown as Park/Open Space.
The land to the south is shown as Office while the land to the west is shown as Mixed
Use.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach Road is shown as a Minor Arterial that is built to the Master Street Plan
standards of a four-lane Minor Arterial with Bike Lanes. A Class II Bikeway is shown on
Stagecoach Road from Brodie Creek to County Line Road. Development of the study
area may introduce a number of curb cuts along the east side of the Stagecoach Road
right-of-way.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 show the 100-year flood
plain of Fourche Creek as a Potential Greenbelt. Development of the study area will
need to respect the integrity of the drainage system located in the 100-year flood plain
of Fourche Creek as well as the integrity of the Potential Greenbelt shown in the Master
Plan of 2001.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no 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 first objective recommends limiting commercial and
office development in the “heart” of the planning area (located on Stagecoach Road
between Baseline and Otter Creek Roads) to that which serves the neighborhood (C-1
uses). In addition, the first objective supports placing the more intense uses on the
periphery of the study area. The second objective discourages construction of large,
warehouse type facilities, and those of large scale and/or high intensity uses, within the
“heart” of the planning area. This application is located inside the “heart” of the study
area as described by the neighborhood action plan.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
3
ANALYSIS:
The back of the applicant’s property neighbors the Fourche Creek 100-year flood plain.
The area shown as Park/Open Space that corresponds with the boundary of the 100-
year flood plain will create a boundary that will restrict development at the rear of the
property. Due to the presence of the flood plain the orientation of future buildings on the
property will most likely be toward Stagecoach Road. Future access to the property will
also likely be limited to traffic on Stagecoach Road due to the flood plain. Future
development of the neighboring property shown as Park/Open Space located in the
100-year floodplain should be limited in scope. Future development of the applicant’s
property should take place in a manner that preserves the integrity of the natural
environment characteristic of the land to the east.
Since there is not a floodplain to the west of Stagecoach Road, residential uses are
more likely to develop west of Stagecoach Road, which would be adjacent to
developing non-residential development on that side of the road. The non-residential
uses on the east side of the road consist of two churches. With the exception of the
two churches and three houses on the east side of Stagecoach Road, much the east
side of the road remains vacant and undeveloped. This change would open the east
side of Stagecoach Road to the possibility of continuous Commercial development.
Currently, a majority of the Commercial uses located on Stagecoach Road between
Baseline and Otter Creek Roads have developed on the west side of Stagecoach Road.
Expanding the area shown as Commercial on the east side of Stagecoach Road would
alter the character of the neighborhood by introducing a new use on the side of the road
that has traditionally developed with generally Public Institutional or Office type non-
residential uses. The increase in Commercial uses on the east side of Stagecoach
Road would create an area large enough to accommodate Commercial uses that would
draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the
neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Alexander Road
Neighbor Association, Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association, Otter Creek
Homeowners Association, Quail Run Neighborhood Association, and Rolling Pines
Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received any comments from area residents at
this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The applicant has requested a deferral to the March 20, 2003 Planning Commission
meeting. Staff supports this deferral.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the March 20, 2003 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.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11.1 FILE NO.: Z-7346
NAME: Townsend Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 9219 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Vester Townsend
1218 Mission Road
North Little Rock, AR 72118
AREA: 2.15 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant has requested this item to be deferred to the March 20, 2003 Public
Hearing. The applicant has contracted with a surveyor to establish the floodplain and
floodway lines on the site and the relationship to the proposed parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present nor were any objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested this item be deferred to the March 20, 2003 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the applicant had contracted with a surveyor to establish the floodplain and
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
2
floodway lines on the site and the relationship to the proposed parking area. Staff
stated they were supportive of the request for deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-7347
NAME: Brown Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: 2018 Commerce Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Gail Brown Dee Wilson
2018 S Commerce Street P.O. Box 604
Little Rock, AR 72204 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0604
AREA: 0.11 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
ALLOWED USES: Retail
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Residential (14-foot by 30-foot room addition)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site is currently occupied by a non-conforming, single-family residence. The
applicant proposes to rezone the site from C-3, General Commercial to PD-R to
allow the construction of an approximately 350 square foot addition to the
structure. The applicant is also proposing the placement of a 12-foot by 10-foot
storage building along the rear property line at some point in the future. The site
is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial which does not allow for single-
family residential development and a rezoning is required to allow the new
construction.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7347
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a well maintained existing single-family structure. A City of
Little Rock Alert Center is located east of the site, across South Commerce
Street, and a vacant non-residential structure is located to the south of the site
and a boarded single-family home is located north of the site. West of the site is
vacant. Other uses in the area include a city park, a beauty shop and two (2)
churches. There are a large number of vacant lots and boarded homes in the
area.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and the Downtown
Neighborhood Association and the East of Broadway Neighborhood Association
were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7347
3
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has
applied for a PD-R for an addition to her existing residential structure. The
request is consistent with the Land Use of Mixed Use.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in
the area covered by the Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan for the Future.
The Housing Goal contains an objective of increasing the number of owner-
occupied housing units.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee Meeting. Staff
stated they had contacted the applicant and stated their presence was not
necessary since no additional information was needed on the site plan. Staff
presented to the Committee the applicant’s request to rezone the site from C-3 to
PD-R to allow an addition to the rear of the structure. Staff also stated the
applicant had indicated a storage building on the site plan. Staff stated the
storage building was not in the immediate plan but should the addition be desired
in the future, the applicant had requested the flexibility to add the structure.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial which does not allow
single-family residential construction. The site was zoned many years ago as a
part of a larger rezoning effort in the City. The area appears to have once been a
commercial node but is no longer functioning as such. The site to the east of the
residence is a City of Little Rock Alert Center. A vacant non-residential building
is located to the south of the site and a vacant boarded single-family home is
located to the north of the site. Single-family, whether occupied or not, is the
predominate use in the area.
The site plan indicates a 350 square foot addition to the existing single-family
structure. The addition is proposed in the rear of the structure and meets the
minimum required setbacks for residential zones. Staff is supportive of the
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7347
4
request. The proposed addition should not have any adverse impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood. If the site were zoned for the existing use the
applicant would not have been required to request a rezoning for the site but
would have “pulled a permit” to begin construction.
The applicant is also proposing the placement of a 12-foot by 10-foot storage
building along the rear property line at some point in the future. Staff is
supportive of this request since storage buildings are not uncommon in
residential areas and in this neighborhood.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request for rezoning from C-3 to PD-R to allow the applicant to make a
350 square foot addition to the single-family home.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request as filed subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Ms. Gail Brown was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a positive recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: LU03-29-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Barrett Planning District
Location: Northwest corner of Highway 10 at Morgan Cemetery Rd.
Request: Single Family to Mixed Office Commercial
Source: The Storage Place, LLC; Lynn Lindsey, Managing Partnership
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Barrett Planning District from Single Family to Mixed
Office Commercial. Mixed Office Commercial provides for a mixture of office and
commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial.
A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is mixed office and commercial.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately
3.46+ acres in size. All of the surrounding property is zoned R-2 Single Family. An
auto repair garage is located to the immediate west of the applicant’s property. The Joe
T. Robinson Elementary School and High School are located to the east of the
applicant’s property at the northeast and southeast corners of the Morgan Cemetery
Road / Highway 10 intersection. Most of the lands to the north and west consist of
single-family homes built on large lots while the land to the south is vacant.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On January 2, 2002 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office,
Commercial, and Park/Open Space on the east side of Chenal Parkway south of the
Highway 10 intersection about 1 mile east of the applicant’s property to accommodate
proposed development and create a buffer between the future development and the
residential areas to the east.
On March 6, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Commercial on the south
side of Highway 10 in the 19900 block about 9/10 of a mile east of the study area to
accommodate proposed development at the node located at the Chenal / Highway 10
intersection.
The applicant’s property and the surrounding properties to the south, west, and north
are shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The land to the east is shown
as Public Institutional.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-29-01
2
MASTER STREET PLAN:
State Highway 10 is shown as Principal Arterial while Morgan Cemetery and Chalmont
Roads are shown as a Collector Streets. Highway 10 is built as a rural two-lane
highway and would be subject to half street improvements in order to conform to Master
Street Plan Standards. Morgan Cemetery Road is built as a rural two-lane road with
open drainage and also would be subject to half street improvements in order to
conform to Master Street Plan Standards. Chalmont Road is built to standard with curb
and gutters installed. A Class II Bikeway is shown from Ferndale Cutoff to Chenonceau
Boulevard. The improvement of Highway 10 to Master Street Plan Standards would
require the designation of a bike lane even though the Master Street Plan does not
recommend additional right-of-way or paving for Class II Bikeways.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant’s
property, as well as the Joe T. Robinson Elementary and Junior High Schools are
located just outside city limits. However, the Park System Master Plan recognizes
public schools as facilities eligible for providing for the recreation needs within eight
blocks of all Little Rock households as a part of the “Eight Block Strategy.” The
applicant’s property is also located to the east of the “Take it to the Extreme” trail - the
western leg of the proposed loop system of trails intended to circle the city.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no 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 applicant’s property is located about 1 mile to the west of the developing
commercial node at the Chenal / Highway 10 intersection. The location of the
applicant’s property on the north side of Highway 10 is also located across the street
from the city limit line. The applicant’s property is also located about 2/3 of a mile west
of Highway 300, the western boundary of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Most
of the Commercial nodes on Highway 10 are located at intersections with Principal and
Minor Arterials. The applicant’s property is located at an intersection with a Collector
Street. The potential for this area to develop as a Commercial node is limited by the
presence of the Joe T. Robinson Elementary and Senior High Schools that are located
on the east side of the intersection, thereby limiting development to the west side of the
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-29-01
3
intersection. Morgan Cemetery Road does not connect to Chalmont Road.
