HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_03 20 2003sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 20, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Fred Allen, Jr.
Jerry Meyer
Gary Langlais
Members Absent: Judith Faust
Bob Lowry
City Attorney: Stephen Giles
III. Approval of the Minutes of the February 6, 2003 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
MARCH 20, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Henry Short-form PCD (Z-6467-A), located at 5301 Mabelvale Pike.
B. 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.
B.1 Townsend Short-form PCD (Z-7346), located at 9219 Stagecoach Road.
C. Land Alteration Ordinance Variance for Forest Management, located at Kiwanis
Park and Morehart Park.
II. NEW ITEMS:
1. Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat (S-46-Z), located on Vantage Point
Drive.
2. Hastings Phase III Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1076-B), located at
2800 Vance Street.
3. Westside Jr. High School POD Lot 2R (Z-2559-E) and Street Right-of-way
abandonment, located south of West 13th Street between Wolfe and Marshall
Streets.
4. Tanner Short-form POD (Z-2850-A), located at 216 North McKinley Street.
5. Hickory Grove Long-form PD-R (Z-4562-B), located on Hinson Road, west side,
just south of the Pebble Beach Subdivision.
6. TNT Fireworks Short-form PCD (Z-5224-I), located at 18200 Cantrell Road.
7. The Village at Rahling Road Revised PCD (Z-6323-F), located on Rahling Circle
(Lot 8B).
8. Stagecoach Commons Short-form PCD (Z-6813-A), located on Stagecoach
Road ½ mile south of Baseline Road on the west side.
9. Wilbert Burial and Vault Revised Short-form PID (Z-7092-A), located at
12705 Alexander Road.
II. NEW ITEMS: (Cont.)
10. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-18-01) located in the Ellis Mountain
Planning District, located on the northwest corner of Kanis and Bowman Roads,
a change from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial.
10.1 Bowman Market Place Long-form PCD (Z-7364), located on the northwest corner
of Kanis Road and Bowman Road.
11. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-01-02) located in the River Mountain
Planning District, located north of Taylor Loop Road near Gooch Lane, a change
from Single Family to Low Density Residential.
11.1 Green Acres Short-form PD-R (Z-7365), located north of Taylor Loop Road east
of Gooch Lane.
12. Bed and Breakfast Inn Short-form PD-C (Z-6809) Request for a Time Extension,
located at 700 South Cedar Street.
13. Appeal of a notice of Violation of the Land Alteration Ordinance located at
9924 Baseline Road.
14. Appeal of a notice of Violation of the Land Alteration Ordinance located just east
of John Barrow Road on the south side of Kanis Road.
15. Villa Vista Subdivision (S-1339) Request for Deferral of Master Street Plan
Requirements to West 36th Street.
16. 2002-2003 Ordinance Amendment Package
17. Markham Inn Short-Form PD-R (Z-7350-A), located north of “A” Street between
Harrison and Van Buren Streets.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6467-A
NAME: Henry Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 5301 Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:
David Jacks
8209 Stanton Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
Jim Bagwell Surveying
122 Gravel Lane
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 1999.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant failed to furnish Staff with a revised site plan indicating the new right-of-
way line as requested at the Subdivision Committee Meeting on February 27, 2003.
Staff would request this item be deferred to the May 1, 2003 Public Hearing.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6467-A
2
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the item be deferred to the May 1, 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: B 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.
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.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
2
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.
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
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-16-01
3
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 Neighborhood
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.
STAFF UPDATE: (FEBRUARY 3, 2003)
Staff has received a letter in support of the change to Commercial from the Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (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.
STAFF UPDATE: (FEBRUARY 10, 2003)
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. This change would allow a string of Commercial
uses to develop on the east side of Stagecoach Road without a viable cutoff between
commercial and non-commercial developments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James made a
presentation of item B.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 1. See
item B.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned Commercial
Development.
Mr. Nathan Townsend, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the application and stated that he
wanted to develop a restaurant in an existing structure to meet market demand for a sit-down
restaurant located in the area. He stated that he did not understand why a business owner
should have to build a new structure for a business when an existing structure is available.
However, he acknowledged staff's statement that vacant land was available to the north shown
as Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan already zoned to allow for commercial
development near existing commercial developments.
Mr. David Henning, spoke in opposition to the Land Use Plan Amendment. Mr. Henning stated
that the Steering Committee of the Otter Creek / Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan
wanted to have the east side of Stagecoach Road shown as Office. Mr. Henning also stated
that any new restaurant should be built on land already shown as Commercial on the Future
Land Use Plan on property already zoned for Commercial land uses. Mr. Henning also
opposed the item based on the effect a commercial development would have on the adjacent
Fourche Creek and how the development would also effect the preservation of a greenbelt as
recommended in the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001. Mr. Henning closed his
comments with a request that the Planning Commission deny the Land Use Plan Amendment.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of
0 ayes, 9 noes, and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: B.1 FILE NO.: Z-7346
NAME: Townsend Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 9219 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
Vester Townsend
1218 Mission Road
North Little Rock, AR 72118
ENGINEER:
Richardson Surveying, PLLC
P.O. Box 6865
Sherwood, AR 72124-6865
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.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the property located at 9219 Stagecoach Road
from R-2, Single-family to PCD to allow the existing single-family structure and
allow a second structure (a 40-foot by 70-foot steel building) to act as a
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
2
restaurant. The steel building will be connected to the single-family structure with
a breezeway. The original structure will be used as a waiting area for customers
waiting to be seated, three (3) party rooms for groups that need privacy, office
space, and storage. The party rooms should each seat approximately 20-guests
per room. The secondary structure will house the kitchen, scullery and handicap
accessible restrooms (approximately 40% of the building) leaving approximately
1680 square feet for seating. The applicant proposes the seating capacity of the
secondary structure to be 150 to 160 patrons. The applicant is proposing 57
parking spaces as a part of the development.
The applicant is proposing a 5-foot by 10-foot double-sided painted steel sign to
be located in the front landscaped area. The sign will be lit with floodlighting.
The applicant estimates the number of employees to range from twelve (12) to
fifteen (15) and the operation hours are from 4:30 pm to 9:30 pm Tuesday
through Sunday. The applicant proposes the restaurant to be closed on
Mondays.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an occupied single-family structure with single-family homes
located to the north and south of the site. A home occupation (a beauty shop) is
located in the home to the north. The area to the east of the site is floodplain and
floodway.
Across Stagecoach Road (to the west) is a mix of uses contained in the
Stagecoach Village Development. The Stagecoach Village Development
commercial and office uses front Stagecoach Road and the residential portion of
the development is located further west. There are single-family homes located
to the northwest of the site fronting Stagecoach Road.
Other uses in the area include two (2) churches, vacant O-1 zoned property, and
vacant MF-12 zoned property (the site of the Chapel Ridge Apartment proposal)
and a major transmission power line. Currently under construction is a Planned
Residential Development located west of Stagecoach Road, which includes
attached and detached single-family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the application. Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Otter Creek
Homeowners Association were notified of the public hearing along with all
property owners located within 200-feet and all residents, who could be
identified, located within 300-feet.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
3
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 55-feet from centerline will be required.
An updated survey showing the current centerline will be required.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
the Master Street Plan.
3. The survey must be updated to show the limits of the floodplain and floodway
based on current FEMA maps. In accordance with Section 13-62, no
encroachments (parking lots) are allowed within the floodway.
4. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is
required prior to construction.
5. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210. Relocate driveway to the center
of the property. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet.
6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7. 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.
8. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, grease trap required for the restaurant. Contact
Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: A 10-foot utility easement will be required along the north property line.
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. A Capital
Investment Charge based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this
project in addition to normal charges for increase in meter size.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
4
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 Office for this property. The applicant has applied for
a PCD for a restaurant. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-16-01) for a
change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda.
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 outside
the “heart” of the study area as described by the Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landscape Issues: The interior islands must be at least 7 ½ feet in width to count
toward fulfilling landscape ordinance interior requirements. The proposed width
appears to be 6 ½ feet or 7 feet.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings is required along the
northern, southern and eastern perimeters. Credit toward fulfilling this
requirement can be given for existing trees and undergrowth that provides the
year-around screening required.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtain a building permit, it will be necessary to provide approved
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree-covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
Building Codes: No comment received.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant had revised the survey
to indicate the floodway line. Staff stated they would work with the applicant to
resolve any issues prior to the Public Hearing.
There being no further discussion of the item, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the comments
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicted
parking outside the floodway, as required by city ordinances and has indicated
the placement of a sidewalk along Stagecoach Road. The applicant has not
however indicated the required landscaping strips along the northern and
southern boundaries of the site or within the parking area. With the current
parking configuration the parking located along the northern boundary will not
allow for two-way traffic lanes. Staff would recommend the area be signed as
one-way and connect to the drive lane to the south.
The applicant has indicated sufficient parking to meet the minimum typical
parking demand. The applicant has indicated 82 on-site parking spaces and the
minimum typical parking required would be 49 spaces. The applicant could
redesign the parking area to include landscaped islands and sufficient
landscaping and still meet the minimum typical parking demand.
The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted sign to be located within
the front yard area. The applicant has indicated a sign area of five (5) foot by
(10) foot or fifty (50) square feet in area. The proposed signage is less than
allowable in commercial zones or a maximum sign area not to exceed thirty-six
(36) feet in height and one hundred sixty (160) square feet in area.
The applicant estimates the number of employees to range from twelve (12) to
fifteen (15) and the operation hours are from 4:30 pm to 9:30 pm Tuesday
through Sunday. The applicant proposes the restaurant to be closed on
Mondays. The hours of operation are consistent with the hours of operation of
nearby restaurants and should not cause any adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
With all this said, Staff is not supportive of the proposed development. Staff has
some concern with the commercialization of Stagecoach Road and the change in
the Future Land Use Plan and/or zoning for the site when there are vacant areas
of commercially zoned property in the area both north and south of the site. In
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
6
addition there are areas shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Commercial
designated areas, which are also currently vacant to the north and south of the
site.
The site is currently shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan and Staff feels
that type development would be a better fit for the area. There are single-family
attached homes developing to the west of the site and an application for a multi-
family development was recently approved to the south of the site. Staff feels the
change in zoning and the Future Land Use Plan amendment are premature. The
large area to the north zoned C-3, General Commercial would allow the applicant
to simply construct his building and move-in.
Although, the applicant has met most of the technical aspects of the site plan
staff feels the use is the primary concern of the development. Staff recommends
denial of the proposed application as filed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed application as filed.
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
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Nate Townsend was present representing the application. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Townsend addressed the Commission of the merits of the application. He stated
Grandpa’s was a family owned business that had been in business in North Little Rock
for 33 years. He stated he chose the Stagecoach area because of the number of
customers coming to the site in North Little Rock from Saline County and Southwest
Little Rock. He stated the area was in need of a sit-down restaurant. Mr. Townsend
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7346
7
stated the desire was to use the existing house and to add a building on to the rear of
the structure to give the site a home feel. He stated the desire was to give the
appearance of coming to Grandpa’s house.
Mr. David Henning spoke in opposition of the proposed application. He stated the intent
of the Otter Creek Neighborhood Action Plan was not for commercialization of the area.
He stated the Land Use Plan was put in place to protect the homes in the area. He
stated the change in the use would not offer any protection to the remaining homes
located in the area.
Mr. Henning stated the site was adjacent to the floodway. He stated the cities Parks
within a Park had identified the floodway as a connection of trails around the city. He
stated if the site were rezoned for a restaurant the negative impacts would not only
affect the residential units in the area but the park concept as well.
There was limited discussion concerning the need for additional commercial property in
the area.
A motion was made to approve the land use plan amendment as filed. The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
A motion was made to approve the rezoning request. The motion failed by a vote of
4 ayes, 5 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
I T E M N O . : C
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.
STAFF UPDATE:
There is no new information concerning this item. The Parks Department will address
the Commission at the Public Hearing with the details of the proposed request.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.)
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The Parks Department was not present representing the application. There were no
objectors present. Staff stated the Parks Department had requested the item be
deferred to the May 1, 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-46-X
NAME: Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Vantage Point Drive
DEVELOPER:
Pfeifer Development Company
P.O. Box 99
N. Little Rock, AR 72115
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 2.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 22.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A Variance to allow lots without public street
frontage.
A. PROPOSAL:
The area was preliminary platted in the mid-1960’s with the majority of the lots
having been developed with the exception of a few dozen lots on the southern
portion of the plat. A revision to the preliminary plat was submitted in 1987,
which increased the number of lots by two in this area.
The applicant now proposes to replat a previously platted tract into two
residential lots. The applicant is requesting the use of the Hillside Development
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-X
2
Standards of the Subdivision Ordinance (Division 8 Section 31-367 – Section 31-
376) for the development of the two (2) lots to allow a 15-foot platted building line
on both lots and is requesting a variance to allow lots to develop without public
street frontage (Section 31-231).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lots are extremely steep falling from the road with topography ranging in
elevation from 475-feet to 525-feet. Single-family homes have developed in the
area in similar conditions. The site is wooded with a ravine running along the
south and west. Foxcroft has developed to the south of the site across the
ravine. Single-family homes are located north of the site abutting the river.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
property owners abutting the site along with the Robinwood and Overlook
Property Owners Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. A grading permit will be required for this development. The plan should
address hillside stability and drainage per the code.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Easements for existing sewer mains must be platted. 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 water main extension will be required to serve Lots 187
and 188. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to review this site for
accessibility and to determine whether an additional fire hydrant will be required.
Required water facilities will be installed at the developer’s expense and any fire
hydrant outside the public right-of-way will be private. This development will
have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact
Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for any additional information.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-X
3
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: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the applicant. Staff gave a brief
overview of the proposed development and indicated there were a few additional
items needed on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the front platted building
line had not been indicated on the proposed plat. Staff stated the assumption
was that the line would be a 15-foot platted building line to correspond with the
remainder of the lots in the area.