Nevertheless, the presence of two Collector Streets intersecting Highway 10 near the
applicant’s property may encourage pressure for future non-residential development at
this location.
The location of the applicant’s property near the Joe T. Robinson Elementary and
Senior High Schools may cause traffic conflicts from both the loading and unloading of
students and the office/commercial traffic throughout the day. A change to Commercial
may encourage developments that generate large volumes of traffic originating from a
large market area. Allowing Commercial uses on a Principal Arterial would also
encourage the potential increase in traffic. Any potential increase in traffic at this
location may be incompatible with the neighboring Public Institutional uses.
The Commercial development that is occurring in the vicinity of the applicant’s property
is located about a mile to the east at the Chenal / Highway 10 intersection. The Chenal
/ Highway 10 Commercial node contains land available for non-residential development
that is not yet developed to its full potential. About 68.4+ acres of undeveloped land is
located at the Chenal / Highway 10 intersection. The applicant’s property is also
located to the east of the Highway 10 / Ferndale Cutoff intersection. The Highway 10 /
Ferndale intersection is between a Principal Arterial and a Minor Arterial but is also
limited in its future development potential due to the location of the Little Maumelle River
near the east side of the intersection. The applicant’s property is about halfway
between the Chenal / Highway 10 Commercial node and the Highway 10 / Ferndale
intersection.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Greystone Manor N. A.
Staff has not received any comments from area residents at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A change to Mixed Office Commercial is
pre-mature at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James
made a presentation of item 13.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion
for item 13. See item 13.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form
Planned Commercial Development.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-29-01
4
Pat McGetrick, representative of the applicant, spoke in support of the application and
gave a description of the proposed development.
Bill Lessenberry, spoke in opposition to the application stating that the application
does not fit within the design guidelines of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Mr. Lessenberry also stated that the application was not located in an established
Commercial node along Highway 10. Mr. Lessenberry’s comments in opposition to the
application also included concerns about drainage issues, traffic conflicts with the
elementary school, and screening against visual impacts. Mr. Lessenberry’s comments
closed with a statement that he was opposed to both the land Use Plan Amendments
and the proposed development.
Bill Nowlin spoke in opposition to the Land Use Plan Amendment and the proposed
development. Mr. Nowlin also addressed traffic concerns and drainage issues.
Mr. Jack Holt spoke in opposition to the application and address traffic concerns and
drainage issues. Mr. Holt stated that the proposed use of the applicant’s property
conflicted with the neighboring schools and residences.
Mr. Jack Holder, representative of the Pulaski County Special School District, spoke in
opposition to the application. Mr. Holder stated opposition to the rezoning and that the
proposed Commercial uses would generate traffic problems in conflict with parents
dropping off and picking up students at the elementary school. Mr. Holder also stated
that the proposed uses on the applicant’s property would conflict with proposed
residential development in the area and generate drainage problems.
Commissioner Jerry Meyer asked if the Pulaski County Special School District had
plans to improve parking at the elementary school. Mr. Holder responded that the
School District did not have plans to improve parking and stated that the peak traffic
generated by the school is in the afternoon hours when parents pick-up students.
Pat McGetrick stated that the applicant intended to meet the city’s drainage
requirements.
Don Lindsey, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Lindsey stated that
there is a need for a mini-storage facility in this area, that the intersection on Highway
10 is a good location for business, and that the mini-storage facilities are a low
generator of traffic. Mr. Lindsey closed his comments with a statement that all access
to the property would be from Highway 10.
Planning Commission Chair Obray Nunnley asked if there would not be on-site
residential management. Mr. Lindsey stated that there would not.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-29-01
5
Mike Hood, Public Works Staff, stated that the property was outside city limits and
would not be subject to the city’s storm water ordinance. Pat McGetrick stated that the
applicant wanted to meet the city’s storm water ordinance even though it was not
required.
Commissioner Judith Faust stated that the location for the proposed development was
bad, but appreciated the applicant’s efforts to conform to the city’s storm water
ordinance and Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was failed with a vote
of 1 ayes, 9 noes, and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13.1 FILE NO.: Z-7348
NAME: Morgan Storage Facility Short-form PCD
LOCATION: on the northwest corner of Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
The Storage Place, LLC McGetrick & McGetrick
34 Dogwood Lake Drive 319 E. President Clinton Avenue
Texarkana, TX 75503 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 3.462 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office/Warehouse and Storage Facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The development plan for this 3.462 acre site, which is located on the corner of
Highway 10 and Morgan Cemetery Road, will include office/warehouse and
storage facilities; including one building for boats and RV’s. There is 418.22 feet
of frontage along Highway 10 and the office/warehouse building will run parallel
with the highway.
The building will be metal with either rock, tilt wall or brick on the front and sides.
A forty (40) foot landscaped buffer is proposed in the front and the building will be
set back 100-feet from Highway 10. The buildings will be 25-feet from the
property line on the remaining three sides.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
2
The storage buildings are proposed as metal with steel beams located behind the
office/warehouse building with screening on both sides as well as in the back.
The metal will be stone color with green trim, gutters and downspouts. There will
only be one entry way located approximately in the middle of the property. It will
be at least 25-feet wide. The driveways will be asphalt with concrete curbs,
gutters and aprons.
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.
Properties proposed as a part of the Chenal Valley Development are located
directly south of the site and are currently vacant. There is a connecting road
from the south, Northfield Drive, adjacent to Joe T. Robinson High School.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, along with all residents,
who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association located in this
area. As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way 55-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Morgan Cemetery Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street. The proposed dedication of 60-feet of total right-of-way is acceptable.
3. Provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct
one-half street improvement to the streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
4. The proposed driveway location is acceptable for purposes of meeting the
spacing requirements of Section 30-43.
5. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of the
streets.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
3
6. Plans for all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. However, since the property lies outside the city limits, no permits
from Public Works are required.
7. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: A 10-foot utility easement will be required along the west property line.
Contact Charles McDonald at 373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of
connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. The Fire Department having jurisdiction needs to evaluate this
site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will
be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at
the Developer’s expense.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning 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 PCD for a office warehouse and mini-storage facility. A Land Use Plan
Amendment (LU03-29-01) for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a
separate item on this agenda.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in an
area not covered by a City of Little Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
4
Landscape Issues: The plan submitted fails to provide the twenty-six (26) foot
wide land use buffer required along the northern perimeter and the twenty-one
(21) foot land use buffer along the western perimeter. Additionally, the plan
submitted fails to provide for the twenty-one (21) foot wide street buffer along
Morgan Cemetery Road. The Landscape Ordinance requirement is a minimum
nine (9) foot wide landscape strip along the northern, eastern and western
perimeters of the site.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
northern and western perimeters.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on this tree-covered site. Additional credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff gave a brief
overview of the proposed development and stated there was additional
information needed on the proposed site plan. Staff requested all paved areas
be shown, the screening materials of the proposed dumpster and the maximum
building height of the units. Staff also requested the applicant provide the gate
material proposed. Staff stated any additional site lighting must be low level and
directional, directed away from residentially zoned property.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested a 45-foot from
centerline dedication of right-of-way along Highway 10 and 30-foot from
centerline of right-of-way dedication along Morgan Cemetery Road. Staff also
requested road construction per the Master Street Plan for each of these road
sections.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the area along Morgan
Cemetery Road fell short of the required land use buffer requirement. Staff
stated the buildings could be relocated and the back of the mini-warehouse
buildings used to screen and fulfill the ordinance requirement. Mr. McGetrick
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
5
stated he would consider relocating the two outside buildings to meet the
requirement.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing the issues raised at
Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated the maximum
building height to be 20-feet for the mini-warehouse buildings and 15-feet for the
office/warehouse building. The applicant has also indicated the dumpster will
be screened on three (3) sides with a wood fence at least two (2) feet above the
finished height of the dumpster.
The proposal includes a total of 106 units of mini-warehouse units and a 12,500
square foot office/warehouse facility. The proposal includes 15 - 10 x 10 units, 7
- 10 x 15 units, 22 - 10 x 20 units 56 - 10 x 30 units and 6 - 25 x 40 units. The
applicant proposes one employee for the mini-warehouse facility.
The applicant proposes the placement of forty-four (44) parking spaces. The
typical minimum parking required would be seventeen (17) spaces. The
proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The applicant proposes the placement of the buildings 25-feet from the east and
west property lines and to use the rear of the buildings as screening for the
development. The applicant is also requesting to use the back of the rear
building to screen from the adjacent single-family zoned property to the north.
Drive lanes will be a minimum of 25-feet in width more than adequate to meet the
requirement of the Little Rock Fire Department.
The applicant has proposed a single sign located near the eastern driveway in
the landscaped area. The sign will comply with the City of Little Rock standard
for signage in commercial zones or 36-feet in height not to exceed 160 square
feet in sign area. Staff would recommend the sign area not exceed the sign
area allowed under the Highway 10 Overlay District for Commercial Building
Signage or a single ground mounted monument style sign not to exceed six (6)
feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. The site lies just outside
the Highway 10 Overlay District but Staff feels the concept should be continued
along this section of Highway 10, if possible.
The applicant proposes the days of hours of operation to be 24-hours per day
seven (7) days per week and the office/warehouse hours are proposed as 7:00
am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
6
Staff does not feel the proposed development “fits” the area. Even though this
site is outside the Highway 10 Overlay District Boundaries the site is very close
to the western boundary of Highway 300. The uniqueness of Highway 10 should
be preserved and the natural beauty maintained. The site is shown on the
Future Land Use Plan as Single Family as is the area around the site. There are
Commercial Nodes established on the Future Land Use Plan in the area, which
have not developed. Staff feels there is sufficient area designated on the Future
Land Use Plan for commercial development and commercial developments
should be limited to the established nodes at this time.
There is an elementary school to the east of the site and a middle and high
school to the southeast of the site. A non-conforming auto repair business is
located to the west of the site with the remainder of the area undeveloped or
single-family homes. Just west of the western leg of Morgan Cemetery Road is a
established Commercial Node with vacant properties. Staff feels the applicant
should explore other locations for this type intense development. Staff has tried
to maintain the integrity of the Corridor and limit the placement of mini-
warehouse development and strip retail center. Staff feels the proposed
development would jeopardize the intent of the Highway 10 Overlay District and
create a hardship in the maintenance of the existing development pattern within
the existing Design Overlay Boundary.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development and the request to rezone
the site from R-2, Single-family to PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the hours of operation of the site were proposed as 7:00 am to
10:00 pm seven days per week and not 24-hours as stated by Staff. Mr. McGetrick also
stated the proposed development had incorporate the Highway 10 Overlay Standards
even though the site was outside the boundary and the proposed signage would also
comply with the Highway 10 Overlay Standard for signage not to exceed the area
indicated in the Staff report.
Mr. Bill Lessenberry spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
home was located west of the site and did adjoin his property. Mr. Lessenberry stated
the proposed development did not “fit” the Highway 10 Corridor plan. He stated there
were nodes of commercial indicated on the Cities plan which had not developed which
would not require a Plan change to allow development.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
7
Mr. Lessenberry stated drainage was a problem on the site. He stated a box culvert
was located under Highway 10 and the site was a part of a larger drainage basin for the
area.
Mr. Lessenberry stated there were also safety concerns. He stated the site was located
across Morgan Cemetery Road from an Elementary School. Mr. Lessenberry stated
parents parked on Morgan Cemetery Road and Highway 10 to drop off and pickup
children before and after school.
Mr. Lessenberry stated the proposed development was in his backyard and if approved
he would request the Commission require an eight (8) foot fence along the west side of
the development.
Mr. Bill Nowlin spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
property was located behind the elementary school. He stated the school’s playground
was also located on the north side of their property. Mr. Nowlin stated his concern was
with the potential traffic hazard the proposed development could cause.
Mr. Nowlin stated drainage was also a concern. He stated the site did carry a large
amount of water from areas to the south.
Mr. Jack Holt spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated ingress and
egress on Morgan Cemetery Road were currently a problem. He stated parents parked
on Highway 10 in the afternoon to wait for their children and to add a commercial facility
adjacent to the school was a concern.
Mr. Holt stated drainage would be expensive since the site was currently a drainage
basin for the area.
Mr. Jerry Holder spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he was
representing the Pulaski County Special School District. Mr. Holder stated there were
three (3) schools in the area, one adjacent to the site across Morgan Cemetery Road
and two south of Highway 10. Mr. Holder stated mini-storage and children were not a
good mix. He stated without an on-site manager there would be no control of the
activities taking place on the site.
Mr. Holder stated with a commercial development traffic would increase in the area. He
stated the playground was adjacent to the proposed site which only added to safety
concerns.
Mr. Holder stated there was a single-family neighborhood located adjacent to the High
School owned by Deltic. He stated the school’s desire was for the area to develop as
single-family neighborhoods.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7348
8
Mr. Holder stated drainage was also a concern. He stated the area was low and a wet
land which raised environmental concerns.
Mr. McGetrick stated the City had in place a Stormwater Detention Ordinance which
would require on-site detention. Staff stated the site was not located within the City
Limits therefore the Stormwater Detention Ordinance did not apply. Mr. McGetrick
stated the applicant would comply with the requirements of the Ordinance although they
were not bound by the Ordinance.
Mr. Dan Lindsey, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the proposed
development would serve a need. He stated the proposed development was located on
a major highway and at an intersection which should minimize concerns. He stated the
development would not add to problems that were already in existence.
Mr. Lindsey stated the front building would be an office/warehouse which would act to
shield the mini-warehouse buildings from Highway 10. He stated the back of the rear
buildings would screen the adjoining properties. Mr. Lindsey stated the proposed
development was not requesting access to Morgan Cemetery Road only one curb cut
along Highway 10.
There was a brief discussion concerning the applicant’s willingness to meet the
requirements of the Cities Ordinance although not required to meet the Highway 10
Overlay Standard or the Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
A motion was made to approve the Future Land Use Plan as filed. The motion failed by
a vote of 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the requested Planned Development. The motion failed
by a vote of 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-7349
NAME: FC Partnership Short-form POD
LOCATION: 13616 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
FC Partnership Donald Brooks
1 Pinehurst Circle 20820 Arch Street Pike
Little Rock, AR 72212 Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 2.369 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: Office – General and Professional
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to convert this existing single-family structure into an
office use. The applicant proposes the site to be used as an office use to
conduct their real estate development and property management services
company. The applicant has indicated the site will not be used for storage of
building material or any other activity related to that type of function. The
applicant has indicated the company is currently comprised of three (3)
employees and the normal business hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 6:00
pm Monday through Saturday.
The applicant has indicated there will be no exterior modifications to the existing
structure or the building footprint. The applicant has indicated all work to the
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7349
2
structure will be cosmetic by painting, replacing windows and updating the
interior. In addition, the applicant has indicated a parking pad will be added to
the east side of the structure with parking for eight (8) vehicles. The surface will
be a hard surface parking pad as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has indicated landscaping to be installed as required by the
Landscape Ordinance to the front of the structure. The applicant has also
indicated the rear 100-feet of the property will remain undisturbed green space.
The applicant is requesting alternative uses for the site of both professional and
general office uses.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure which is currently vacant.
There is a PD-O located east of the site and two (2) single-family homes located
west of the site. South of the site there are single-family homes scattered along
Kanis Road. Southwest of the site is PRD zoning which was not rezoned when
the former Brodie Creek rezoning took place (now called Woodlands Edge).
The site contains an existing circular driveway, which appears to cross over the
adjoining property before exiting to Kanis Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Parkway Place Property Owners Association and the Gibralter Height/Point
West/Timber Ridge Property Owners Association were notified of the Public
Hearing along with all property owners within 200-feet of the site and all
residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development. The project would qualify for a contribution in-lieu of
construction.
3. Driveway locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Only single driveway access
would be allowed that is located near the center of the property frontage.
4. Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7349
3
start of work. Obtain barricade permits prior to doing any work in the right-of-
way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
5. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property.
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 details.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-
2438 for additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning 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 POD for an office development. The request is
consistent with the Land Use of Suburban Office.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in
the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The Office and
Commercial Development Goal supports the promotion of commercial and office
development that enhances the primarily residential character of the community.
The Goal of enhancing the residential character of the area is supported by an
Action Statement that recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning
District’s (PZD’s) to influence more neighborhood friendly development.
Landscape Issues: The proposed parking area should be moved southward in
order to preserve the trees located immediately north of the proposed parking lot.
Building Codes: No comment.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7349
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the item indicating there were additional items needed on the
proposed site plan. Staff requested the parking area to the east of the building
be relocated to the south enough to save the existing tree. Staff also requested
the parking spaces be indicated on the proposed site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant dedicate
right-of-way on Kanis Road and stated they would support a 15-percent in-lieu
contribution for street construction to the roadway. Staff also requested the
eastern-most driveway be removed. Staff stated only a single driveway access
near the center of the property would be allowed on the site.
There were no further issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated on
the site plan the proposed parking pad with eight (8) parking spaces. The
applicant has also indicated the large tree located on the east of the building will
be maintained. The revised site plan only includes one driveway location, the
existing western most drive. The applicant has indicated the eastern drive will
be removed prior to occupancy.
The applicant is not proposing any signage as a part of the development. Staff
supports allowing office standard signage. The applicant is also not proposing
any new fencing on the site. The applicant is however proposing the addition of
landscaping in the front yard area and a 100-foot natural undisturbed area
located on the rear of the structure. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels
the area should remain residential in character while allowing limited non-
residential development to occur.
The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm
Monday through Saturday. There will be three (3) employees reporting to the
site, which would yield a limited amount of traffic. The site will be used as a
corporate office for the FC Enterprises, Inc. a residential contractor firm. The
applicant has also requested alternative uses for the site to include general and
professional office uses.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7349
5
The site is shown as Suburban Office on the Future Land Use Plan and the
proposed development is consistent with this classification. Staff is unaware of
any outstanding issues associated with the proposed development. Staff
recommends approval of the rezoning request to rezone the site to POD.
I. 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 request to allow an in-lieu contribution for
street construction to Kanis Road.
Staff recommends signage be limited to that allowed in office zones.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval of the POD zoning request subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff also recommended approval of the applicant’s request to allow an in-lieu
contribution for street construction to Kanis Road.
Staff presented a recommendation that any development signage be limited to that
allowed in office zones.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: LU03-04-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Heights / Hillcrest Planning District
Location: 5120 W. Markham St.
Request: Office, Commercial, and Single Family to Mixed Use
Source: Sharon Adkins
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment located in the Heights / Hillcrest Planning District from
Office, Commercial, and Single Family to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use category provides
for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Zoning
District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of
the three.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the
area of review to include the southwest corner of the Van Buren / “B” Street intersection.