Staff noted comments from the Water and Wastewater Departments and stated
the applicant should contact each of these agencies to receive additional
information.
Staff questioned how the homeowners would receive mail and garbage
collection. Mr. White stated these were items he would review and after a
decision was made he would get back to staff with a response.
There being 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 including the additional information
requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has requested
the appropriate variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the plat to
develop in the manner desired.
The applicant has indicated a 15-foot front platted building line off the 20-foot
private access easement. The applicant has requested the lots be reviewed
under the Hillside Development Standards, which would allow a 15-foot platted
building line when the slope average exceeds eighteen (18) percent.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-X
4
The proposed lot sizes are approximately (Lot 187) 240 feet by 650 feet and (Lot
188) 750 feet by 270 feet. These averages more than meet the required
maximum sizes required in the Hillside Development Standards [Section 31-
376(c)].
Section 31-231 of the Subdivision Ordinance states every lot shall abut upon a
public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning
Commission. The applicant is proposing a 20-foot private access easement to
serve the proposed lots extending from Vantage Point Drive. The lots will then
be accessed by individual driveways extending from the private access
easement.
The applicant has not addressed the issue of garbage collection or of mailbox
placement. Staff questions how these individuals will received these basic
services.
Staff is not supportive of the requested replat. The site is extremely steep
sloping downward into a ravine. The homes in this area have developed in
similar situations but the terrain does not appear to be as steep. In addition the
remainder of the developed lots have developed with public street frontage.
The Ordinance allows for Vehicle Access Easements to be approved by the
Commission to facilitate Hillside Development when the easement does not
exceed 300-feet in length and service more than five (5) lots and the lots abut a
public street. The proposed access easement will only serve five (5) lots but the
lots do not have public street frontage and the length is also double the allowable
length.
When this area was previously reviewed the area was not indicated as residential
lots but as a tract of open space. Homeowners in the area bought and
developed their homes in the area under the assumption the area would not
develop as single-family homes.
Staff recommends denial of the proposed replat of the previously approved tract
into two (2) single-family lots (Lots 187 and 188) and the requested variance
associated with the proposed replat.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request as submitted.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-46-X
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the application. Staff stated the applicant had
requested the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated they
were supportive of the request for withdrawal.
There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstain (Commissioner Bill Rector).
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1076-B
NAME: Hastings Phase II Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 2800 Vance Street
DEVELOPER:
Moon Realty
2800 South Vance Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 9.461 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: I-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 7 – I-30
CENSUS TRACT: 2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow an in-lieu contribution for
stormwater detention.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the placement of a second building on this 9.461-acre
site. The tract is zoned I-2 and currently has an existing warehouse structure on
the site with a parking lot and paved surface area which provides for vehicular
truck movements associated with the warehouse operation.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1076-B
2
The proposed new structure is a 20,000 square foot building, which will be
comprised of 12,000 square feet of office space and 8000 square feet of
warehouse area. The site will contain one hundred forty-one (141) parking
spaces with the completion of the new building and parking area. The site also
contains eight (8) truck parking spaces.
The applicant is also requesting to make an in-lieu contribution for stormwater
detention. The applicant has indicated with the existing location of the floodway
area, stormwater detention on site would not be economically feasible.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a new, metal building with associated concrete driveways.
There is a “guard shack” located on the site with a six (6) foot chain link fence in
place. The parking area has been installed complete with landscaping south of
West 28th Street. The proposed building is located between the parking area and
the existing building adjacent to the east property line.
Only a portion of East 28th Street has been constructed adjacent to the site,
which has been constructed with curb and gutter. South Vance Street has been
constructed with curb and gutter in place.
Other uses in the area include a large distribution company to the east of the site
and large tracts of vacant land. The sites along East Roosevelt Road are
developed with non-residential uses including Horace Mann Elementary School.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Community Outreach Neighborhood Organization and all property owners
located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Survey information does not indicate public / private status of 28th Street and
Vance Street. Show on the plans all public and private streets and access
easements adjacent to the property. Any public streets are subject to
boundary street ordinance requirements.
2. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is
required prior to construction.
3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. With building permit,
a contribution in-lieu of construction would be acceptable.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1076-B
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for any additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding
relocation of the existing fire hydrant and also if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are needed.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is located on Bus Route #6 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout
and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Areas set-aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements. A landscaping upgrade within these areas equal to the
expansion proposed (64%) will be required. Some flexibility with this
requirement is allowed.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the
application. Staff presented an overview of the proposed project to the
Committee stating there was currently one building on the site and parking. Staff
stated the addition of the second building necessitated the multiple building site
plan review.
Staff questioned the status of Vance Street. Mr. Riggins stated the owner had
indicated the right-of-way had been abandoned but Mr. Riggins stated he would
verify the status with the City Clerk.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1076-B
4
Staff requested Mr. Riggins indicate on the proposed site plan additional
information to include the areas set aside for landscaping, the square footage of
the proposed building and the existing building in the General Notes of the Site
Plan and the number of on-site parking spaces. Staff also requested the site
plan include any and all fencing proposed or existing be shown on the site plan.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the areas set aside for
landscaping appeared to be sufficient but the issue of the street was a concern.
Staff stated if the right-of-way had not been abandoned then landscaping would
be required along the street right-of-way.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant could
request to make a contribution in-lieu of construction of detention. Staff
questioned the status of East 28th Street and Vance Street. Staff stated the
survey did not indicted the public/private status of the streets and according to
the boundary street ordinance, street improvements would be required.
Mr. Riggins stated he would verify the status of the streets.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for 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
and concerns raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
requested to make an in-lieu contribution related to stormwater detention
construction.
The revised site plan indicates a total of one hundred forty-one (141) parking
spaces and eight (8) truck parking spaces. The typical minimum parking demand
for an office warehouse site would be fifty-four (54) spaces. The proposed
parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The applicant has indicated areas set-aside for landscaping on the site plan. The
areas appear to be sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the
Landscape Ordinance. The applicant has indicated Vance Street to no longer be
a public right-of-way. The site plan indicates an existing gate across Vance
Street within the development.
The applicant has indicated on the site plan an area for future construction of a
heavy equipment storage building. The area is located in an area of the site that
is currently unpaved. The building setbacks indicated are sufficient to meet the
minimum required setbacks for industrially zoned property.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1076-B
5
The site is an existing industrial site. The applicant has presented a site plan
which would minimize the adverse impact on the surrounding area, which is also
zoned industrial. The area is bordered by the railroad to the south and an
office/warehouse use to the west. The area to the east and north of the site is
currently vacant. To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff recommends approval of the site
plan review as presented.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested site plan review subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested in-lieu contribution for stormwater
detention.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was represent representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the
above report.
Staff stated they also recommended approval of the request for an in-lieu contribution
for stormwater detention.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
NAME: Westside Junior High Short-form POD Lot 2R
LOCATION: Located south of West 13th Street between Wolfe and Marshall Streets
DEVELOPER:
First Security Vanadis Capital
221 West Second Street, Suite 312
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Richburg-Rickett Consulting Eng.
10 Shackleford Plaza, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 0.299 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Multi-family Residential
PROPOSED USE: Office/Medical Clinic
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In February 1996, the City Board of Directors approved a Short-form POD for the former
Westside Junior High School. Phase I included “single-room occupancy” for Volunteers
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
2
of America. Phase II was office lease space primarily for public and nonprofit agencies.
Phase III was approved as a Fitness Center and Community Auditorium.
In June of 1997, the Board of Directors approved a revision to the POD (Ordinance No.
17,506) to delete the residential aspect of the project and increase the square footage
of office space within the development.
Ordinance No. 18,657 dated March 19, 2002 approved the rezoning request from POD
to PD-R to allow the construction of 45 multi-family residential units on the site. In
addition the development included 73 parking spaces on the site along the north and
south sides of the building.
The applicant also proposed to replat the area as a part of the Planned Development. A
Final Plat has been signed and recorded for the site. Lot 1R includes the
classroom/residential component of the site and Lot 2R contains the auditorium. All the
associated parking is included in Lot 1R.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is now requesting Lot 2R be rezoned to POD to allow the ARC of
Arkansas to develop the auditorium building into clinic and clinical support space
for Arkansas Children’s Hospital and UAMS Pediatrics Program.
The project is estimated at $3.5 million and will convert the historic 30,000
square foot auditorium into clinic space as well as clinical physician support
space. The project will be named the Arc Development Center at Westside and
will provide space for UAMS Department of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital,
including the relocation of the Dennis Development Center, joining several
integrated departments together in one facility. The current owner, The Arc of
Arkansas, will maintain ownership of the building and will lease the space to
UAMS Department of Pediatrics through a long-term lease.
All renovations to the building will be performed in accordance with the
Department of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. The
property is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This status
will not change, as all work will conform to the requirements of historic
restoration.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a three-story structure, which was once used as the Westside
Junior High School. Children’s Hospital facilities are located to the north and
east of the site. Phoenix Counseling Group is located adjacent to the northwest
and single-family and duplex units are located south of the site. The block to the
west of the site is currently vacant.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
3
The area to the east, across Marshall Street, is a parking lot used by Arkansas
Children’s Hospital. This area includes two (2) and one-half blocks of parking
extending from West 11th Street to one-half block south of West 13th Street. The
area streets are utilized for parking as well.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational calls from the
neighborhood. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within
300 feet of the site and the Downtown, Central High and Wright Avenue
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer line must be abandoned under existing cafeteria.
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: The site plan does not reflect lot lines as platted. This lot
will obtain water service where it has frontage off an 8-inch water main on West
13th Street. 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 information.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
4
CATA: Site is located near Routes #3 and #11 but has no effect on bus radius,
turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Multi-family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development for new offices for the Arkansas
Children’s Hospital.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment. Since this application is an existing
structure and does not change the footprint, and the new uses are consistent
with the existing use pattern in the area, a land use plan amendment is not
necessary.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: The proposed small landscaping strip width along the northern
perimeter falls short of the minimum six (6) feet required by the Zoning
Ordinance and the 4 ½ feet minimum by the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally,
the proposed interior landscaping within the vehicular use areas falls short of the
minimum four percent (1,280 square feet) by 119 square feet.
All of these requirements take into account that this is a rehabilitation of an
existing site and that it is located within the designated mature area of the city
and the reductions allowed.
Variances from the Landscape Ordinance require City Beautiful Commission
approval.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Todd Rice was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there had been a slight change
since the original filing. Staff stated the applicant was no longer going to request
the abandonment of West 13th Street. Staff stated the applicant would be
required to secure parking and to furnish in writing the parking arrangement.
Staff questioned if the site were to be used solely by UAMS and Children’s
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
5
pediatrics clinics. Mr. Rice indicated this was the case. Staff stated if this were
the case, a Land Use Plan Amendment would not be required. Staff stated in the
past, the Land Use Plan had recognized hospitals and clinics as Public
Institutional. Staff stated even though the plan indicated multifamily for the site, a
change by the applicant was not necessary.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated since the applicant was no
longer requesting the closure of West 13th Street, the comments did not apply.
Staff noted the comments from the Little Rock Wastewater Utility. Mr. Rice
stated the abandonment had already taken place. He stated he would contact
Mr. Boyd to resolve this issue.
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 members. The applicant has
indicated West 13th Street will no longer be closed as a part of the application.
The applicant has also indicated there will be approximately 30,000 square feet
of office and clinic space within the building. The applicant estimates 40 total
employees reporting to the site. Based on typical minimum parking ratios for
office/medical clinical space the use would require between 60 and 70 parking
spaces. The sole user of the site will be Arkansas Children’s Hospital and UAMS
Pediatrics Clinic. Arkansas Children’s Hospital has committed to furnishing the
needed parking for the facility in one of the adjoining parking area or by the
construction of a new parking area across Wolfe Street on property currently
owned by Children’s Hospital.
The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Monday through Friday. These hours are consistent with hours of operation of
nearby clinical facilities.
The applicant has indicated a dumpster to be located on previously platted Lot
1R. The applicant has indicated the Final Plat will be revised to allow a cross
access easement for the dumpster to be located on the adjoining lot.
The applicant has not revised the plan to indicate the existing lot line for Lot 2R
as was Final Platted. Staff would recommend the final site plan be revised to
indicate the correct lot configuration.
The applicant has also furnished Staff with a copy of an agreement from Little
Rock Wastewater privatizing the existing sewer main under the building. After
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
6
review of the current situation Wastewater determined the existing sewer main
could be capped at the north property line of Lot 1R and service to the building
be provided from the south of the existing buildings. Wastewater further stated
they would not allow any other building to tie to the main in the future.
The applicant has indicated signage will be located on the south and west walls
of the building. The applicant proposes the placement of brushed aluminum
fixtures occupying less than ten percent of the building exterior area.
The applicant has previously submitted a landscaping plan addressing the site.
The renovation permit for the PD-R portion of the site (Lot 1R) was approved in
December of 2002 and is currently under construction. The applicant has
indicated any additional landscaping concerns will be addressed at the time of
the building permit.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The use exists in the area and will simply be relocated from
other facilities into the new location. The applicant has indicated the current
location is to small too address the needs of the clinic and with the new facility
patients will be better accommodated. Currently, patients must come to the
clinic, sign-in and wait in their cars until the doctors can see the patients. The
new facility will allow for a larger waiting room and new modern facility.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request for rezoning of the site from PD-R to
POD to allow the site to be used as clinical space for Arkansas Children’s
Hospital and UAMS Pediatrics.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Todd Rice was present representing the application and there were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request for
rezoning of the site from PD-R to POD to allow the site to be used as clinical space for
Arkansas Children’s Hospital and UAMS Pediatrics subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff stated Arkansas
Children’s Hospital was to provide parking for the site sufficient to meet the demand of
the facility as indicated in a letter dated March 4, 2003 from the hospital.