This expansion would include property zoned Planned Commercial Development
neighboring the applicant’s property.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned C-3 General Commercial, R-3 Single Family, and
Planned Commercial Development and is approximately 5.88+ acres in size. The
portion of the study area fronting Markham Street consists of a vacant (closed) motel
and a fast food restaurant zoned O-3. The land along “A” Street is developed with
Single Family housing zoned R-3, which is interrupted by a parking lot located between
two houses. Only one house, located between two parking lots, is located on the south
side of “A” street. The portion of the study area zoned C-3 is a medical clinic. The land
to the North is zoned R-3 Single Family for houses. The properties on the east side of
Van Buren consists of a clinic zoned O-3 located north of “A” Street, a clinic and gift
shop zoned C-3 located south of “A” Street, and an ice cream parlor / gas station /
convenience store zoned O-3 at the corner of Markham Street. The areas located to
the east zoned R-3 consists of single-family houses. The property further to the east
fronting Markham consists of fast food outlets and small offices zoned C-3 and O-3
respectively. The large tract of land to the south is zoned PR (Parks and Recreation)
for War Memorial Park. The land to the west is zoned O-3 for medical and insurance
offices fronting Markham Street.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-04-01
2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On June 20, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Suburban Office in the
200 block of McKinley Street about 9/10 of a mile west of the applicant’s property to
accommodate a proposed development.
On April 20, 1999 two changes were made from Single Family to Mixed Use on the
north side of W. 11th Street between Elm and Lewis Streets and on the south side of W.
12th Street between Elm and Lewis Streets about 1 mile southeast of the application
area to strengthen and protect the integrity of neighboring residential areas.
On March 16, 1999 multiple changes were made from Office and Multi-family to Single
Family, Multi-family, Mixed Use, and Office in the vicinity of University Avenue and “C”
Streets to reflect existing conditions and protect the integrity of the neighboring
residential areas about 1/3 of a mile west of the study area.
The study area is shown as Office, Commercial, and Single Family on the Future Land
Use Plan. The areas to the north are shown as Single Family. The neighboring land to
the east is shown as Office, Commercial, and Single Family. The large area to the
south is shown as Park/Open Space. The neighboring property to the west is shown as
Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
The Master Street Plan shows Markham Street, Van Buren Street, and Fair Park
Boulevard as Minor Arterials. Markham Street is built to a modified standard with a 70-
foot right-of-way with a four-lane cross section. Van Buren Street and Fair Park
Boulevard are built to a modified standard with a 70-foot right-of-way with three-lane
cross sections. Harrison, “A”, and “B” Streets are Standard Residential Streets.
Harrison Street and “A” Street have partial curb and gutters installed while “B” street
uses an open drainage system. There are no bikeways shown that would be affected
by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows the War Memorial
Park as located on the opposite side of Markham Street from the applicant’s property.
The Master Plan of 2001 describes War Memorial Park as providing special facilities
such as the zoo, fitness center, and a golf course designed to serve the entire city. This
amendment is not likely to affect the large facilities at War Memorial Park.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-04-01
3
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant’s property is located in an area covered by “The Hillcrest Neighborhood
Plan: a ‘Blueprint’ of Our Community.” The chapter on zoning and land use contains a
goal of creating a different set of guidelines with which to govern the development of
Hillcrest. This goal is supported by the two objectives directing specific policy for
preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and establishing design standards
consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Two action statements listed in
support of these goals include revising the land use map for the neighborhood to
consolidate and eliminate certain land uses, and to discontinue the use of commercial
structures on Markham Street that do not fit the character of the neighborhood. The
plan also contains a list of supplemental issues, which includes a land use objectives of
limiting Mixed Uses to the Kavanaugh commercial areas and to control the edge erosion
of the neighborhood caused by incompatible uses. The Housing Objectives in the list of
supplemental issues include insuring a variety of housing types that fit the context of the
neighborhood, preservation of existing housing stock, insuring apartment houses are
eight units or less, and reversing the trend of converting single family homes into rental
property.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s property is located in a highly developed urban area. The non-
residential buildings fronting Markham Street are oriented and accessed from Markham
Street. The fast food establishment on the northwest corner of the Markham / Van
Buren Street intersection is located on a double frontage lot accessible from both
streets but is not located in the amendment area. The houses within the study area on
Van Buren between “A” and “B” Streets are oriented toward the streets. These building
are more vulnerable to non-residential development, especially those next to the
existing parking lot on the north side of “A” Street. The remaining houses located in the
area currently shown as Single Family are accessed from “A” Street and face the rear
portions of the non-residential properties across the street. Any new development north
of “A” Street would need to be analyzed in the context of preventing the net loss of
housing units with the purpose of preserving housing stock within the neighborhood.
A change to Mixed Use would not radically alter the character of the area fronting
Markham Street. The part of the study area fronting Van Buren would be subject to
more changes to non-residential uses on the properties currently zoned R-3, while the
properties currently zoned for non-residential uses would be less likely to alter the
character of the study area. The properties zoned R-3 on the north side of “A” street
would be the most likely to face the most changes in character if the properties convert
to a non-residential use within the context of the Mixed Use category. The use of
Planned Zoning Districts in an area shown as Mixed Use should offer some protection
for the residential areas to the north from the non-residential along Markham Street. In
contrast the properties fronting Van Buren Street are more residential in nature. The
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-04-01
4
change to Mixed Use could establish non-residential uses further to the north along Van
Buren Street.
The largest scale development within the study area is the motel on Markham Street.
The motel (consisting of four separate buildings connected by a covered walkway) has
the largest footprint and height of any buildings located in the study area. The nearest
property located on the north side of Markham Street with a similar scale is the one
story clinic located on the northeast corner of the Markham / Harrison Street
intersection. The non-residential uses on the west side of Van Buren Street north of “A”
are located in houses converted to non-residential uses, which match the scale of the
neighboring residential properties. The non-residential structures on the east side of
Van Buren Street are commercial in character and do not match the scale or character
of houses located in the residential areas.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Heights Neighborhood
Association, Cedar Hill Terrace Property Owners Association, Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association, Prospect Terrace Neighborhood Association, Inc., and
Sherrill Heights Garden Club. Staff not has received any comments from area residents
at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change to Mixed Use is appropriate south of “A” Street. This change
would allow future development compatible with existing development patterns along
Markham Street. Staff believes the change north of “A” Street is not appropriate. This
change would allow future development that is not compatible with existing
development patterns of single family and duplex housing north of “A” Street. Any
zoning or final zoning north of A Street would require further review by staff of the
Future Land Use Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James
made a presentation of item 15.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion
for item 15. See item 15.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form
Planned Commercial Development.
Jim Lawson, Secretary to the Planning Commission stated that staff wanted to split the
application along the proposed phasing of development so that the city could review two
separate applications. Mr. Gary Dean, the applicant, stated approval of phasing the
application.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-04-01
5
Mr. Lawson stated that city staff is opposed to changes from Single family north of “A”
Street. Mr. Minyard stated that the Land Use Plan amendment could be withdrawn if
the area north of A Street is to be reviewed at a later date. Staff would evaluate the
proposed development north of A Street against the Land Use plan at that future date.
The proposed changes south of “A” do not necessitate a Plan.
Mr. Robert Scoggin spoke in opposition to the application and was not opposed to the
proposed changes but was worried about the effects on neighboring properties. See
item 15.1 for additional details
Mr. Morris Harper spoke in opposition to the application and did not want to see
commercial uses develop north of “A” Street. See item 15.1 for additional details.
Ruth Bell, speaking in opposition to the application asked if the Future Land Use Plan
amendment was being discussed. Pat McGetrick stated that the applicant wants to
withdraw the Future Land Use Plan amendment.
A motion was made to withdraw the item. The item was withdrawn with a vote of
10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15.1 FILE NO.: Z-7350
NAME: Markham Suites Short-form PCD
LOCATION: on the northeast corner of West Markham Street and North Harrison
Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
S & B Corporation Williams & Dean
12814 Cantrell Road 18 Corporate Hill Drive, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 2.816 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 Zoning Lot FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial & R-3, Single-family Residential
ALLOWED USES: Commercial and Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Hotel and Restaurant
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to change the zoning of the Markham Inn, Jimmy’s
Serious Sandwiches and residentially zoned properties to begin a two (2) phase
development. The applicant proposes Phase I to consist of the area south of “A”
Street; the existing Markham Inn a three-story, 120 room hotel with a total
building area of approximately 47,020 square feet and a single level structure
that houses a restaurant. The motel was constructed in three phases. There are
132 parking spaces. Currently, the hotel property is not in operation as it was
closed in August 2001.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
2
The hotel property is located on the northeast corner of West Markham Street
and Harrison Street. The property has approximately 227.85 feet of frontage
along the north right-of-way of West Markham Street. The property is currently
zoned C-3, General Commercial District.
The restaurant is a single level structure located on the southeast corner of the
property. It is currently leased to a restaurant owner and operator.
The request for change in zoning is in preparation for the following
improvements: The Markham Inn will become the Markham House Suites. The
proposal is to renovate from the former 120 room motel property. The renovation
will completely raze one building and convert 78 typical motel rooms into 7 one-
bedroom units with kitchens and laundry utility rooms, and 20 two-bedroom
suites with kitchens and laundry rooms. The remaining forty-two motel rooms will
be completely renovated for a total of 69 rooms. All of the furniture, fixtures, and
equipment in the old hotel will be completely replaced. This facility will also
include a lobby/administrative area, recreational room, and laundry with a total
building area of approximately 37,976 square feet. The property is scheduled to
open in July 2003. Other improvements will include: Wrought iron fencing with
masonry piers, asphalt-paved parking lot for 65 vehicles including three (3)
marked for the handicapped, relocation of above ground utilities below ground,
controlled electronic gates for the security of guests, improved exterior lighting
directed inward towards the property, five (5) signage locations of 160 square
feet in area each, abandonment of alley centered amidst the property, removal of
the old parking pavement area and converted to landscaped area, removal of
wrought iron railings to be replaced with exterior brick and stucco, existing flat
roof to be replaced with new sloped shingled roof and new fire protection
sprinkles throughout the facility. A number of existing trees will be preserved at
the corner of “A” and Harrison Streets.
The single level restaurant structure will be sold to the current leased operator.
The restaurant intends to be expand 515 square feet (indicated on the site plat).
The owner will, through a shared long term lease agreement for 30 parking
spaces, continue to operate. This restaurant’s operating hours are only from 11
am until 3 pm, Monday through Saturday and do not conflict with the hotel traffic.
The restaurant owner has leased this property for the past 17 years.
Phase II of the development will include the removal of four (4) single-family
dwellings owned by the applicant on the “A” Street property north of Markham
House Suites. This property will be developed into 14 full-furnished corporate
dwellings. There will be a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom units. The units will be a
mix of single story and 2-story buildings, with the 2-bedroom units being
townhouses. The buildings are sited to take advantage of the existing
topography and existing trees. An enclosed dumpster will be located adjacent to
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
3
the existing alley. There will be a access easement across the parking lot
directly south of the dumpster enclosure for emergency vehicles entry and exit.
The alley does not presently continue to the west of the future dumpster location.
Instead, this area provides drainage for the existing property owners on both
sides.
Phase II also contains thirty-four (34) parking spaces. The applicant proposes
the building exterior to be brick, siding, stucco and sloped shingle roofs. The
final design of the buildings for Phase II has not yet been completed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains the existing, now closed, Markham Inn. On the north side of
West Markham, in this area, there is a mixture of office and commercial uses and
south of the site is War Memorial Park. It appears “A” Street is the dividing line
from the non-residential and residential uses in the area. There are four single-
family homes located north of “A” Street in the proposed project area. A PCD is
located north of “A” on the corner of “B” and Van Buren Streets used as a
prosthetic clinic.
Harrison Street is improved adjacent to the site with curb and gutter. “A” Street is
an unimproved roadway. There is an existing functioning alley located on the
north boundary of the property, which extends one-half way. The remainder of
the alleyway serves as a drainage ditch.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing as well as all
property owners located within 200-feet of the site and all residents, who could
be identified, located within 300-feet of the site.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. North Harrison would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial
street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from centerline.
2. ‘A’ Street would also be classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street. The existing dedication of right-of-way to 25-feet from centerline and
pavement width of 26-feet will be acceptable to meet the standards for a
minor commercial street.
3. A 20-feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of all
abutting streets.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
4
4. Provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct
one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development. The existing width of North Harrison of 24-feet is
inadequate to meet fire code and for commercial uses.
5. Repair or replace any existing curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. A turn-out must be provided or the gated entrance on Markham similar in
concept to the entrance on Harrison.
7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
8. Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
the 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. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer mains on site. No construction will be permitted
within five (5) feet of the existing sewer mains. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this
site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will
be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will be installed at
the Developer’s expense. A ¾-inch meter is the largest meter available off
the existing main in “A” Street. This development will have minor impact on
the existing water distribution system. The proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: On-site fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Height/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial, Office and Single Family for this
property. The applicant has applied for a PCD for an extended stay hotel. A
Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-04-01) for a change to MX is a separate item
on this agenda.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property is
located in an area covered by “The Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan: a ‘Blueprint’ of
Our Community.” The chapter on zoning and land use contains a goal of
creating a different set of guidelines with which to govern the development of
Hillcrest. This goal is supported by the two (2) objectives directing specific policy
for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood and establishing design
standards consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Two (2) action
statements listed in support of these goals include revising the land use map for
the neighborhood to consolidate and eliminate certain land uses, and to
discontinue the use of commercial structures on Markham Street that do not fit
the character of the neighborhood. The plan also contains a list of supplemental
issues, which includes land use objectives of limiting Mix Uses to the Kavanaugh
commercial areas.
Landscape Issues: The plan submitted does allow for the minimum 6.7 foot
wide land use buffer and landscape strip required by both the zoning and
landscape ordinances along the west one-half of the northern perimeter where
the alley was previously located. A six (6) foot high opaque screen is also
required within this area. Additionally, the land use buffer along the northern
perimeter of Lot 7 fails to meet the minimum average 13 ½ foot width
requirement by 204 square feet. A six (6) high opaque screen is required within
this buffer, though it may not be deemed useful. Additionally, Lots 5, 6 and 7 fail
to provide the minimum six (6) percent landscaping required within the interior of
the vehicular use area. All of these requirements take into account the reduction
allowed within the designated “mature area” of the City.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff presented a
brief overview of the proposed development along with deficiencies on the
proposed site plan. Staff requested Mr. McGetrick relocate the dumpster located
within the northern alley outside the alley. Staff also requested all signage
locations with details of the proposed signage.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
6
Staff requested cross-access agreements between the property owner and the
tenant to the east (Jimmy’s Sandwich Shop) be shown on the site plan providing
for shared dumpster and parking.
Staff stated the applicant should contact the Little Rock Fire Department to verify
the gate opening widths and to ensure they were sufficient to meet the Fire
Department’s requirements.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated all streets would require a
dedication of right-of-way and Harrison would require street construction per the
Master Street Plan. Staff stated the gate on West Markham was not desirable.
Staff questioned if the applicant could relocate the gate further away from the
street to allow motorists options when trying to enter the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the plan submitted was
not sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. McGetrick
stated he would redesign the parking area and buffer areas to meet the minimum
requirements.
There was no further discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the
full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has relocated the
dumpster contained in Phase II outside the alley as requested by Staff and
included the required screening on the site plan. The applicant has also
indicated agreements between the future property owner to the east, Jimmy’s
Serious Sandwich, with regard to parking and dumpster location.
The original filing included gates and fencing around the entire development.
The applicant has indicated gates and fencing will be placed on the site on an as
needed basis. Staff is not supportive of fencing or gating of the development.
The gate previously shown adjacent to West Markham Street has been relocated
to the rear of the eastern most hotel building. This would allow motorists an area
to turn-around should they mistakenly happen into the parking lot and not require
them to back out into West Markham Street.
The site plan also indicates fencing and gates located along “A” Street on the
south side. The fence is proposed as a six (6) foot brick and wrought iron fence.
The applicant is requesting the fencing be optional should security become an
issue in the future.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
7
As a part of the proposed development the applicant is requesting a portion of
the alley, north of West Markham and south of “A” Street be abandoned. Staff is
supportive of this request. The applicant previously indicated a gate on the alley
to secure the site but has since revised his request to only adding the gate if
security becomes an issue in the future. Staff supports this request as well. The
applicant will be required to amend the PCD and allow the Commission to
determine if the gate is needed for security.
The applicant proposes the placement of sixty-five (65) on-site parking spaces.
Hotel/Motel development requires one parking space per guest room and for the
restaurant one space is required per 100 square feet of gross floor area. The
restaurant is estimated at 2600 square feet and would require 26 parking spaces.
The hotel will house 69 guest rooms and would require 69 parking spaces. This
results in a typical minimum parking requirement of 95 parking spaces. Staff
feels comfortable with the proposed 65 spaces since the guest of the hotel and
the restaurant patrons will not likely overlap and it is unlikely all the guest rooms
will be occupied and/or all the guests will have automobiles.
Signage is proposed in five (5) locations. The hotel proposes identification signs
on West Markham Street at Harrison Street and adjacent to the alley (proposed
for closure) and Harrison Street. The sign area is proposed at 160 square feet in
area, the sign area allowed for commercial zones. The applicant is also
requesting signage to identify Phase II in two locations. Both located north of “A”
Street at the intersection of “A” Street and Harrison and “A” Street and Vanburen
Street. These two signs are also proposed at 160 square feet in area. The final
sign location is to serve Jimmy’s Serious Sandwich. The sign area is proposed
at 160 square feet in area as well.
Staff would recommend the sign area allowed be limited to the following: to
identify the hotel establishment one sign limited to six (6) feet in height and sixty-
four (64) square feet in area. A single Phase II development sign should be
limited to that allowed in multi-family or condominium development, not to exceed
six (6) feet in height and 24 square feet in sign area and the sign area to identify
Jimmy’s Serious Sandwich be limited to 100 square feet in area.
The applicant has indicated dedication of right-of-way to Harrison Street per the
Master Street Plan. The applicant has also indicated street construction
upgrades to Harrison and “A” Streets.
Although, Staff is supportive of Phase I, there are particular aspects of this
proposal that Staff does not support. Staff does not support fencing the site or
the signage as proposed by the applicant.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
8
Phase II has not yet developed. The applicant has indicated Phase II will be
compatible architecture to the surrounding neighborhood but staff is not
comfortable with making a recommendation without first seeing proposed design,
building materials and all the details of the proposed buildings. Staff
recommends Phase II be reviewed by the Commission when the Plans have
been finalized complete with architectural style and building material.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the applicant as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item
stating there were two phases to the proposed development. Staff stated Phase I was
the redevelopment of an existing hotel development and Staff was supportive of the
concept. Staff stated they were opposed to the fencing proposed as a part of the
development and the requested signage.
Staff stated they had not received enough information to make a determination of Phase
II. Staff stated they had requested additional information with regard to design and
architecture but had not been furnished with this information. Staff stated without the
additional information their recommendation would be denial.
Staff stated the applicant could break the project into two applications. One south of “A”
Street and one north of “A” Street. Staff stated the request for the area south of “A”
Street could be a PCD and the area north of “A” Street re-filed as a PRD. Staff stated
the new application would be heard by the Commission in six (6) weeks. Staff stated
this would not delay the proposed redevelopment of the Markham Inn and would give
additional time to review the residential component of the proposal.
The applicant agreed to revise his application to include the area south of “A” Street and
refile an application for the area north of “A” Street to be review at a later hearing.