Chairman Nunnley stated his intent for hearing the item was to allow the public a better
understanding as to the intent of the project. He questioned Staff if the change in the
area necessitated a review Children’s Hospital’s Master Plan. Mr. Lawson stated it did
not. Mr. Lawson stated the Commission did not approve Children’s Master Plan only
review the plan as a courtesy.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2559-E
7
Commissioner Floyd stated the parking situation in the area was less than desirable.
He stated his desire was for Children’s to construct a new parking lot to serve the
facility.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the
application as filed. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-2850-A
NAME: Tanner Short-form POD
LOCATION: 216 North McKinley Street
DEVELOPER:
Vicki Tanner
20722 River View Court
Roland, AR 72135
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.30 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD – General and Professional Office Uses
PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was submitted to rezone the site from A - Single-family Residential to F -
Commercial zoning. The Commission, at their July 23, 1974 Public Hearing, heard the
request and it was denied. The site is currently zoned R-2, Single-family District.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2850-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to POD to allow an existing vacant single-
family structure to be converted to an office use. The applicant has indicated the
uses for the site to be general and professional office type uses. The site
contains an existing 1700 square foot residential structure with an existing gravel
drive along the south property line. The applicant is proposing the placement of
four (4) parking spaces on the site to accommodate the parking demand.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure with a gravel drive located on
the south property line. Immediately east of site is the Park Plaza Mall. West of
the site, are single-family homes. There are three (3) structures, which “front
onto” McKinley Street in this area; the site located immediately south of the site,
which was approved as a POD for an office uses (Ton Shen), and a single-family
home located north of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Briarwood Neighborhood Association, all residents located within 300 feet of
the site, who could be identified and all property owners within 200 feet of the site
were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing Staff has received several
informational phone calls from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The driveway entrance must be reconstructed to meet ordinance
requirements for slope and configuration. All driveways shall be concrete
aprons per City Ordinance.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter that is damaged in the public right-of-
way prior to occupancy. Sidewalk construction will not be required due to
adjacent obstructions in the right-of-way.
3. The proposed and existing land uses would classify McKinley Street on the
Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer service unknown. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414
for additional information.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2850-A
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if larger
and/or additional meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is located on Bus Routes #5 and #8 and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property. The
applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for a new office.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The Commercial
Development Goal supports increasing the long-term viability of offices
located in the area and supports in-fill development.
Landscape: The six foot high wood fence along the northern perimeter should
continue eastward toward N. McKinley Street.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant had contacted them
earlier in the day and, due to the weather condition, the applicant was unable to
attend the Committee meeting. Staff presented the proposed development to the
Committee members and indicated they would work with the applicant to resolve
any outstanding issues associated with the proposed development.
There was no further discussion of the proposed request. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2850-A
4
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing a few of the issues
raised by Staff. The applicant has indicated a four (4) car parking pad in the front
yard area off the existing driveway. The proposed parking is sufficient to meet
the typical minimum parking demand. The applicant has not however extended
the driveway to the west a sufficient distance to allow an automobile exiting the
western most space maneuverability room (approximately 5-feet). The applicant
has indicated this change will be made on the final site plan.
The existing driveway has been indicated at twelve (12) feet. The driveway will
need to be expanded to eighteen (18) feet to allow automobiles to pass. The
applicant has indicated the Final Site Plan will include widening the driveway to
eighteen (18) feet to allow for two-way traffic to the parking pad after which the
pad will allow the traffic to move in a two-way direction.
Although the revised site plan has not indicated the wooden fence to be
extended to the east along the northern property line, the applicant has indicated
the proposed fencing will be extended as requested by Staff.
The applicant is requesting the hours of operation be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm
Monday through Saturday. The applicant is also requesting the hours on Sunday
be from noon to 6:00 pm. Staff is supportive of the requested hours of operation.
There are two major malls in the area whose hours exceed the requested hours
of operation and generate a significant amount of traffic. The proposed uses,
general and professional office uses, are not anticipated to generate a large
volume of traffic and should have no adverse impact on area residents.
The applicant has not made a request with regard to signage. Staff supports
allowing office standard signage or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and sixty-
four (64) square feet in area.
The site is located near the boundaries of the Mid-Town Development District
Boundaries. Staff feels the proposed development meets the intended concepts
as presented by the Task Force and is consistent with the desired intent of the
Mid-Town redevelopment effort.
The site is indicated, as Suburban Office on the Future Land Use Plan and the
proposed use is consistent with this Land Use classification. There are currently
three (3) structures located along this stretch of McKinley Street facing into the
Park Plaza Mall parking lot. One of the units has been converted to a quiet office
use, the second structure is the current proposal and the third is currently
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2850-A
5
functioning as a single-family home. Staff feels the conversion of the structure
into a quiet office use will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood
located to the west.
Otherwise, to Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff recommends approval of the proposed request to
rezone the site to POD to allow professional and general office type uses to
locate on the site.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends the driveway be widened to eighteen (18) feet extending from
North McKinley Street to the eastern edge of the proposed parking pad.
Staff recommends the wooden fence be extended along the north property line
easterly to the twenty-five (25) foot building line.
Staff recommends signage be limited to that allowed in office zones.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Ms. Vicki Tanner was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the
above report.
Staff also included in their recommendation the driveway should be widened to eighteen
(18) feet extending from North McKinley Street to the eastern edge of the proposed
parking pad and the wooden fence shown on the site plan should be extended along the
north property line easterly to the twenty-five (25) foot building line. Staff stated any
signage should 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
NAME: Hickory Grove Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach
Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF-6, Multi-family
ALLOWED USES: Multi-family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Owner occupied townhouse development 83 Units (2.15 units per
acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances -
1. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 – 32.
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 63 and 69 – 79.
3. A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 – 16, Lots 33 - 46
and Lots 48 – 61.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
2
BACKGROUND:
The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120-acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the
property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a
multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres
have since developed as single-family neighborhood.
The property was zoned MF-6, Multi-family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed)
in mid-1981. A “Declaration of Covenants” was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs
with the property. The private covenants regulate the property’s use and portion of the
property’s development.
The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale
only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS
(Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one
location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one
area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the
northern boundary of the site.
A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May
1997, to allow the construction of 234 units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the
Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A proposal was filed March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22
buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop this 39-acre site of MF-6 zoned property as a
Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposes to
develop the site in three (3) phases with zero-lot line townhouses, each of which
would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each
structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would
allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of
the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street
with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a bridge across the creek that
separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge will be constructed in the
first phase according to the applicant. The applicant is proposing a public
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road will be
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
3
constructed in the third phase of the development. There are two other streets
proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intends to maintain
as private streets.
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant has indicated the areas
of non-encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the
covenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage, an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots.
The lots are sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the
Subdivision Ordinance for zero-lot line developments.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The Windsor Court
Condominium development and single-family residences are located to the
south, with single-family residences to the north. There is undeveloped R-2,
Single-family property to the west, with single-family residences further west.
Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located across
Hinson Road to the east.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, all residents located
within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all owners of property
located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this
writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Hinson 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. Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace any other curb
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-
of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
4
4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. ADEQ and
NPDES permit is also required.
5. 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.
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will
be required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will also be required.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10. Dorado Beach Drive right-of-way and street width should match existing
improvements to the current roadway.
11. Additional drainage easements between lots may be required per Section
29 of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and as needed elsewhere.
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius
requirement of 150'.
14. Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration
ordinance.
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-
way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements, if service is
required for the project. An existing 10” sewer main is located along Hinson
Road in the area of the “Proposed Floodway Improvements”. Relocation of the
existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from area of the
proposed improvements. Other existing mains are located on site with
easements that must be retained. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-
1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
5
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: A public water main adequate to provide needed fire
protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent to the
proposed roads. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter
connection (s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This
development will have minor impact on 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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for
condominiums development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. However,
this plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly relevant to
this particular application.
Landscape: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants. Staff presented a
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the development of the
site and the applicant appeared to have met them. Staff stated the development
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing. Staff stated
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the plat. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the appropriate variances in the initial application.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
6
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr. Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access and
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this option
since the lots were somewhat steep.
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase. Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and II and not
completing Phase III. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would be
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. Staff stated the
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road. Staff stated
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25-foot access easement along
the floodway. Staff stated the bridge proposed would be required to be
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dorado Beach Drive had thus far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection would be
required to match up to the existing roadway.
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating the
applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
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 plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5) foot side yard
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear yard setback adjacent to the
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback
for Lots 17 – 32, adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The applicant has indicated
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building lines within the
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access easement along
the rear of Lots 17 – 32.
The applicant has requested Lots 63 – 81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of these lots. The
applicant has also requested a thirty (30) foot access easement be located in the
front yards of Lots 69 – 73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these lots.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
7
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant would like
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach Drive to
sixty (60) feet, as requested by Public Works, to match the existing Dorado
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision. The
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27) foot pavement width. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25) foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a zero-lot line development consistent with the
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
will be required at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected by
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero-lot-line yard.
The proposed site is currently zoned MF-6 or Multi-family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximately 2.15 units per acre,
well within the allowable density. The proposed development also includes the
previously restricted areas for open space. The area to the north of the site has
the 100-foot open space buffer indicated on the site plan. The applicant has also
indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed one and one-half stories.
The applicant has also included an open space area adjacent to Hinson Road,
following the creek and floodway as was previously requested. The third area of
restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicated as open
space. The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of open space
in this area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be phased and the
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase. The applicant
proposes the first phase to include access to the site with the construction of a
bridge extending from Hinson Road, the construction of a private street and the
development of Lots 1 – 46. The second phase will include the construction of
the second private street and the development of Lots 47 – 62 and the third and
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 – 83 and the completion of
Dorado Beach Drive. Staff has some concerns with the delayed development of
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase. Staff would recommend the
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the second phase of the
development.
The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage on the proposed site plan.
Staff would recommend if signage is desired the signage be consistent with
signage allowed in multi-family zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
8
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard to street
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportive of the request to defer
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third phase. As stated Staff
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phase of the
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the extension of
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase.
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 – 62 in Phase I and Lots 1
– 46 in Phase I. Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 – 83) in the final
phase. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach Drive when
any of the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 – 32 or 63 – 83 were
final platted.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property owners as required by the
By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices 14-days prior to the public
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification. A motion was made
to approve the notification of property owners 14-days prior to the public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed development. He
stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the site. He stated the
applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development which
would only enhance adjacent properties.
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated
her primary concern was from lack of information. She questioned if the units would
have attached garages. Mr. Riggins indicated the units would have attached garages.
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as a buffer. Mr. Riggins
stated the area to the north would be a 110-foot open space undisturbed buffer. He
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her notice in a timely manner.
Ms. Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if not for her neighbor
she would not have known of the request. Staff questioned when Ms. Ombindinger
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4562-B
9
bought her home. She stated in February. The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of the
development. He requested the developer extend the buffer along the southern
boundary to encompass his entire lot.
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. He stated if the road were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic. He requested the Commission go
against Staff and not approve the road connection.
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request. Ms. Hill stated she was
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road. She stated her letter indicated 77 units
and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units. She stated each of the units
would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars on Hinson
Road each day. She requested the entrance not be changed or moved from the shown
location.
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness of the
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods. Staff stated one side of the street
could be signed for no parking if there was truly a problem. Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was the only east/west connection
to Rahling Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF-6 or multi-family at six (6) units per
acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units. Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well below the allowable
density.
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trails in the
open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5224-I
NAME: TNT Fireworks Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 18220 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
TNT Fireworks
5401 West Skelly Drive
Tulsa, OK 74107
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Seasonal Sale of Class C 1.4G Common Fireworks from June 20th
through July 4th of each year.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors zoned this site to PCD 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. The rezoning effort
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5224-I
2
recognized existing businesses in the area and established an existing Business Node
in this area. This site was rezoned to PCD to recognize an existing custom window
covering and blind company which was operating from the single-family home.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant, TNT Fireworks, the nation’s oldest and largest fireworks company
is requesting a revision to a previously approved PCD to allow seasonal sale of
Class C 1.4G Common Fireworks. The company will place a temporary tent on
the site for the seasonal sale of fireworks. The company is requesting the sale of
fireworks from June 20th through July 4th each year. The company has indicated
TNT Fireworks makes every effort to utilize non-profit organizations to sell the
fireworks as a local fundraising project but has not specifically indicated these
organizations will be the seller of fireworks.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is not located within the City Limits but is located within the
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The site contains an existing single-family
structure used as by an office user. The areas to the west and south are
currently zoned PCD. Located further east there is a site zoned PCD for the
FFLS Company, a financial form company and a church on R-2 zoned property
adjacent to Patrick Country Road. South of the site is a PCD for a restaurant and
a second for a site which appears to be a business use in the occupant’s
outbuilding.
The area is a mix of single-family and non-residential uses on large tracts in a
rural setting. East of the site is the Ranch Development with a mix of
Commercial, Office and Multi-family zoning and south of Highway 10
approximately 1200 feet is a new single-family subdivision developing by Chenal
Properties.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Johnson Ranch Property Owners Association and the
Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association were notified of the
Public Hearing along with all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site.
As of this writing, Staff has not received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Public Works: No comment.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5224-I
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required
for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of
connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. If water
service is provided, execution of a Pre-annexation Agreement and approval of
the City of Little Rock is required. This site does not have adequate fire
protection and a public fire hydrant needs to be installed off the existing water
main. This fire hydrant will be installed at the applicant’s expense. Contact
Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information.