Mr. Robert Scoggins spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated the
area south of “A” Street was not a concern but the area north of “A” Street was a
concern since the proposed development backed-up to single-family homes. He
questioned if a wall or fence could be installed adjoining these residences to screen the
development. He also stated safety was an issue with area residents.
Mr. Morris Harper spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
parents owned the property east of the proposed development adjacent to Vanburen
Street. He stated he had three (3) areas of concern. He stated he was concerned with
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
9
the closure of the alley. He stated only a portion of the alley would be closed and
fenced which would greatly decrease access to his property. Mr. Harper stated
currently his customers were allowed access through the applicant’s property which
would allow a safer exit onto Markham for those traveling westbound.
Mr. Harper also stated he was concerned with the developing crossing “A” Street. He
stated the Hillcrest Neighborhood was a historical neighborhood and “A” Street had
typically been drawn at “A” Street. Mr. Harper stated crossing “A” Street with a
development of this intensity was an intrusion into the neighborhood.
Mr. Harper stated he was also opposed to the rezoning of the site which would not offer
him fair treatment when he requested to rezone a lot of his ownership located east of
the proposed development. He stated he owned a lot which was zoned R-3 and was
being used as a parking lot. He stated his desire was to rezone the lot to C-3 to allow
him zoning which was more in line with the use of the property.
Ms. Ruth Bell spoke in support of the proposed redevelopment south of “A” Street and
questioned the design of the area north of “A” Street. She stated all the City’s past
plans had indicated “A” Street as the dividing line between commercial and non-
residential development.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the merits
of the development.
Staff then stated if the application was re-filed as a PRD the Land Use Plan Amendment
could be withdrawn. Staff stated the Plan indicated Commercial and Office south of “A”
Street which was consistent with the applicant’s plans. Staff stated if the applicant
re-filed the PRD application north of “A” Street a Plan amendment would not be
required.
Mr. Pat McGetrick requested the Land Use Plan amendment be withdrawn. He stated
the applicant also requested the area be divided into two applications the area south of
“A” Street as a PCD and the area north of “A” Street as a PRD.
Staff questioned the proposed fencing around the development. Mr. Gary Dean stated
the fencing would be 42-inches in height and a decorative fencing. Staff questioned if
the entire fencing would be 42-inches in height. Mr. Dean stated the fencing along the
eastern boundary would be a six (6) foot fence extending to the driveway exit on “A”
Street and behind Jimmy’s. He stated the remainder of the fencing would be 42-inches.
A motion was made to approve the request to withdraw the Future Land Use Plan
amendment. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350
10
A motion was made to approve Phase I of the application as filed. The motion carried
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was then made to waive all filing fees associated with the re-filing of the Phase
II portion of the development as a PRD. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-7351
NAME: Miracle Land Company Short-form PCD
LOCATION: On the southwest corner of I-430 and Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Miracle Development, Inc. Global Surveying Consultants, Inc.
8001 Stagecoach Road 15605 Alexander Road
Little Rock, AR 72210 Alexander, AR 72002
AREA: 3.321 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
ALLOWED USES: General Retail
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Mini-warehouse, carwash and C-3 uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: The creation of a lot without public street
frontage (Lot 3) [Section 31-231].
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this site into three commercial lots and to
rezone the site to PCD to allow for the development of the site with a carwash on
Lot 1, an unidentified C-3 use to be located on Lot 2 and a mini-warehouse
development on Lot 3 extending from the east.
The plat will require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance [Section 31-231]
a lot without public street frontage. Lot 3 will be served by a 30-foot access
easement located on the lot lines of Lots 1 and 2.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351
2
The applicant will revise the site plan when development becomes a reality on
Lots 2 and 3.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site currently zoned C-3. The site adjoins the
flood plain/floodway to the south in an area zoned OS. There is a mini-storage
development located to the east of the site adjacent to I-430. Other uses in the
area include a church located north of the site, a welding shop and a mixture of
auto related uses; ABC Salvage, a tire company, a used car lot.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Otter Creek Homeowners Association, the Crystal Valley Property Owners
Association and Southwest United for Progress 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. Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from centerline at all locations
will be required. Provide a survey showing the centerline of Stagecoach
Road.
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. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25-foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
4. Show limits of the floodplain on the site plan (floodway limits are already
shown).
5. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is
required prior to construction.
6. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lots must share a single
driveway access centered on the property line. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36-feet.
7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
8. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351
3
9. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements within proposed or
existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering and AHTD prior to
construction in the right-of-way.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All request should be forwarded
to Traffic Engineering.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: A water main extension will be required in order to
provide service to this property. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to
evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire
hydrant(s) will be required. If additional fire hydrant(s) are required, they will
be installed at the Developer’s expense. Particularly planning for water
service and Fire Department access to Lot 3 should be considered. This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has
applied for a PCD with C-3 uses for a mini-storage expansion from the
development to the east and a new carwash. The request is consistent with the
Land Use of Commercial.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in
the area covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.
The plan contains an objective that discourages construction of large, warehouse
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351
4
type facilities, and those of large scale and/or high intensity uses, within the
“heart” of the planning area. This application is located outside the “heart” of the
study area as described by the Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape Issues: A land use buffer with an average width of 16.8 feet is
required along the western perimeter of the site. Utility easements cannot count
toward fulfilling this requirement.
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.
If this project is to be separate from the project to the east, then a minimum 6.7
foot wide landscape strip will be required the entire length of the eastern
perimeter. However, if a portion of the eastern perimeter is to abut the same
use, then that portion will be exempted from the perimeter landscaping
requirement.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the item to the Committee noting additions, which were needed on
the proposed site plan. Staff requested additional details on Lot 3 including
building location, setbacks and outdoor storage areas identified. Staff also
requested the limits of the floodplain and all utility easements be indicated on the
proposed site plan.
The applicant indicated only Lot 1 had immediate plans for development. He
stated the proposed mini-storage on Lot 3 was not in the near future and when
the plan was developed he would return to the Commission and the Board for
approval of the modified site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated although there were two
existing driveway apron locations, the applicant should remove the western-most
drive and place a shared drive between Lots 1 and 2 near the eastern-most
driveway apron. Staff stated they would not support the two driveway locations
due to their closeness.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351
5
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated if the area to the east was
not included in the proposal then the applicant would be required to meet all
landscaping and landuse buffer requirements. Staff suggested the applicant
include the existing mini-storage site with the development plan to reduce the
buffer requirements.
There was no further discussion. 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 by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated no
development will take place on Lots 2 or 3 at the present time. He has indicated
any future development will require Planning Commission and Board of Directors
approval prior to construction.
In the interim, Lot 1 will development with a carwash. The applicant has included
on the site plan the dumpster location with required screening, the location of the
vacuums, drive through and self-wash bays. The applicant has also indicated a
6.67-foot landscape strip located on the east property line and the south property
line of Lot 1.
The proposed preliminary plat will require variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance [Section 31-231] the creation of a lot without public street frontage.
The applicant has indicated the lot will be served by a 30-foot access and utility
easement located on the shared property lines of Lots 1 and 2. Staff is
supportive of the requested variance to allow the creation of a lot without public
street frontage and feels the proposed access is sufficient to access Lot 3 should
the lot develop as a separate parcel from the mini-warehouse to the east.
Staff is supportive of the development plan. Staff feels the applicant submitting a
site plan for each of the remaining lots, as development is proposed, is a very
desirable alternative. Otherwise, to Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed site plan.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development subject to compliance
with conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and the requested
variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a lot without
public street frontage [Section 31-231].
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7351
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning to PCD subject to
compliance with conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff stated the proposed development would result in the creation of a three (3) lot plat
which would require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested preliminary plat and the requested
variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a lot without public
street frontage [Section 31-231].
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7340
Name: Johnson Day Care Family Home – Special Use
Permit
Location: 1805 Glenda Drive
Applicant: Trina L. Johnson
Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day
Care Family Home to be operated in the single
family residence located on the R-2 zoned property
at 1805 Glenda Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could
be identified and the Twin Lakes, Twin Lakes “B” and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations
were notified of this request.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The occupant of the single family residence located at 1805 Glenda Drive is requesting
approval of a Special Use Permit to allow her to operate a day care family home. The
application was originally filed as a conditional use permit, but was amended by the applicant.
The applicant proposes a total enrollment of 10 children. Staff is proposed to consist of the
applicant, one other employee and one volunteer as needed. Days and hours of operation are
to be Monday – Friday, 6:30 a.m. –12:00 p.m. To accommodate parking issues which may
arise during operating hours, the applicant proposes to widen the residence’s driveway from its
current width of 16 feet to 26 feet. No signage will be erected on the property. The fenced
back yard will be used for playground area and outdoor activities will be limited to daylight
hours. The applicant states it is her desire to use her home for childcare for a maximum of two
years, after which she hopes to open a childcare center in a different (business) location. The
applicant has discussed the Subdivision’s Bill of Assurance with the neighborhood association
and is aware that there may be an issue.
The property is located in the “heart” of the Twin Lakes neighborhood and the applicant’s
property and home are typical of those found in the area. All surrounding properties are zoned
R-2 and are occupied by single family homes.
While staff is generally supportive of the concept of small-scale day care family homes as a
component of neighborhoods, there are aspects of this specific proposal that raise concerns.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7340
2
Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and
location criteria for day care family homes as follows:
a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the care giver.
b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas.
State regulations shall control the number of employees residing off premises.
c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.
d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other
than the care givers.
e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not
allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be transferred from
owner to owner, location to location or use to use.