Fire Department: Install a fire hydrant. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at
918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is located on Bus Route #21 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout
and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a Planned Commercial Development for a temporary tent to be set up for a
fireworks stand.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment. The proposed tent is temporary and the
primary use of the property is for a single-family dwelling unit being used as an
office use.
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.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5224-I
4
Landscape: No comment received.
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the application. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development indicating the development was located
within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Staff stated the request
was to sell fireworks from this location from June 20th to July 4th yearly.
Staff questioned the means of garbage disposal from the site. Staff also
questioned the surface of the parking area. Staff requested the front setbacks
from the right-of-way front of the proposed tent on both the east and west sides
be indicated on a revised site plan. The applicant indicated he would address
the issues raised in a revised cover letter and on a revised site plan.
Staff stated the Fire Department and the Water Department had requested a fire
hydrant be installed on the site. Staff suggested the applicant contact these two
agencies to resolve this issue prior to the Public Hearing.
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 plan to Staff addressing the issues raised by
Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has indicated the
site will utilize existing on-site garbage collection. The applicant has also
indicated the parking area will remain grass covered and accommodate between
fifteen and twenty cars.
The applicant has indicated the front setback from the west corner of the tent will
be approximately ten (10) feet and the east corner approximately twenty-five (25)
feet. The applicant has also indicated the setback from the west property line to
be approximately forty (40) feet.
The applicant has indicated the current use of the site is a professional office
use. The site currently contains no signage. The applicant proposes the
placement of two (2) seven (7) by twelve (12), two (2) two (2) by twenty (20) and
one (1) two (2) by ten (10) identification signs. The applicant also proposes the
placement of one (1) three (3) by six (6) ‘Open’ sign. All the signage will be
attached to the tent. The applicant is not proposing the placement of any
permanent signage on the site.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-5224-I
5
The applicant has indicated the placement of a fire hydrant on site as requested
by Central Arkansas Water and the Little Rock Fire Department.
Staff has some concerns with the placement of the proposed tent. The site plan
indicates limited setbacks from the right-of-way and the overall site plan does not
comply with the requirements of the Highway 10 Overlay District. This would be
considered the redevelopment of an existing site and in the past Staff has tried to
not allow any further encroachment into the buffer area than already exists. The
proposed tent, although temporary, is situated just ten (10) feet from the right-of-
way.
The proposed tent will be placed in the front yard of the existing structure with the
placement of a grass parking area along the eastern boundary accessed from
North Ridge Road. Staff would recommend the parking area remain grass
covered since Staff would desire the structure maintain the existing residential
character. The placement of a hard surface or gravel parking area in the front
yard for the two-week usage would negatively impact the site.
Staff is understanding of the desire to sell fireworks in the area and with the
current ban on the sale of fireworks within the city limits the availability of
appropriate sites is limited. The site is located in an island of the city, which has
not been annexed. Staff feels the temporary use of the site for sale of fireworks
could be workable if the tent is situated in a manner as to limit the intrusion of the
tent into the front buffer area and the parking area not be changed from the
existing grass surface.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request to revise the
previously approved PCD to allow the seasonal sale of fireworks from the site,
from June 20th t o J u l y 4th yearly, subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed
rezoning request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the seasonal sale of
fireworks from the site, from June 20th to July 4th yearly, subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H 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 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6232-F
NAME: The Villages at Rahling Road (Lot 8B) Revised PCD
LOCATION: Rahling Circle
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Timber Corporation
#7 Chenal Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.53 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-2 Permitted uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,542 which
established The Village at Rahling Road PCD. The PCD established a 14-lot
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6232-F
2
development with C-2 uses being permitted. The initial action approved a site plan for
Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots
would be brought to the Commission on an individual basis as a particular development
was proposed. Subsequent actions have been approved to allow four small buildings
on the properties immediately west of the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the PCD to allow the construction of a
5,395 square foot office building on unrecorded Lot 8B. The applicant has
indicated the site will be used as a law office. The applicant proposes the
placement of 21 parking spaces in the rear of the building to be accessed by a
shared 30-foot Public Access Easement located on the west property line
between Lots 8A and 8B. The applicant has indicated the building height will not
exceed 35-feet.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am
to 9:00 pm six (6) days per week. The applicant has also indicated signage will
comply with city ordinance standard for office zones (not to exceed six (6) feet in
height and 64 square feet in area) and the architectural design elements of “The
Village of Rahling Road”.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place. The property
was cleared and graded with initial development of the PCD. Access to the lot is
via Rahling Circle, off of Rahling Road. The O-2 and PCD zoned properties
immediately south and east of the site are undeveloped. Similar sized office
buildings are located adjacent to the east of the proposed site. The larger
buildings of the multiuse PCD are located north of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and residents within 300
feet, who could be identified, were notified of the Public Hearing. There is no
City recognized neighborhood association within the vicinity of the site. As of this
writing, staff has received one informational phone call concerning the
development.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Public Works: No comment.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6232-F
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available and not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Water service is available. Developer must extend water
service to back of the sidewalk. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size
of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: No comment received.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision to an existing Planned Commercial Development for a new
office.
The requested amendment to the existing Planned Commercial Development is
not such which would require a plan 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.
Landscape: The proposed interior landscaping falls short of the eight percent
(561 square feet) required by the landscape ordinance. Interior islands must be
at least 7 ½ feet in width and 150 feet in area to count toward fulfilling this
requirement. Additionally, a portion of the eastern perimeter-landscaping strip
drops below the 6 feet 9 inch minimum required by the landscape ordinance.
Variances from the landscape ordinance require City Beautiful Commission
approval.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6232-F
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application. Staff stated the revision to the PCD was a part of the overall
development plan for the Villages at Rahling Road. Staff stated when the initial
PCD was submitted the applicant indicated that as each lot developed the PCD
would be revised. Staff stated the current proposal was for a law office on an
unrecorded lot in the subdivision.
Staff stated the proposed site plan should indicate the dimension of all building
setbacks from the property lines. Staff also stated the sign area was to be
denoted on the site plan. Staff stated since the development was a planned
development typical ordinance standards did not apply and there were no typical
requirements with regard to signage. Staff also stated any additional site lighting
must be low level and directional, directed away from residentially zoned
property.
Landscaping comments were briefly discussed. Staff stated the proposed areas
set aside for landscaping appeared to fall short of the minimum requirements of
the ordinance.
Staff stated the area had not developed in the manner as was originally
approved. Staff stated each of the lots that had developed had resulted in a lot
split thus doubling the number of lots in the area than were approved. Staff
asked if this would continue on the future lots as they developed. Mr. White
stated he was unsure of the future tenants and their needs. Staff requested a
revised development plan to indicate how the area had developed and an
estimation of how the future lots would be split.
After the 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
site will be utilized as a law office typically requiring a minimum of 13 parking
spaces. There are 21 spaces proposed as a part of the development, more than
sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand. In addition, there is a
large parking area across the street should parking ever become an issue for the
site. The revised site plan indicates a 7.5-foot landscaping strip along the
eastern perimeter adjacent to the parking lot. The landscape islands have been
increased to eight (8) feet as requested by Staff.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6232-F
5
The applicant has indicated water will be extended to the site by the developer as
required by Central Arkansas Water. The applicant has indicated the site will
utilize city service for garbage collection and there will not be a dumpster located
on the site.
The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and
the Chenal Design criteria (not to exceed six (6) feet in height and 64 square feet
in area). The applicant has indicated Lot 8B will be final platted prior to
development. The hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am to 9:00 pm six
(6) days per week. The proposed use and hours of operation is consistent with
the development pattern in the area and should have no adverse impact on the
surrounding area.
Staff is supportive of the request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow
a law office to construct a new 5,395 square foot building on proposed Lot 8B.
The area is developing as non-residential neighborhood commercial and office
type uses.
The applicant has submitted to Staff a revised plan, which indicates the existing
configuration of the lands in the area. The applicant has indicated the future
parcels were not preliminary platted as large as the rear tracts and will more than
likely develop as previously indicated. Staff feels this is sufficient to meet the
request as presented in the Subdivision Committee meeting. The original PCD
requested C-2 uses as alternative uses for the site which require site plan review
and approval prior to development.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed development. Staff recommends approval of the requested revision to
the planned development to allow Lot 8B to develop as an office development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the PCD for Lot 8B
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of
this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed
revision to the PCD for Lot 8B 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
NAME: Stagecoach Commons Short-form PCD
LOCATION: Located on Stagecoach Road ½ mile south of Baseline Road on the
west side
DEVELOPER:
Resource Realty
2016 North Van Buren Street
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 5.0 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 and Mini-warehouse
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance - Lot without public street
frontage.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
2
BACKGROUND:
The site was considered by the Planning Commission, for a rezoning from R-2 to MF-12
and OS (Open Space) at their March 2, 2000 Public Hearing. The property was
proposed to be combined with a 10.2 acre tract zoned MF-12 located south of the site
for a multi-family development. The request was approved by the Planning
Commission and later denied by the Board of Directors.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to create a two (2) lot plat for the development of a
general office building on Lot 1 and the construction of a mini-warehouse
development and boat and R.V. storage on Lot 2. The development on Lot 1 is
proposed as 5,040 square feet of office space to be used by O-2 Zoning District
users. Lot 2 will be served by a private access easement across Lot 1 (creating
a lot without public street frontage) and will be developed as 28,625 square feet
of mini-warehouse. In addition Lot 2 will contain 5,000 square feet of climate
controlled storage and a 2,300 square foot office/manager’s residence and a
boat and R.V. storage area.
The property has an overhead transmission line running east to west within a
100-foot easement. There is also a gas main running parallel to the power line in
a 50-foot easement. The two easements overlap by some 25-feet. The
applicant has indicated the two (2) easements limit the developmental ability of
the property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As indicated the site contains a overhead transmission line running east to west
in a 100-foot easement and a gas main running parallel to the power line in a
50-foot easement. The remainder of the site is wooded.
There is a 10 acre MF-12 zoned site located to the south, recently reviewed and
approved by the Commission, for a multi-family development. A Church sits on
an MF-12 zoned piece of property to the east of the site and a commercial
development (Stagecoach Village) on PCD zoned property is located to the north
of the site. West of the site is a PD-R for Stagecoach Village, a single-family
attached and detached development currently under construction.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of
the site and the Otter Creek Property Owners Association, the Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Association and Southwest United for Progress were notified of
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
3
the Public Hearing. As of this writing Staff has received several informational
phone calls concerning the proposed development.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Stagecoach 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. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. The standard conditions shown on the plans as "Public Works Notes" apply to
the project.
4. Re-design driveway to provide an apron and approach perpendicular to
centerline.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required
for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: There are concerns with the proposed development and the
National Electrical Safety Code Requirements. Contact Lee Willingham at
490-4749 for additional details.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: A water main extension will be required to provide water
service to Lot 2. An additional easement outside of the existing electric and gas
easements will be required for this water main extension. The Little Rock Fire
Department needs to evaluate this site for accessibility and 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 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. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
4
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a mini-storage warehouse.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Otter Creek / Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.
Action statements under the Office and Commercial Development goal
recommend aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to insure compatibility
between developments, limiting the non-residential development on Stagecoach
Road between Otter Creek and Baseline Roads to uses serving the
neighborhood, and discourage the construction of large warehouse type facilities
on Stagecoach Road between Otter Creek and Baseline Roads.
Landscape: The plan submitted does not allow for the eight percent (839 square
feet) of landscaping required within the interior of the proposed parking area and
associated driveway. Interior landscape islands must be at least 7 ½ feet in
width and 150 square feet in area to count toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements. Additionally, it is recommended that additional grass area(s) be
provided within the loading and unloading area to help decrease the sea of
asphalt proposed.
The proposed land use buffer along the western perimeter has large utility
easements running through it. This will require a variance by the Planning
Commission.
A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and
western perimeters adjacent to residential properties. Existing trees are required
to be preserved within 70 percent of the land use buffer areas.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
5
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development stating the
applicant was also requesting the development of a two (2) lot plat. Staff stated
Lot 2 of the plat would require a variance to allow a lot without public street
frontage.
Staff requested Mr. White provide additional information concerning the hours of
operation of the proposed development and questioned if the mini-warehouse
development would be allowed 24-hour access. Staff also requested information
concerning the building heights and if the R.V. storage area would be a covered
storage area.
Staff requested additional information concerning signage. Staff stated the
proposed sign area should be included on the proposed site plan along with the
intentions for signage for Lot 2. Staff requested the proposed site plan indicate
all paved areas and areas designated as landscaped areas.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-
way would be required along Stagecoach Road. Staff also stated the applicant
would be required to install a sidewalk along the street frontage. Staff
questioned detention and the proposed location of the detention basin.
Mr. White indicated the area shown as landscaping on Lot 1 could be utilized as
a dry pond. Staff stated drainage in the area was a concern and the applicant
would be required to demonstrate sufficient detention capacity.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the landscaping on Lot 1
was not sufficient to meet the ordinance requirement. Staff stated parking lot
landscaping on Lot 2 would need to be 150 square feet in area. Staff stated prior
to the issuance of a building permit the applicant would be required to submit
plans stamped with the seal of a register landscape architect.
There being no additional 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 members. The applicant has
indicated a maximum building height of fifteen (15) feet for the mini-warehouse
buildings and thirty-five (35) feet for the office/managers residence. The
applicant has also indicated the maximum driveway width of 36-feet as requested
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
6
by Public Works and realigned the driveway to intersect perpendicular with the
centerline of the roadway.
The revised site plan indicates on-site detention and additional landscaped areas
to break the “sea of asphalt”. The on-site detention is proposed as a “dry pond”
and is located adjacent to the right-of-way along Stagecoach Road on the
northern boundary of Lot 1. The site plan indicates two (2) additional landscaped
areas within the parking area of Lot 2 and indicates a landscaped island around
the power poles and guy wires within the RV and boat parking area.
The applicant proposes the placement of twenty-two (22) vehicle parking spaces
on Lot 1 and six (6) vehicle parking spaces on Lot 2. The typical minimum
parking requirement for a development of this type would be one space per four
hundred square feet for office development and five spaces plus one space per
2000 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse development or twelve
spaces for Lot 1 and 26 spaces for Lot 2. Although there is sufficient parking for
Lot 1 the proposed parking for Lot 2 is not adequate to meet the typical minimum
parking demand by twenty spaces.
The applicant has indicated a single development sign located on Lot 1. The
area has not been delineated but Staff would recommend the signage not
exceed signage allowed in office zones or not to exceed six feet in height and
sixty-four square feet in area.
The applicant has indicated there will be an eight-foot black chain link fence
along the boundaries of Lot 2. The applicant has also indicated slats will be used
for screening along the rear of Lot 2. The use of plastic or metal slats woven into
to chain-link fence is prohibited by the Ordinance [Section 36-516(f)(1)].
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation for the office uses to
be 7:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days per week. The applicant has also indicated
the mini-warehouse will be 24-hour access. Staff is not comfortable with this
arrangement. The applicant has indicated on an-site manager, who would
monitor the activities of the site; there are still concerns of safety and noise
issues related to 24-hour access. The area immediately north of the site is
currently under development as attached single-family subdivision and a multi-
family development located immediately south of the site was recently approved.
In addition, the area is relatively flat and there are numerous homes located west
of the proposed development, which could be impacted by the noise of the
proposed development. When a unit is accessed late in the evening or in the
early morning hours, the slamming of doors could be a disruption to nearby
residents.
The proposed western perimeter is indicated as two hundred seventy-two
(272.87) feet and the required land use buffer along the perimeter includes one
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
7
hundred twenty-five (125) feet of utility easements running through it. The
applicant cannot meet the land use buffering requirements of the Ordinance and
is requesting a reduced buffer in this area [Section 36-521(f)]. Staff is not
supportive of this request since the proposed development abuts single-family
zoned property. The northern boundary also requires screening which has not
been indicated on the proposed site plan.
Staff received a comment from Entergy, which stated concerns of the proposed
development under the 115kV transmission line. Energy has stated their
concerns are with the close proximity of people and their property to the
transmission line. Energy has indicated long-term storage of large items such as
boats and rv’s could be subject to induced voltages. Additionally, the gated
security fence causes some concern since the overhead conductors of the
transmission line are always energized and not insulated from contact or near
contact. Prior to approval by Entergy a detailed engineering study addressing
the National Electrical Safety Code and other applicable codes will be required.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development. Although this is a planned
development request and the typical minimum ordinance requirements do not
wholly apply staff feels the development should meet the spirit of the ordinance.
As indicated above there are numerous issues related to the site, which do not
allow the site to develop in an aesthetically pleasing or unique manner.
The applicant has indicated with the easement constraints, the site would be
most conducive to development with an office/mini-warehouse development.
Staff feels the site could develop as a pure office development. Staff feels it is
important when reviewing a site that is developmentally challenged to review the
site with the same standard for development as all other sites. The applicant has
eighty feet of developable space south of the power line easement and could
place the parking within the easement allowing for sufficient developable land. In
addition, if the area were a quiet office development, the lack of the land use
buffer to the north and west would not be as great an issue as with the placement
of mini-warehouse.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed requested rezoning application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the application. There was one objector
present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
May 1, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request for
deferral.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6813-A
8
Staff stated the deferral would take a waiver of the By-laws. Staff stated the request
was not made in accordance with by the By-laws with regard to the timing of the
request.
A motion was made to waive the By-laws with regard to the request for a deferral. The
motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
NAME: Wilbert Burial Vault Revised Short-form PID
LOCATION: 12705 Alexander Road
DEVELOPER:
Wilbert Burial Vault Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 30006
Little Rock, AR 72260-0006
ARCHITECT:
Terry Burruss Architects
1202 South Main Street, Suite 230
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 4.95 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-I
ALLOWED USES: Burial Vault Company
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: Burial Vault Company and selected I-2 uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Five (5) Year deferral of Master Street Plan
requirements to Alexander Road
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 2001, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.
18,592 establishing Wilbert Vault Company Short-form PD-I located at 12705 Alexander
Road. Wilbert Vault Company was a non-conforming, concrete burial vault
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
2
manufacturing and sales company. The business had been in operation some years
prior to the area being annexed into the City in December of 1979. The property
contained two (2) large metal buildings and a singlewide manufactured home occupied
by an employee for on-site security. Areas of outdoor storage of raw materials and
finished products have traditionally been located behind the buildings. The rear of the
site contains a gravel, parking and storage area behind the buildings.
In the original PD-I application the applicants proposed to add approximately 6,000
square feet onto the rear of the production facility. The expansion would allow for the
addition of a new automated concrete mixing system. Additional storage space would
allow for the reduction of outside storage of finished product. The existing gravel
parking lots on the front and side were to be paved and landscaping upgrades were
proposed. A smaller, office expansion was proposed for the west side of the existing
office building. The existing manufactured home on the site was to be relocated to
accommodate the office expansion.
The applicant also proposed a 100-foot buffer along the south property line adjacent to
the R-2, Single-family zoned property to the south. The applicant was to place orange
painted posts on each side of the property 100-feet from the rear property line to identify
the buffer area. In addition, the applicant was to construct an aluminum, commercial
style fence, on the rear boundary of the property adjacent to the James Conner property
at such time as James Conner commenced construction of a subdivision adjacent to
the property; it being understood that the commencement of construction means the
construction of roads, streets or both, within the proposed subdivision for the purpose of
ingress or egress to the subdivision.
The previously approved hours of operation were from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm Monday
through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday and Noon to 5:00 pm on Sunday. The
previously approved signage was the existing sign area or a six by three by ten-foot
ground mounted sign.
The applicant also requested a deferral of street improvements to Alexander Road for
five (5) years, which was approved by the Board of Directors on November 6, 2001.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting to revise the previously approved PD-I to PID to allow
the addition of selected I-2 uses as alternative uses to the site. The applicant is
also requesting to reduce the rear buffer area from the 100-feet previously
approved to 40-feet. The applicant has stated the 100-foot buffer constitutes 20
percent of the current acreage of the site.
The proposed listing of alternative uses is as follows: Appliance repair; Bank or
savings and loan; Bottled gas, bulk storage nonflammable or non-hazardous;
Bottled gas, sales and service; Building material sales; Cabinet and woodwork
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
3
shop; Clothing manufacturing; Concrete products manufacturing, storage and
sales; Contractor or maintenance yard; Day care center; Day care center, adult;
Eating place with or without drive-in service; Feed store; Furniture repair store;
Hauling and storage company; Home center; Job printing; lithographer; printing
or blueprinting plant; Landscape service; Laundry, domestic cleaning; Laundry,
industrial; Lawn and garden center; Lawn and garden center, open display; Light
fabrication and assembly process; Machinery sales and service; Office
equipment sales and service; Office, general or professional; Office, showroom
and warehouse; Office, warehouse; Photography studio; Plant nursery;
Plumbing, electrical, air conditioning and heating shops; School, business;
School, commercial, trade or craft; Studio (broadcasting or recording); Swimming
pool sales and supply; Taxidermist; Tool and equipment rental (inside and
outside display); Vehicle maintenance or repair (a facility limited to vehicles or
equipment stored, used or otherwise employed in the principal use of the land);
Warehouse or wholesaling; Wood products manufacturing.
The applicant is requesting the uses individually or in any combination should
one use not occupy the entire facility.
The applicant proposes the building area to remain the same as was previously
approved. The storage areas will be located adjacent to the buffer area on the
rear property line and the east and west property lines. The applicant is
proposing the construction of a future covered storage building along the eastern
boundary of the property. The applicant has indicated this construction is not in
the near future but has shown the building to allow flexibility should additional
covered storage be needed in the future.
The applicant is requesting a revision to the hours of operation to be from 6:00
am to 6:00 pm daily. The applicant is also requesting the deferral of street
improvements be reconsidered. The applicant has indicated the deferral is
nearing the one-half marker and would like consideration to allow the clock to be
reset and the deferral begin with the approval of the rezoning request.
Previously approved landscaping will be installed in the right-of-way with a
franchise agreement from the city.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The nonconforming manufacturing facility consists of two large metal buildings,
gravel parking, areas of outdoor storage and a manufactured home for on-site
security. The property is located in a rural part of the City. Uses around the site
are primarily undeveloped tracts and a few single-family homes on large tracts.
Large areas of undeveloped, wooded I-2 and R-2 zoned properties extend to the
north, south and west. One single family home is located north of the site and
one is located to the east of the site.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
4
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300
feet, who could be identified, and the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association
and Southwest United for Progress were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this
writing, Staff has not received any negative comment from the area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Alexander 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 these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development. The proposed shop expansion project would qualify
for a contribution in-lieu of construction.
3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
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: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if a larger
and/or additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The
applicant has applied for a revision to an existing Planned Industrial
Development for a smaller buffer at the rear of the property and to add alternative
uses to the site.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.
However, this plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly
relevant to this particular application.
Landscape: (Previous comments apply.) - A landscape upgrade toward
compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the building expansion
proposed will be required. It is recommended this landscaping upgrade be a 9-
foot wide on-site landscape strip, with its associated plantings, to be provided
along the northern site perimeter parallel with the street. (A franchise to place
the landscaping in the right-of-way was previously approved by the Commission
and the Board of Directors.)
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the requested application. Staff stated
the applicant was approved with a PD-I for the Burial Vault Company two (2)
years ago. Staff stated after a review by the appraiser and the banker the
applicant had limited the future marketability of the site. Staff stated the applicant
was now requesting a revision to the PD-I to PID to allow additional uses to the
site. Staff stated the applicant was also requesting a 40-foot buffer to the rear of
the site as opposed to the 100-foot previously committed.
Staff stated the review of the site plan was based on previous approvals. Staff
questioned if the hours of operation, the signage and the parking areas would
remain the same. Ms. Graves stated the hours of operation would change. Staff
requested a revised cover letter stating the proposed hours.
Staff stated the street improvements were deferred for five (5) years from the
previous approval date. Ms. Graves stated her understanding was the deferral
was from the issuance of the building permit. Staff stated the request was from
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
6
the Board of Directors action date. Staff suggested Ms. Graves request the
deferral to begin upon the approval of the current request.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant had
previously agreed to the dedication of right-of-way along Alexander Road. Staff
stated the road had not been dedicated and would be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the previous comments
applied to the proposed development. Any additional landscaping should be
installed along the street side.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
indicated the roll-off refuse container on the site plan behind the existing building.
Fencing will be placed between the two existing buildings to screen the rear of
the site from the street. The applicant has also indicated placement of storage
areas of raw materials and finished product.
Staff has some concerns with the placement of additional uses on the site, which
have outdoor storage. Staff’s primary concern is the addition of these uses and
the uncertainty of the location of their storage areas. The applicant has indicated
should their use “go away” then a fence consistent with the I-2 Zoning District
Development Criteria [Section 36-320(b)(1)] screening requirements will be
utilized to screen any outdoor storage. The ordinance states screening shall be
provided by a six-foot opaque barrier. Staff would recommend if the outdoor
uses are allowed on the site proper screening be put in place to mitigate the
negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
The applicant has indicated approximately 40 percent of the site (not covered by
buildings or parking) is currently utilized for storage of products. Staff is
supportive of any potential future users being allowed the same area for storage
of materials or products but would recommend any increase in the percentage of
coverage for storage be returned to the Commission for final approval.
The applicant has indicated the existing signage will remain on the site but has
requested an alternative sign consistent with signage allowed in commercial
zones or not to exceed twenty (20) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square
feet in area. Staff is supportive of the requested signage.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
7
The applicant has indicated dedication of right-of-way on the proposed site plan
and is requesting the franchising of a portion of the street landscaping to be
placed in the right-of-way. Staff is also supportive of this request. The applicant
filed this request previously and was reviewed and approved by the Commission.
Staff feels the widening of Alexander Road is not in the near future and the
landscaping is not in jeopardy of being removed.
The applicant has also indicated a landscaping upgrade will be installed on the
site equal to or greater than the building expansion proposed. As requested by
the neighborhood in the previous Public Hearing, the applicant has indicated this
landscaping upgrade will be installed on the street side of the building.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the previously approved buffer to forty
(40) foot in the rear. The previous proposal was approved with a one hundred
(100) foot buffer and the placement of an aluminum, commercial style fence
along the rear of the property. The 40-foot requested buffer area is sufficient to
meet the typical ordinance requirements for buffering between industrial and
single-family, which is consistent with this situation. The proposed buffer will be
planted with alternating rows of pine seedlings to allow for a visual screen. The
property to the south is zoned R-2, Single-family and the landowner has
indicated he will develop the area as a single-family subdivision at some point in
the future. As was previously approved upon the commencement of construction
of the subdivision the applicant will install a wood fence beyond the pine tree
screen to further screen the development from the adjoining properties to the
south. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the previous buffer allowed
for horizontal separation there was no screening of activities on the site. The
currently proposal of a 40-foot buffer allows for both horizontal separation as well
as visual separation to better screen the site.
The applicant has indicated the hours of operation to be from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm
seven (7) days per week. Although the requested hours of operation are a little
different than those previously approved, the applicant has indicated the
requested hours of operation are more consistent with the current hours of
operation. Staff is supportive of the requested hours since the current hours do
not appear to have any adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant has furnished Staff and the neighborhood with a listing of proposed
alternative uses. Staff has reviewed these uses and feels for the most part the
indoor uses would not offer a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood if
the site were to redevelop as one of the listed uses or a combination of those
proposed but staff has some reservations with the site developing with uses
which require outdoor storage such as those stated previously. Staff
recommends any activity that requires outdoor storage of materials or products
which could located on the site in the future be limited to no more than is
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
8
currently being utilized as outdoor storage area and that the screening fence be
installed as indicated around the areas used as outdoor storage.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request as filed subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of this
report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Ms. Kathy Graves was present representing the application. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed
request as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F
and H of the above report.