The applicant has proposed a total of three caregivers; herself, one paid employee and one
volunteer. Staff believes it is more appropriate to limit a day care family home to being
operated by the occupant of the residence. Allowing additional employees raises the level of
activity on the site and brings the appropriateness of the use into question. The extended
hours of operation are also of concern to staff. The applicant proposes to operate the day care
until 12:00 p.m. Staff questions whether allowing the use to operate past the typical day care
closing time of 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. is appropriate.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 16, 2003)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted that some additional
information was needed regarding signage, parking and playground activities. There was a
general discussion of the level of activity proposed by the applicant and the possibility of
reducing the proposed enrollment. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
Staff subsequently met with the applicant who, in response to staff comments, amended the
application to a Special Use Permit with the numbers and proposed operation outlined in the
“Staff Analysis” above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7340
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Two letters of opposition had
been received by staff and forwarded to the Commission. Staff presented the item and asked
that the applicant clarify the total number of children proposed to be enrolled. Staff also voiced
concern about the number of employees and the proposed hours of operation.
The applicant, Trina Johnson, stated the total enrollment would be 10 children. She stated
there would be only one other employee, besides herself. Ms. Johnson stated the volunteer
would fill-in if one of the two employees were absent.
Commissioner Faust asked Ms. Johnson to again clarify the enrollment number. Ms. Johnson
restated that the total enrollment would be 10 children and that there would only be two
employees on the site at a time.
Commissioner Faust asked Ms. Johnson why the late hours were proposed. Ms. Johnson
responded that she had four families who had evening jobs or night school and needed child-
care past 6:30 p.m.
Chairman Nunnley voiced concern about traffic coming and going from the home in the
evening.
In response to a question from Commissioner Faust, Ms. Johnson stated she could set the
proposed hours of operation to end at 10:00 p.m., rather than midnight.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rahman, Ms. Johnson stated she had met with
the president of the neighborhood association, Mr. Harshaw. According to Ms. Johnson,
Mr. Harshaw stated he did not object to the business, if it were limited to a special use permit
with an enrollment of 10 children.
In response to a question from Commissioner Langlais, Ms. Johnson stated the extended
hours would be needed four times a week.
After a brief discussion of parking and hours of operation, a motion was made to approve the
application, as amended to a Special Use Permit as described by the applicant. The vote was
10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
The application was approved with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the site and location criteria for day-care family homes in Section 36-
54(e)(3) of the Code.
2. Hours of operation are to be Monday-Friday, 6:30 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7340
4
3. No more than two employees, including the applicant, are to be on the site at a time.
4. No signage is to be placed on the property.
5. Outdoor activities are to be limited to daylight hours.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
NAME: Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Signage issue on Lot 2 and Lot 4)
LOCATION: 9222 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Finley & Company Hurricane Valley Engineers
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O. Box 118
Little Rock, AR 72210 Bryant, AR 72807
AREA: 1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD and POD
ALLOWED USES: Selected Office and Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD and POD
PROPOSED USE: Selected C-3 Uses and O-3 permitted uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Stagecoach Village preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission in
August of 2000. The Plat contained four (4) lots. As a separate action on September
5, 2000, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 18,342 establishing
Stagecoach Village (Lot 4) Short-form PCD. The applicant proposed to construct a
3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial building
and 54 parking spaces. At the time of approval, the applicant proposed to convert the
bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses) if a bank tenant could not be
secured. The site plan was later revised (June 26, 2001) at a Staff level to remove the
bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage was
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
2
increased to 10,800 square feet. The applicant proposed the building to be used as
80% commercial (C-2 uses) and 20% office (general and professional).
The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
The sign area approved for Lot 4 was to be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and
eighty (80) square feet in area. The sign was to be a monument style ground mounted
sign.
On March 21, 2000, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,234, which
rezoned Lot 2 from R-2 to PCD. C-2 permitted uses were approved for the property,
with the uses for the entire development being tied to the preliminary plat application.
As a part of the proposal the applicant proposed to utilize the existing 3,230 square foot
building on Lot 2 and construct 15 parking spaces to serve the building. The applicant
also proposed to utilize the existing driveway from Stagecoach Road to serve Lot 2
temporarily, until the new street for this subdivision was constructed. At that time the
existing driveway would be closed and a shared drive between Lots 2 and 3 would be
used. The timing of the new street construction will be tied to the preliminary plat and
the final platting of Lot 3 or 4, or the development of the larger single-family tract.
Ordinance No. 18,340, rezoned Lot 2 from PCD to POD and was approved by the Little
Rock Board of Directors on September 5, 2000. The applicant requested O-3 uses as
permitted uses for Lot 2. (The applicant requested C-2 permitted uses for Lots 1 and 4
and O-3 permitted uses for Lots 2 and 3.) The applicant also agreed to a single-ground
mounted monument style sign six (6) feet in height and a maximum of sixty-four (64)
square feet in area to be constructed on Lot 2.
The hours of operation for Lot 2 were approved as 8:00 am to 9:00 pm and there were
to be no external pay phones, ice machines, vending machines or speakers. The
applicant was to remove the existing access drive from Stagecoach Road to Lot 2 when
Staley Drive was constructed. The area was to be replaced with landscaping.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the Planned Developments related to signage
allowed on the site. The applicant was approved for a ground mounted
monument style sign to be located on Lots 2 and 4. The approved signage was
not installed on Lot 4. The request is to recognize the existing pole mounted sign
located on Lot 4 along with Subdivision identification signs located on Lots 2 and
4. Signage has not been installed on Lot 2.
The current signage consists of Stagecoach Village Subdivision identification
signs (one located on the northeast corner of Lot 2 on Stagecoach Village Drive
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
3
and one located on Lot 4 on the southeast corner of Stagecoach Village Drive)
and the existing pole mounted backlit tenant identification sign located on Lot 4.
The applicant proposes to “turn-off” the lighting for the sign by 11:00 pm daily.
The applicant is also requesting a six (6) foot sixty-four (64) square feet in area
ground mounted monument style sign for the future uses of Lot 2.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a strip retail center. There are seven bays with four
being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners, Subway,
beauty supply, gift shop). Other uses in the area include an office located on the
northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road. A Planned
Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and
is beginning to develop.
The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building. Access to the
site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, Staff has received one phone call from an area resident. The
Otter Creek Homeowners Association, Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress, all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who
could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
This item was not re-routed to the various agencies and utilities of comments
since an application was previously submitted and withdrawn at the
December 19, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. These comments
were included with the previous agenda.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
ARKLA: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
4
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on
bus radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This request is located in an area
covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. The
OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-
friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal. The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and
between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road. The plan also contains a
statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb
cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landscape Issues: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was not present at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff
informed the Committee Members the applicant was requesting a revision to his
Planned Developments for Lots 2 and 4 of the Stagecoach Village development.
Staff stated the applicant had installed a pole-mounted sign on Lot 4 but the
signage approved was a monument style ground-mounted sign. Staff stated they
would work with the applicant to resolve any outstanding issues associated with
the proposed development prior to the Commission meeting.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
5
H. ANALYSIS:
Staff made a site visit to review the existing signage of the development. The
applicant has installed two (2) subdivision identification signs, one (1) north of
Stagecoach Village Drive and one (1) south of Stagecoach Village Drive. The
signs are ground-mounted style and consistent with signage area allowed for
subdivision identification signs per the Zoning Ordinance. However, the
Ordinance only allows one (1) sign per subdivision. Staff does not feel the
applicant’s request for two (2) signs is too far out of line and would support the
request to allow the two (2) identification signs.
The applicant has also installed a pole-mounted sign on Lot 4 instead of the
approved eight (8) foot high maximum of eighty (80) square feet in area. The
pole-sign is 24-feet in height and has a sign area of 64-square feet. This is
significantly smaller than the allowed sign area in commercial zones or 36-feet in
height and 160 square feet in area.
Although, the signage installed is not the approved signage of the Planned
Development, staff feels the signage is acceptable. The signs height and area
are within the allowable guidelines for signage in commercial zones. Staff feels
however the lighting of the sign should not be light unless the businesses are
open. Therefore, staff recommends the backlighting of the pole-mounted sign be
limited to the retail business hours or 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
Staff would recommend the signage for Lot 2 remain as the previously approved
and the current request of a maximum of six (6) feet in height and sixty-four (64)
square feet in area.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs E and H of this report.
Staff recommends the lighting of the existing pole sign be limited to the hours of
operation of the commercial center (8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday).
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6178-G
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. Staff stated the applicant
had failed to notify property owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as required by the
Planning Commission By-Laws. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the February 20, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
request for deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: LU03-24-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Sweet Home Planning District
Location: East of Trust and Sanders Street
Request: Single Family and Low Density Residential to Multi-family
Source: Todd Rice, Vanadis Group
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Sweet Home Planning District from Single Family and
Low Density Residential to Multi-family. The Multi-family category accommodates
residential development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area
of review to include the property located at the northwest corner of Sanders Street and
Southern Road. With this change the applicant’s property would be linked to the area
shown as Multi-family between Southern Road and Frazier Pike and between Sanders
Street and Franklin Street. The property at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike and
Sanders Street would remain shown as Mixed Use.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant’s property is currently vacant land zoned R-3 Single Family and is
approximately 2.22+ acres in size. The expanded area includes a pavilion on the
campus of the Rivercrest Healthcare nursing home zoned C-3 located at the northwest
corner of Southern and Sanders Streets. The College Station Community Resource
Center is located in the northeast corner of the study area next to the College Station
Post Office. The property to the north is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Commercial for a
vacant liquor store located at the southwest corner of Frazier Pike and Sanders Street,
and R-3 Single Family for a house located at the southeast corner of Frazier Pike and
Sanders Street. A Post Office zoned C-3 is located northeast of the application area on
the corner of Gray Street and Frazier Pike. The properties to the east, south, and west
consist of single-family homes and vacant lots. The nursing home located on the north
side of Southern Road west of Sanders Street is zoned MF-18 Multi-Family. A
cemetery is located southeast of the application area at the end of Gray Street.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 16, 1999 multiple changes were made from Commercial, Multi-family,
Park/Open Space, Public Institutional, Single Family and Agricultural to Low Density
Residential, Mixed Use, Public Institutional, Multi-family, Park/Open Space, and Single
Family within a 1 mile radius of the applicant’s property to reflect existing conditions
throughout the neighborhood.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-24-01
2
The expanded area of review is shown as Low Density Residential and Single Family.