Ms. Graves stated her family had been in business in the area for many years. She
stated the previous proposal included a 100-foot buffer and the current request was to
reduce the buffer to a 40-foot buffer. She stated the previous buffer was open space
and grass covered. She stated her family was willing to plant in the buffer
approximately 80 trees in two (2) rows to reduce the negative impacts of an industrial
use adjacent to single-family property. She stated the business was trying to be a good
neighbor while being able to finance the improvements needed for the site.
Mr. James Conner stated the buffer on the south property line was presented and
approved at the previous Commission meeting as a 100-foot buffer. He stated since the
applicant was requesting to reduce the buffer he would request a 50-foot buffer and
plantings in the entire buffer area on 8-foot centers or six rows of trees.
Mr. Conner stated the operation was a dusty operation which manufactured five days
per week. He stated his desire was to limit the negative impacts on his proposed
residential subdivision.
Mr. Conner stated the applicant had not proceeded with any of the improvements, which
were approved in the previous planned development. He stated the applicant had
“cleaned up” the 100-foot buffer area.
Chairman Nunnley questioned Ms Graves has to the importance of Sunday operations.
She stated the companies products were very temperature sensitive and on occasion
the facility was required to operate on Sunday. Commissioner Allen stated the limiting
of hours should not be imposed on the applicant and if and when the property to the
south developed then the Commission would review the allowable hours of operation.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7092-A
9
There was no further discussion. A motion was made to approve the application as filed
to include all Staff comments and recommendations. The motion carried by a vote of 8
ayes, 1 no and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: LU03-18-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location: Northwest corner of Bowman and Kanis Roads
Request: Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial
Source: Joe White, White - Daters & Associates Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Mixed Office
Commercial to Commercial. The Commercial 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 they serve. The
applicant wishes to develop the property for home supply/lumber retail sales.
Staff expanded the application area to include the C-3 General Commercial zoned big-box
retail north of the applicant’s property. As a result of this expansion the entirety of the Mixed
Office Commercial at the northwest corner of the Bowman and Kanis Road intersection would
be eliminated. All of the property fronting Bowman Road between Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway would be shown as Commercial.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned C-3 General Commercial, Planned Office Development, and R-
2 Single Family and is approximately 36.81+ acres in size. The northern part of the study area
is occupied by big box retail with an out parcel along Bowman Road. A retail plant nursery is
located in the southeast corner of the property. West of the nursery is a vacant parcel and a
larger tract with a single family home. An office building is located in the southwest corner of
the study area.
The retail uses to the north are zoned C-3 with two Conditional Use Permits to accommodate
temporary storage facilities for seasonal sales and a carwash facility. The retail uses on the
east side of Bowman Road is zoned Planned Commercial Development at the intersection of
Chenal, C-3 south of Hermitage Road, and Planned Commercial Development at Kanis Road.
The south side of Kanis Road includes a mixture of retail, office, and storage uses zoned O-3
General Office, C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-3 and PCD from the intersection of Bowman
Road to Cherry Brook Drive. A vacant piece of property zoned R-2 sits on the south side of
Kanis Road between the businesses located at the intersection of Bowman Road and the land
located at the intersection of Pointe West Drive. The land at the intersection of Kanis Road
and Pointe West Drive is zoned C-3, O-1 Quiet Office, and O-3, but remains largely vacant
except for the office located on the property zoned O-1. The land to the west is zoned R-2 and
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-01
2
highly developed with houses in the Pointe West and Timber Ridge additions. A strip of vacant
land is zoned Open Space to serve as a buffer between the businesses fronting Bowman
Road and the Pointe West and Timber Ridge additions.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park/Open Space about ¾ of a
mile northeast of the study area to recognize existing conditions.
On February 15, 2000 a change was made from Single Family to Low Density Residential on
West Glen Drive at Gamble Road about ¾ of a mile west of the application area to
accommodate proposed development.
On March 2, 1999 multiple changes were made along Kanis Road from Transition, Office,
Multi-family, Mixed Office Commercial, and Suburban Office to Suburban Office, Low Density
Residential, Park / Open Space, Service Trades District, Neighborhood Commercial, Office,
and Community Shopping within a 1 mile radius of the applicant’s property to reflect existing
conditions and desired future development.
On December 15, 1998 a change was made from Multi-family to Suburban Office west of the
study area to accommodate proposed development.
On May 20, 1997 a change was made from Office to commercial east of the Chenal Parkway /
Bowman Road intersection about ½ mile north of the application property to accommodate
proposed development.
The study area is shown as Mixed Office Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. The
property to the north is shown as Commercial. The property on the east side of Bowman Road
is shown as Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial with a small area shown as
Neighborhood Commercial at the southeast corner of the Bowman and Kanis Road
intersection. The south side of Kanis Road is shown as Service Trades District and Suburban
Office. The intersection of Kanis Road at the intersection of Pointe West Drive and Kanis
Road is shown as Neighborhood Commercial on the south and Suburban Office to the north.
The Pointe West and Timber Ridge additions are shown as Single Family with a strip of land
shown as Park/Open Space serving as a buffer between the residential area and the study
area.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Bowman and Kanis Roads are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan and would
be subject to half street improvements. Portions of Bowman and Kanis Roads developed to
Master Street Plan Standards, with segments completed on one side but not the other. There
are no bikeways shown that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows a Potential Greenbelt along
Rock Creek within eight blocks to the north of the applicant’s property. However, the study
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-01
3
area is adjacent to a Service Deficit Area in which new park facilities would need to be
developed.
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 Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.
The Office and Commercial Development goal calls for the preservation of as much existing
topography, trees and green space as possible. The plan also contains objectives that
supports the adoption of a plan for Kanis Road, and encourages all commercial and office
development in the community to be subject to neighborhood input prior to City approval. An
action statement recommending the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence
more neighborhood-friendly and better quality development.
ANALYSIS:
This amendment would replace the Mixed Office Commercial, which is developed with mostly
commercial uses, with the Commercial category that would be developed with entirely
commercial uses. Although Commercial is not shown south of Kanis Road, the existing uses
include intensive non-residential development, with some of the uses (south of Kanis, and west
of Bowman) next to residential areas. Although Suburban Office to the south acts as a buffer
between the applicant’s property and residences located the south, the area shown as
Services Trades District does not act as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses.
The strip of Park/Open Space along the western boundary of the applicant’s property currently
serves as a buffer between the area shown as Commercial north of the applicant’s property
and the Single Family located to the west. A change to Commercial at this location would
increase the intensity of non-residential uses in the area.
The applicant’s property is located in an area that is physically separated from the neighboring
Single Family uses based on the street pattern. The neighboring houses are oriented in such
a way that the back yards face the applicant’s property. The residential areas to the south are
connected to Kanis Road by Cherry Brook Drive. An increase in traffic on Kanis Road
resulting from uses on the applicant’s property could affect the accessibility of Kanis Road from
Cherry Brook Drive.
The applicant’s property is located on a hillside that has a substantial amount of vegetation.
The development of the applicant’s property could result in the alteration of the hillside and
vegetation on the property.
A large portion of Chenal Parkway in this area has been shown for Commercial development
while Kanis Road has been shown as a Mixed Office Commercial, Suburban Office and Low
Density Residential corridor. Due to the lesser intensity of non-residential uses on Kanis
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-01
4
Road, this application would be in essence introducing Commercial on Kanis which is
contradictory to the overall scheme for the corridor that reduces the intensity of non-residential
uses on Kanis Road west of the Bowman intersection.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Gibraltar/Pt. West/Timber
Ridge, Parkway Place Property Owners Association, Spring Valley Manor Property Owners
Association, Birchwood Neighborhood Association, and John Barrow Neighborhood
Association. Staff has not received comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change not appropriate. A change to Commercial would intensify of non-
residential uses in the area, increase traffic, and alter topography.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Donna James made a
presentation of item 10.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item 10. See
item 10.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Long Form Planned Commercial
Development. Steve Haralson, Public Works, made a presentation regarding traffic issues.
Dixon Flake, representing the applicant, spoke on behalf of the application and addressed the
issues of traffic, land use, and noise. Mr. Flake stated that the applicant was willing to make
improvements to Kanis and Bowman Roads to improve access and traffic flow, the property
was surrounded on three sides by retail uses and would be screened from the neighboring
residential areas, and that a noise study was conducted to determine how noise would be
abated.
Ellen Yehling, spoke in opposition to the application and sited noise and traffic concerns.
Jennifer Wilson, spoke in opposition to the application and sited noise, traffic, and drainage
concerns.
Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to
the application stating that the zoning was not appropriate, the use of the property would be
too intense, too much noise would be generated, and that the property should remain
designated as Mixed Office Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan.
Planning Commission Chair, Obrary Nunnley stated that he did not feel that the site would
develop for any other type of possible uses and that he was also concerned about the 24-hour
operations of a big-box retail store.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-18-01
5
Planning Commission Vice Chair, Mizan Rahman asked staff if the recommendation was for
denial. Jim Lawson stated that staff based the recommendation for denial on traffic issues and
land use with the main reasons centered on land use. Mr. Lawson stated that staff wanted to
maintain a step-down approach for the land use patterns in the area with the more intense land
uses located at Chenal and less intense uses along Kanis. Commissioner Rahman stated that
he wanted to preserve the step down approach for the land use patterns in the area.
Commissioner Fred Allen stated that he wanted the developer to work with area residents to
resolve any outstanding issues.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of
5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 absent. The item failed because of a lack of 6 votes for the change per
the commission’s bylaws.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10.1 FILE NO.: Z-7364
NAME: Bowman Market Place Long-form PCD
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Weiner/Schlosser Ventures, IV, Inc.
520 Post Oak Boulevard
Houston, TX 77027
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 20.322 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, O-3, R-2, POD
ALLOWED USES: General Commercial, Office and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: General Commercial
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance to the Land Alteration Ordinance to
allow an increase in the maximum height of a cut.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 15,163 of the City of Little Rock rezoned the POD zoned property within
the proposed development from O-3 and C-3 to PCD on September 3, 1986. The
applicant proposed the development of a commercial shopping center on the site, which
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
2
contained approximately 7 acres. The shopping center was proposed as a 63,657
square foot commercial building with approximately 242 parking spaces.
On October 17, 1989 the Board of Directors approved a one-year time extension for the
development of the site.
On September 7, 1999 the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 18,095 to
rezone the site from PCD to POD and established McShane – Long-form POD. The
applicant proposed the placement of an assisted senior living center and associated
office buildings. The proposed living center was to be three (3) stories in height with
approximately 120,000 square feet of floor area. The living center would be located
within the northern two-thirds of the property and contain 136 rooms.
The applicant also proposed the placement of an office building adjacent to Kanis Road.
The office building was to be utilized by the living center and medical facilities and other
associated office uses to support the living center
The Board of Directors rezoned the C-3 zoned portion of the site from various zoning
classifications to C-3 on October 20, 1998 (Ordinance No. 17,850). There were
conditions placed on the rezoning request as follows: There was to be no building
constructed in the 150 foot by 150 foot area directly at the southeast corner of the
proposed C-3 zoned property and the property proposed for C-3 zoning was to be
limited to two driveways onto Kanis Road. The eastern drive, located approximately
200 feet west of the Kanis/Bowman intersection, was to be a service entrance/exit only.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a three (3) lot plat and to rezone the site from various
zoning classifications to PCD to allow the construction of three commercial
buildings. The building to be place on Lot 1 is an 116,000 square foot Lowe’s
store, on Lot 2 a 68,600 square foot retail center and on Lot 3 a 14,000 square
foot retail center.
The applicant also proposes to rework the Wal-Mart entrance onto Bowman
Road along with the traffic signal to allow four exiting lanes with one entrance
lane. The applicant is also proposing the placement of a traffic signal at the new
Lowe’s entrance on Bowman Road. The applicant has conducted a traffic study
to determine the need for the addition of the traffic signal.
The existing truck entrance south of “Just for Feet” will be eliminated. The
driveway apron will be reconfigured and used as a right in, right-out for the
retail/restaurant pad.
The applicant is requesting a variance on the west side of Lowe’s for the cut
slope. The maximum height of the cut in this area will be approximately 40 feet
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
3
to 45 feet. The applicant is proposing the placement of a segmental block
retaining wall with a maximum of 15 feet in height with 10 foot horizontal between
the walls for plantings. A 40-foot open space (undisturbed) buffer will be
maintained adjacent to the residential area to the west. The applicant has
indicated other areas of the site will have cuts and fills that will approach 30 feet.
The applicant proposes to utilize the placement of segmental block retaining
walls in these areas as well.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a nursery greenhouse, two single-family residences and vacant
tree covered lands. Other uses in the area are a strip retail center located on the
northeast corner of Bowman and Kanis Roads (Creekwood Plaza), a
nonconforming liquor store located on the southeast corner of Bowman and
Kanis Roads and a strip retail center containing neighborhood commercial uses
(drycleaners, sandwich shop) on the southwest corner of Bowman and Kanis
Roads.
Kanis Road in this area has not been improved to Master Street Plan Standards.
Bowman Road adjacent to he site has not been improved but the development
across Kanis Road (Creekwood Plaza) has installed ½ street improvements.
The intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads was recently improved and a
traffic signal added.
There is a single-family subdivision located to the west of the site with the homes
backing up to the proposed development. Vacant lands are adjacent to Kanis
Road further west of the site and adjacent to the subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The John Barrow and the Timber Ridge/Point West/Gibralter Heights
Neighborhood Associations, all residents who could be identified located within
300 feet of the site and all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site
were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Bowman and Kanis Roads are classified on the Master Street Plan as minor
arterials. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be
required. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate turn lanes.
A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of the
arterials.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
4
2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
planned development.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
4. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Sec. 29-186 (e). At
a minimum, provide cross sections showing maximum cut and fill sections
and stormwater flows entering and leaving the property, and location of
proposed stormwater detention facilities.
5. Contact the ADEQ for approval prior to start of work.
6. The developer proposes construction of a traffic signal at the new Bowman
Road entrance. The design must be provide approved by Traffic Engineering
and provided for coordination of other signals on Bowman. The signal is not
to be activated until traffic warrants are met for this intersection.
7. Comments and discussion concerning the review of the Traffic Study are as
follows:
Due to concerns about how this development might worsen area traffic
congestion, the developer prepared a traffic study that analyzed both the existing
traffic conditions and projected traffic as a result of this development.
The study suggested several improvements along Bowman Road between
Markham and Kanis Streets in the vicinity of the development that would help
mitigate the increased traffic. These improvements included improvements to
the existing Wal-Mart Drive at Hermitage Road, additional lanes along Bowman
Road, and improvements to Kanis Road and the Bowman and Kanis intersection.
Public Works reviewed and agreed with most of the study’s findings,
recommendations and conclusions. The one exception Public Works takes to
the study is that it fails to make recommendations to mitigate longer delays from
projected traffic at the most poorly-performing intersections.
The study analyzed level of service ratings for various traffic movements at area
intersections. Level of service rating is a measure of the delay drivers will
experience at an intersection, which is further, an indicator of discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time.
Several intersection movements were found at current traffic levels to operate at
the lowest level of service F (delay of greater than 80 seconds) and the study
projected the intersections would remain at that same level of service with the
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
5
additional traffic. When this occurred, the study recommended no improvements
under the reasoning that the intersection is already level of service F and would
remain so under projected traffic conditions.
Public Works believes such an analysis is faulty because it fails to recognize the
additional driver discomfort that will result solely because of increase traffic from
this development. For example, the north bound left turn movement at the
Chenal and Bowman intersection currently operates at level of service F because
there is a 136 second delay per vehicle. Under projected traffic conditions the
movement will continue to operate at level of service F but the corresponding
delay increases to 188 seconds. Public Works believes that the development
should not proceed if it results in additional delays.
The following table lists Public Works’ assessment of additional improvements
needed to moderate traffic congestion in the area within the study area. Without
these improvements, the development will result in additional traffic delays.
Intersection Needed
Improvement
Reasons Problems if not improved
Chenal
Pkwy. –
Bowman Rd.
Construct an
additional NB
left-turn bay
(250ft in
length,
considering
future growth)
Projected left-turn
volume of 301 during
PM peak hour cannot
be accommodated
using one left-turn
bay. This movement
already operates at
Level of Service F.
Adding more volume
will increase the
delay from 136 sec.
to 188 sec. per
vehicle. With the
proposed dual-left
turn lane, the
intersection LOS will
improve from F to D.
Without dual left-turn lanes, the
queue in the left-turn bay will
extend to the thru lane during
every cycle of the peak hour,
thereby shutting down one of
the thru lanes completely and
reducing the adjacent lane
capacity by as much as 50%.
This has the same effect as that
of a lane closure during
construction work. When the
thru lane is blocked, vehicles
that are going straight will try to
switch lanes, which causes
sideswipe accidents. Longer
queues will develop in thru
lanes, which creates gridlock by
blocking other intersections.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
6
Bowman Rd.
– Wal-Mart
Dr.
Extend length
of EB left-turn
lanes to 250
ft. length
Projected traffic
volume of 290 cannot
be accommodated
with 100 ft. long turn
lanes.
Shorter turn lanes block thru
traffic because the queue in turn
lanes extends to thru-lanes.
When there are vehicles waiting
in the thru lanes, the
intersection capacity is reduced
significantly because the thru-
lane is blocked.
Intersection Needed
Improvement
Reasons Problems if not improved
Chenal
Pkwy. –
Bowman Rd.
Construct NB
right-turn lane
(150 ft.)
Intersection capacity
will improve when
vehicles waiting to
turn are separated
from thru lanes. The
advantage is even
more in the case of
right-turn lanes
because the vehicles
can turn right on red.
Presently, there is no
exclusive right-turn
lane.
With the present geometry,
even though right-turn-on-red is
allowed, it just takes 5 cars in
the thru lane to block this
movement. When this happens,
delay for the NB right-turn
movement as well as the total
intersection delay is increased.
Kanis Rd.-
Bowman Rd.
Construct an
additional SB
left-turn bay
(250 ft. length,
considering
future growth)
Projected left-turn
volume of 291 during
PM peak hour cannot
be accommodated
using one left-turn
bay. This movement
already operates at
Level of Service F.
Adding more volume
will increase the
delay from 204 sec.
to 338 sec. per
vehicle. With the
proposed
improvements, the
intersection LOS will
improve from D to C.
Without dual left-turn lanes, the
queue in the left-turn bay will
extend to the thru lane every
cycle during peak hour, thereby
shutting down one of the thru
lanes completely. This reduces
the capacity of Bowman Rd.
significantly. When the thru lane
is blocked, vehicles that are
going straight will try to switch
lanes, which causes sideswipe
accidents. Longer queues will
develop in thru lanes, which
creates gridlock by blocking
other intersections.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
7
Intersection Needed
Improvement
Reasons Problems if not improved
Chenal
Pkwy –
Autumn Rd.
Extend length
of WB left-
turn bay.
Projected left-turn
volume of 325 is too
high for the existing
140 ft. long left-turn
bay. Due to geometry
restrictions, an
additional left-turn
bay cannot be built.
However, extending
the length to 300 ft.
will help solve some
of the problems.
Without a long left-turn lane, the
queue in the left-turn bay will
extend to the thru lane during
every cycle of the peak hour,
thereby shutting down one of
the thru lanes completely and
reducing the adjacent lane
capacity by as much as 50%.
This has the same effect as that
of a lane closure during
construction work. When the
thru lane is blocked, vehicles
that are going straight will try to
switch lanes, which causes
sideswipe accidents. Longer
queues will develop in thru
lanes, which creates gridlock by
blocking other intersections.
Kanis Rd.
(West of
Bowman)
Complete
street
improvements
to city
standards
both sides
adjacent to
proposed
project.
The current two-lane
section is inadequate
to handle the
expected traffic
volume. Both sides of
the street need to be
built to city
standards.
If the street is not improved,
there will be long queues at the
intersection and the traffic will
back up beyond driveways
resulting in congestion.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing sewer mains on site. Easements must be retained or sewer
mains relocated to serve all lots. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414
for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
8
Central Arkansas Water: The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are
planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas
Water’s material and construction specifications and an engineer, licensed to
practice in the State of Arkansas, will inspect installation. Execution of
Customer Owner Line Agreement is required. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off
the private fire system. Please submit two copies of the plans for the private fire
line to Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of private
fire line. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering
Division and the Little Rock Fire Department is required. This development will
have minor impact on existing water distribution systems. Proposed water
facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Contact the Little Rock Fire Department (918-3752) and Central
Arkansas Water Department (992-2438) concerning the placement of fire
hydrants.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a new
retail development.
A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda (LU03-18-01).
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 calls for the preservation of existing topography,
trees and green space as possible. The plan also contains objectives that
supports the adoption of a plan for Kanis Road, and encourages all commercial
and office development in the community to be subject to neighborhood input
prior to City approval. An Action Statement under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal recommends the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts
to influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality development.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
9
Landscape: The proposed western perimeter landscape strip of Lot 3 width
drops below the six feet and nine inch minimum allowed by the Landscape
ordinance. A variance of this requirement would require City Beautiful
Commission approval.
Interior landscaping must comprise at least eight percent of the interior of the on-
site vehicular use area. Interior islands must be at least 7 ½ feet in width and
150 square feet in area to count toward fulfilling interior landscaping
requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Dickson Flake, Mr. Joe White and Mr. Weiner were present representing the
application. Staff stated the proposed development was located on the
northwest corner of Bowman and Kanis Road on a site currently zoned for
commercial and office uses and shown as Mixed Office Commercial on the
Future Land Use Plan.
Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested the days and hours of operation of the new businesses.
Staff also requested the location of the dumpster or trash compactor and the
hours of compacting. Staff stated the proposed parking more than exceeded the
typical minimum parking requirements for a development of this type with the
exception of the proposed Lot 3. Staff stated if Lot 3 were developed as a
restaurant use, the typical required parking would be approximately 30 spaces
short. Staff stated they did not see a problem with the reduced number of
spaces since there was sufficient parking in other areas and the site most likely
would not be entirely developed as a restaurant use.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the area set aside for Lot
3 dropped below the minimum allowed by the Landscape Ordinance. Staff
stated all interior landscaping must comprise at least eight percent of the interior
of the on-site vehicular use area. Staff stated landscape islands must be at least
7 ½ feet in width and 150 square feet in area to count toward fulfilling interior
landscaping requirements.
Public Works comments had not been completed and were not discussed in
detail.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
10
Staff stated the nearby residents were a very important consideration. Staff also
stated the site was not shown on the Future Land Use Plan as a pure
commercial site. Staff stated the site was reviewed not so long ago for a
furniture store to locate on the site. Staff stated that use was acceptable
because a furniture store was considered commercial but not an intensive
commercial use.
After the 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 at the Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has also addressed
several of Public Works concerns, which were given to the applicant after the
Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated the Lowe’s Store will use a trash compactor. The
compactor has been located in the rear of the building. The applicant is currently
performing sound checks to determine if noise will be an issue. The applicant
has stated the hours of garbage collection will be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Staff
would suggest these hours be placed on the compacting as well. Staff has some
concerns of the noise level of the compactor and the interference with the quality
of life of the abutting the single-family neighborhood to the west.
The applicant has indicated dumpster locations on the two other lots as well. On
Lot 2, the dumpster will be located near Bowman Road. The applicant has
indicated screening will be installed per the current ordinance requirement or
screened on three sides at least two (2) feet above the finished level of the
dumpster. The third dumpster will be located on Lot 3 near western property line
and just south of the “Just for Feet” store. The applicant has also indicated
screening per the current city ordinance.
The applicant has also indicated any site lighting will be low level and directional,
directed away from residentially zoned properties. The applicant has also
indicated the site will sit approximately 30-feet below the adjoining subdivision to
the west. The applicant has also indicated the site will be built up at the
intersection of Bowman and Kanis Roads. The applicant has stated there will be
minimal spill over of lighting from the site to the adjoining properties.
The applicant has indicated the hours of operation for the Lowe’s will be 24-hours
per day seven (7) days per week. The retail/restaurant hours are proposed from
5:00 am to 1:00 am also seven days per week. Staff has concerns with the late
hour of operation. Staff would question if the site will experience customer traffic
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
11
to the site 24-hours per day or if there will be stocking taking place during the
nontraditional business hours. If stocking is the case then staff would also have
concerns with noise from the site with employees moving items with a forklift and
the banging of pallets. Although the Wal-Mart store is a 24-hour store staff does
not believe it appropriate to add an additional 24-hour store to the area. The
hours of operation for the shopping center to the east were recently revised to
allow for a 12:00 am closing time. Staff feels this more appropriate for the area.
The applicant has addressed most of the landscaping issues raised by Staff.
The applicant is also proposing the placement of a 40-foot buffer along the
western perimeter of the site adjoining the single-family subdivision. Currently
there is a 40-foot buffer located behind the Wal-Mart and Sam’s stores. This
buffer would be a continuation of the existing. The applicant has stated the
buffer will be maintained as an undisturbed natural buffer.
Although the applicant has tried to meet the concerns of Staff raised from a
technical aspect Staff has some major concerns with the use of the site. The
Future Land Use Plan designates this site as Mixed Office Commercial. The
Kanis Corridor Committee reviewed this section of the roadway and made a
recommendation for the Future Land Use Plan of Mixed Office Commercial as
the desired development pattern at this intersection less than five (5) years ago.
Staff feels the site should develop as shown and an overabundance of
commercial uses Should not be located in this area. Currently the infrastructure
is not in place, namely the roadways, for a development of this magnitude to take
place. As indicated in Public Works Traffic comments there are several
intersections in the area, which operate at a Level of Service of D and F. These
being the two (2) worst ratings possible. Staff does not feel comfortable adding
to this already bad situation of traffic delays and congestion with the development
of this 20+ acre site as a pure commercial development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Dickson Flake, Mr. Andy Weiner, Mr. Joe White and Mr. Ernie Peters were present
representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of denial.
Staff stated the applicant had performed a traffic study of the area and congestion was
a big concern. Staff stated the traffic impact in the area would cause significant delays
for motorist. Staff stated the traffic study indicated a level of service F currently existed
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
12
and as a result of the project the Level of Service would remain an F. Staff stated they
would like to clarify by saying once an intersection reached the F rating there was no
further down to go. Staff stated the delays at some intersections would result in an
additional one (1) minute for motorist.
Staff stated the applicant had agreed to site improvements on the roads adjoining their
property but had also agreed to some off site improvements. Staff stated the
Commission could request but not demand off site improvements with the development.
Mr. Dickson Flake addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
development only proposed one entrance to the site from Kanis Road and the second
drive was to be a service drive. He stated the applicant had agreed to a 40-foot buffer
along the rear of the property to protect the residents to the west. Mr. Flake stated the
site would require a large cut and movement of a large amount of dirt on the site.
Mr. Flake stated the applicant was requesting a variance to the Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow two 15-foot walls and with a 10-foot shelf for plantings. Mr. Flake
stated there would also be an eight (8) foot opaque fence at the top of the wall.