The property to the north is shown as Mixed Use while the land to the east is shown as
Low Density Residential and Single Family. The land to the south and west is shown as
Single Family. The property on the north side of Southern Road to the west of Sanders
Street is shown as Multi-family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Sanders Street, Southern Road, and Gray Street are all classified as local streets.
Sanders Street, Southern Road, and Gray Street utilize open drainage and will need
improvements in order to conform to Master Street Plan Standards. Frazier Pike,
located ½ of a block to the north, is a two-lane road shown as a Minor Arterial that may
be affected by increasing in traffic resulting from the development of the applicant’s
property but would not be subject to half street improvement. Currently the applicant’s
property is accessible from Sanders and Gray Street. Improvements would need to be
made to both streets to meet the demands of increased traffic resulting from the
development of the applicant’s property if it is developed to Multi-family densities. The
Master Street Plan does not show any bikeways that would be affected by development
of the applicant’s property.
PARKS:
The property in question is located about 2 blocks west of the College Station
Elementary School. The Little Rock Park System Master Plan of 2001 recognizes
public schools as facilities eligible for providing for the recreation needs within eight
blocks of all Little Rock households as a part of the “Eight Block Strategy.”
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no 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.
While there is not a neighborhood action plan for the neighborhood recognized by the
City of Little Rock, Planning staff worked with the College Station Community
Redevelopment Coalition. The coalition reached a consensus on the issues to have the
preservation and reinforcement of College Station as a residential neighborhood and to
strengthen Frazier Pike as the community’s commercial core.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-24-01
3
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s property is located in the residential area south of Frazier Pike in the
community of College Station. The core of the College Station community is located
along Frazier Pike between Jones Street and 3-M Road. The College Station
Elementary School, the largest non-residential feature of this community, serves as the
anchor of the community at the east end. Any new uses developing in this area would
need to respect the integrity of the school. At the west end, the non-residential uses
centered on the Frazier Pike / 3-M Road intersection are commercial in nature where
future business oriented non-residential developments are liable to take place. The
application area is located near the center of the College Station Community between
the two ends of the non-residential core. This change would increase the density of
possible residential development south of Frazier Pike near the core of the College
Station community.
If the land use is changed to Multi-family, an arm of Multi-family will be created in an
area characterized by a low density of Single Family development. Since a large
number of the lots shown as Single Family are vacant, a change to Multi-family will be a
substantial increase in residential density. However, the area east of Gray Street that
would be available for future Single Family development is relatively small. The area
shown as Public Institutional for the elementary school and the cemetery is not as likely
to develop for other uses in the future. The small area to the east of Gray Street that
would remain as Single Family would be separated from the residential area west of
Sanders Street. The amount of vacant land that would remain shown as Single Family
west of Sanders Street would still provide opportunity for such development to take
place in the future. Any development that increases the density of residential uses in
the area will need to respect the integrity of the less intense neighboring residential
uses. Interaction between Multi-family uses and the other uses to the north may
include an increase of traffic and an added demand on area infrastructure.
Since most of the existing uses to the north are residential or institutional in character,
the impact of a change to Multi-family will depend on the nature and scale of the specific
developments in the area shown as Multi-family. A low intensity Multi-family
development will impact the utility infrastructure network shared by neighboring
businesses and residences, while a high intensity Multi-family development will also
generate more traffic. A traditional Multi-family development of apartments would be an
example of a high intensity Multi-family development that would create more demand on
existing infrastructure. A non-traditional Multi-family development such as an assisted
living complex would be an example of low intensity Multi-family. Such a development
would generate less demand on existing infrastructure due to the lower volume of traffic
generated and a lower average number of persons occupying each unit. The way a
Multi-family development is implemented will determine whether or not it is compatible
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-24-01
4
with the single-family uses. A Multi-family use that is institutional in nature may be more
compatible with neighboring Single Family and Public Institutional uses by functioning
as a place of transition available to allow the mixing different age groups.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: College Station
Progressive League, and Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association. Staff has not
received any comments from area residents at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A typical Multi-family development would
not be appropriate in this location.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the February 20, 2003
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.
February 6, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19.1 FILE NO.: Z-7353
NAME: Fruit of the Spirit Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Between Sanders Street and Grey Street near the intersection of Trust
Street
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
The Vanadis Group Caradine & Company
221 West 2nd Street P.O. Box 190
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203
AREA: 2.5 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: 40 unit assisted living for the elderly facility
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct a 40-bed assisted living facility for the elderly
on this 2.5-acre site. The structure is proposed as a single-story building of
masonry construction. A fenced courtyard for privacy and security as well as
secured and monitored exits is proposed. There will be substantial common
space for communal dining and recreation as well as a laundry, commercial
kitchen and other amenities on-site. The center will offer 36 one bedroom units
and 4 two bedroom units. Each unit is approximately 410 square feet and 620
square feet respectively. The applicant has indicated each unit will offer
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7353
2
separate sleeping quarters for privacy, a fully accessible bathroom, ample closet
space and a modern kitchenette.
The development will consist of a mixture of market rate and affordable assisted
living units and will be funded primarily through the issuance of low-to-moderate
tax credits through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority.
The applicant proposes the primary ingress/egress from Sanders Street on the
west and all receiving and parking will be located on the west side of the site as
well.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tract of land located in College Station. The property to the
north of the site is also vacant. Single-family homes are scattered along Sanders
Street and Gray Street the boundary streets and to the south of the site. Other
uses in the area include a mix of residential, non-residential and public uses.
There is a County Health Unit facility located in the area and a nursing home
located north and west of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The College Station Progressive League, all residents located within 300-feet of
the site, who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200-
feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has not
received any comment from the area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed land use would classify Sanders Street on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from platted
centerline.
2. The proposed land use would classify Grey Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from the as-
constructed centerline.
3. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: No comment received.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7353
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
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 fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered
connection off a private fire system. The Fire Department, having
jurisdiction, needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional
public and/or private fire facilities will be required. If additional facilities are
required, they will be installed at the Developer’s expense. This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system.
Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional
details.
Fire Department: No comment received.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: The site is shown as Single Family on the City’s Future Land
Use Plan. The desire use is not consistent with Single Family therefore a Land
Use Plan Amendment has been filed for this item and is a separate item on this
agenda. (File No. LU03-24-01 - Item # 19)
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The area lies in an area not
covered by a City of Little Rock recognized Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape Issues: No comment received.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (January 16, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the proposed development consisted
of the construction of a 40-bed assisted living facility for the elderly. Staff stated
there were a few items, which were needed on the proposed site plan which had
not been addressed. Staff stated they would contact the applicant and try to
resolve any issues prior to the Commission meeting.
February 6, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7353
4
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
Staff met with the applicant and made comments of the additions needed on the
proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated a single-story building on the
site plan along with additional landscaping.
Staff feels the proposed development is a fit for the neighborhood. The proposal
includes 40 units of assisted living elderly housing. The proposed development
is consistent with the definition under the City of Little Zoning Ordinance and the
normal objection to multi-family development in an area should be somewhat
calmed by the fact elderly housing is defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
The area contains a hodge-podge of development. There are single-family
homes, commercial businesses, public facilities and a nursing home to name a
few of the type uses. Staff feels the proposed use would not negatively affect the
neighborhood if developed in the manner proposed. The proposed density is 16
units per acre. The City’s Future Land Use Plan indicates the site as Single
Family. There is an area however, shown on the Plan as Multi-family located ½
block north and ½ block west of the site. The Multi-family shown is developed.
An area ½ block to the north of the site is designated as LDR or Low Density
Residential and a large portion of this area is developed.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development if developed in the manner proposed. Staff would
recommend approval of the request to rezone the site to allow assisted living for
the elderly.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request to Planned
Development – Residential subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property
owners 15-days prior to the Public Hearing as required by the Planning Commission
By-Laws. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
February 20, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request for
deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
February 6, 2003
I T E M N O . : 2 0
NAME: Land Alteration Ordinance Variance for Forest Management
LOCATION: Kiwanis and Morehart City Parks
Pine timber in Kiwanis and Morehart Parks is in need of thinning to promote vigorous
growth and reduce risk of pine beetle infestation to protect the remaining trees.
With the aid of the Arkansas Forestry Commission, the park trees were measured and
inventoried. Forest management practices are to maintain timber stocking at a basal
area (square footage in cross-section) of 80. Kiwanis Park is currently at 135 with 170
trees per acre and Morehart has a 102 basal area factor with 109 trees per acre.
Thinning of these parks to the recommended stocking level requires the removal of 418
trees with an average diameter of less than 10 inches in diameter in Kiwanis Park, and
911 trees with an average diameter of 12 inches from Morehart Park.
We would like to schedule the thinning operations for late winter 2003, before the park
usage increases in the Spring.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Parks Department has requested this item be deferred to the March 20, 2003
Planning Commission Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 6, 2003)
The Parks Department was not present representing the application. Staff stated the
Parks Department had requested the item be deferred to the March 20, 2003 Public
Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request for deferral.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.