Mr. Flake stated the elevation of Lowe’s would be somewhat lower than the residences
to the west. He stated the top of the building including the parapet would be below the
homes by 15-feet. He stated the development would offer visual separation from the
adjoining neighborhoods.
Mr. Flake stated the landscaping would comply with the ordinance requirements except
in one place. He stated in the section along Kanis the landscaping would exceed the
ordinance requirements.
Mr. Flake stated the use was consistent with other land uses in the area. He stated
there were commercial uses on the three other corners of Kanis and Bowman Roads.
He stated Wal-Mart and Sam’s were located to the north of the site.
Mr. Flake stated the applicant had contracted with an acoustical engineer. He stated
the study had determined there would not be a significant increase in noise level. He
stated the applicant had restricted the dumpster hours and the door type for the facility.
He stated the overhead door would be constructed of vinyl clad insulated door.
Mr. Flake stated the two intersections that failed were located away from the site. He
stated the intersections failed at AM and PM times. He stated the construction of a
Lowe’s would not add to the AM traffic and very little to the PM traffic.
Mr. Flake stated the development would employ 300 persons and generate
approximately 45 to 50 million in sales. He stated Lowe’s was known nationally for their
community involvement and.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
13
Ms. Ellen Yehlinic spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated Lowe’s
would be in her back yard. She stated traffic was a primary concern of the
neighborhood. She stated her child had to cross Kanis Road for the school bus stop
and the child had waited for five to six light changes to be able to cross because of the
traffic. She stated dumpster collection on Saturday morning was also a concern.
Ms. Yehlinic stated her primary reason for moving to the neighborhood was the
uniqueness of the area. She stated there was a connection through Point West from
Kanis Road to Chenal Parkway if the traveler knew how to make the connection.
Ms. Jennifer Wilson spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She stated her
concern was the development of land with regard to the change in the topography and
drainage in the area. She stated the development would increase traffic on Kanis Road
and Bowman Road and the developer had agreed to expand the road to four (4) lanes.
She stated not only volume but speed and the lack of the existing infrastructure was a
reason for denial.
Ms. Wilson stated the developer had indicated there would not be a noise problem. She
questioned if there was a problem what recourse did the neighborhood have to resolve
the problem. She stated the deliveries would be made in the rear of the buildings and
trucks delivering merchandise would be noise.
Ms. Wilson stated the developer was unable to tell her what would happen to the
existing detention basin. She stated the basin was currently a sanctuary for wildlife in
the area.
Ms. Wilson stated if the development was approved the developer should be required to
hold quarterly meetings to provide updates on the progress of the development with
regard to traffic to the site and how construction trash will be handled.
Ms. Ruth Bell spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the intent
was to keep the heavy commercial along Chenal Parkway and to step down along
Kanis Road. She stated there were no funds for infrastructure in the area and the
existing infrastructure could not carry the development. She stated the development
was not good land use. Ms. Bell also questioned the results of the acoustical study.
Commissioner Rector questioned the status of the improvements district, which was to
be formed from Shackelford Road to Bowman Road. Mr. Lawson stated the district was
not active. Commissioner Rector stated he was currently serving on a task force
looking at the infrastructure needs in the city and suggesting ways to raise funds to
correct the problems.
Mr. Ernie Peters spoke on behalf of the applicant with regard to the traffic study. He
stated the delay at Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road would increase as a result of
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7364
14
the development. He stated the applicant had indicated improvements would be made
to Kanis Road on the south side of Kanis Road, which would be a catalyst for a five (5)
lane section from Bowman Road to Chenal Parkway. He stated the service drive in the
rear from Kanis Road would be a one-way drive and would require trucks exiting to
leave from the new traffic light at Bowman Road.
There was a general discussion concerning the noise from the outdoor paging system
and the 24-hour access to the site. The applicant stated there would be no outdoor
paging on the site but he would like the option of the 24-hour access. There was also a
discussion concerning outdoor display. The applicant indicted there would not be any
outdoor display.
There was a general question as to how the road would be constructed to avoid the
ending of the five lane section at the applicants property line. Mr. Joe White stated the
ending would be handled with striping to a taper with paint to indicate the lane ending.
A motion was made to approve the land use amendment as filed. The motion failed by
a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent.
A motion was made to approve the rezoning request as amended to include no outdoor
paging. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: LU03-01-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: North of Taylor Loop east of Gooch Lane.
Request: Single Family to Low Density Residential
Source: Joe White, White - Daters & Associates Inc.
The applicant has petitioned to defer this item on May 1, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff recommends placing this item on the consent agenda for deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the May 1, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved
with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11.1 FILE NO.: Z-7365
NAME: Green Acres Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located north of Taylor Loop Road east of Gooch Lane
DEVELOPER:
Shirley Dyer
15080 Taylor Loop Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 4.46 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Townhouse development
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the May 1, 2003 Public Hearing.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11.1 FILE NO.: Z-7365
2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the application and there were no objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the May 1,
2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request for deferral to the
May 1, 2003 Public Hearing.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6809
NAME: Bed and Breakfast Inn Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 700 South Cedar Street
DEVELOPER:
Brad Bell
4112 “A” Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.83 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C
ALLOWED USES: Hotel
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C – Time Extension
PROPOSED USE: Hotel
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,287 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 6, 2000
established a Planned Zoning District for the Bed and Breakfast Inn located on the
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809
2
southwest corner of West 7th Street and South Cedar Street. The proposal included the
construction of a 26,426 square foot 60 room hotel with approximately 34 on-site
parking spaces. The site was approved for a reduced number of on-site parking spaces
but required the applicant to secure a long-term lease with UAMS for an additional 32
parking spaces. The site plan was approved with two (2) sign locations; a four foot
high, 24 square foot monument-type sign along West 7th Street and a 30 foot high, 130
square foot maximum ground-mounted sign at the southwest corner of the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Per Section 36-454(e), the applicant is to file a final development plan within
three (3) years of the date of the ordinance approving the preliminary plan. As
per the same Section, the applicant may request from the Planning Commission
an extension of not more than three (3) years. The applicant has submitted a
request for a one-year time extension of the PD-C zoning. The applicant has
stated the hotel’s ground breaking has been slowed somewhat due to economic
reasons and the unexpected passing of one of the partners in the venture. The
applicant has stated the additional one-year time extension will insure the time
necessary to begin construction.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested one (1) year time extension. All
previous conditions, comments and recommendations will continue to be in effect
for the PD-C.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Mark Burkle was present representing the application. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the requested
one (1) year time extension. Staff stated all previous conditions, comments and
recommendations would continue to be in effect for the PD-C.
Mr. Mark Burkle addressed the Commission. He stated due to economic times and the
passing of one of the partners the development was slow to begin. He stated the
applicant had contracted with a contractor, bids had been let and a lease agreement
had been reached with the VA Hospital.
Mr. Herb Hawn spoke in opposition of the proposed time extension. He stated he was
representing the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association in his opposition.
He stated the plan shown to the neighborhood was not the same plan as was approved
by the Commission and the Board three years earlier. He stated the parking agreement
was with the VA Hospital and not UAMS. He stated the sign area had decreased from
what was previously approved. Mr. Hawn stated this was not negative from the
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6809
3
neighborhoods standpoint but the neighborhood would like additional information on the
proposed development.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, stated the Commission’s role was to consider the
one-year time extension. He stated if there were any significant changes to the plan the
PD-C would have to be revised and review by the Commission and the Board of
Directors.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to approve the
application as filed for a one-year time extension. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13
Name: 9924 Baseline Road – Unpermitted Land Alteration
Location: 9924 Baseline Road, 40 acres of undeveloped
wooded property including old manufactured home
park in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Eddie Wilson, owner of subject property.
Request: Clear trees and fill 40 acre property for future home
and pasture in 2 years.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Baseline Road is a principal arterial.
2. Development Potential
The 40 acre site is zoned R2-residential and fronts Baseline Road. The subject
property lies within the 100-year floodway and floodplain of Nash Creek. The Winston
Subdivision zoned R2 is located on the east. The northern adjoining property is also
undeveloped R2 lying mostly within the 100-year floodway and floodplain. To the west is
U-Pull-It Auto Parts, a planned industrial development. The properties on the south side
of Baseline Road are zoned C3-commercial, and R2 with a non-conforming CUP.
3. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This area along Baseline Road is a low lying that often floods, as predicted by the
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The 100-year floodway which cannot be encroached
upon by City floodplain ordinances and Federal regulations runs through the center of
the property.
4. Neighborhood Position
No opinion position has been presented to Public Works.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Mr. Eddie Wilson, owner of the subject property, contacted Public Works the week of January
27, 2003 pertaining to reissuing a February 4, 2000 grading permit that expired on June 4,
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.)
2
2002. Mr. Wilson desired the new permit to allow tree clearing on his 40 acre property and
add fill which is available at no cost. Like many other land owners, the Interstate 30 Widening
contractor offered Mr. Wilson free fill material for 2 years. Public Works explained to
Mr. Wilson that a grading permit could not be reissued for the proposed work because
construction is not imminent as required by Section 29-186(b) of the City of Little Rock Land
Alteration Ordinance.
On a return visit, Mr. Wilson presented Public Works with a letter that explained he would build
a house and have pastureland after the property was cleared and cut in 2 years. Public Works
after thorough review again told Mr. Wilson a grading permit could not be issued because
construction is not imminent. Public Works then followed the second request with a certified
letter to Mr. Wilson explaining the denial of the grading permit request.
In the meantime on February 5, 2003, Public Works inspected the subject property and
discovered 25 or more trees had been cut, firewood was for sale, and a portable sawmill had
been setup on the site. Public Works proceeded with issuing Mr. Wilson a stop work order and
notice of violation for clearing trees without a grading permit and required the property be
restored and a restoration plan submitted within 30 days.
Public Works does not support a grading permit being issued for the proposed work on this
property because there has been no demonstration that construction is imminent. Public
Works does require in accordance with Section 29-170(c) and the Notice of Violation the
property must be restored to its original condition to the maximum extent practicable within
30 days from the date of issuance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Eddie Wilson was present representing the application. There was one objector present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the applicant had
cleared the site and was not offering a restoration plan.
The Commission questioned what would be required of a restoration plan. Staff stated the
plan would include reseeding and plantings as required by the landscape ordinance.
Mr. Wilson stated he was willing to build a house on the site at the end of a two (2) year
contract he had signed with Gilbert Central a dirt moving company working on the interstate
widening project.
Mr. Wilson stated he had a permit in the past and the permit had expired. He stated he was
unaware the ordinances had changed and he was no longer able to cut and fill on his property.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and Staff has to how to resolve the
problem.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.)
3
Mr. Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the proposed grading permit. He stated he had worked
on the committee to develop the Land Alteration Ordinances and the purpose of the ordinance
was to not allow this exact situation to occur. He stated if the Commission did not deny the
grading permit then this would send a message to others saying it is ok to violate city
ordinances.
There was once again a discussion of the applicant’s request. Staff stated the request before
the Commission was to allow the applicant a grading permit which would allow him to continue
filling the site or a denial of the grading permit which would require the applicant to submit a
restoration plan.
Mr. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, stated if the Commission denied the applicant’s
request then the applicant would be required to submit a development plan to staff within a
date established by the Commission and to work with Staff to resolve the issue.
A motion was made to approve the applicant’s request and allow a grading permit for the site.
The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14
Name: Gary Houston Property - Land Alteration
Location: Kanis Road, undeveloped lot on south side of Kanis
Road, 4 lots east of John Barrow Road in Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Gary Houston, owner of subject property
Request: Restore of property per site restoration plan
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Kanis Road is a minor arterial.
2. Development Potential
This approximate 1 acre site fronts Kanis Road to the north and is zoned C3-
Commercial. O’Bryan Engineering, a C3 development, is adjacent to the property to the
west. On the east, the property is adjacent to undeveloped wooded area zoned C-3.
The property to the south is an office strip center zoned C-3.
3. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This area along Kanis Road consists of commercial developments with the undeveloped
and developed properties on the east and west zoned C3-commercial.
4. Neighborhood Position
No opinion position has been presented to Public Works.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The subject property is owned by Mr. Gary Houston of Gary Houston Electric Company. In
June, 1997, Mr. Houston reached an agreement with the City of Little Rock Water Works to
remove the trees from the site and to place spoilage material on the property. In November,
2002, trees were removed and fill was placed on the property in excess of the Land Alteration
Ordinance. Mr. Houston was contacted and a notice of violation was issued. The Notice of
Violation directed Mr. Houston per Section 29-170(c) to restore the land to maximum extent
practicable to its original condition beginning with a site restoration plan.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.)
2
Mr. Houston’s has been cooperative. Working with Central Arkansas Water and Public Works,
Mr. Houston has prepared a site restoration plan in lieu of restoring the property to its original
condition. Public Works has visited the site with Mr. Houston and been explained the
proposed restorations. Public Works required additional restoration activities in which
Mr. Houston is in agreement.
The long, narrow property is to be finish graded with all slopes less than 3:1, nine (9) 2”-4”
caliper pine trees are to be planted along the eastern property line. The entire site is to be
seeded with Bermuda grass and silt fence installed along the eastern property line.
Due to the site’s present zoning, adjacent property uses, and screening from Kanis Road;
Public Works is in support of Mr. Houston’s restoration plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval of the applicant’s restoration 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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1339
NAME: Villa Vista Subdivision
LOCATION: South of West 36th Street between Stonehedge Drive and Tudor Drive
DEVELOPER:
Ford Properties Homes LLC
16328 Interstate 30
Benton, AR 72015
ENGINEER:
Hope Engineers
203 Lillian Street
Benton, AR 72015
AREA: 27.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 94 FT. NEW STREET: 4189
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Deferral of Master Street Plan Requirements to
West 36th Street and the continuation of the existing reduced standard for West 36th
Street.
PREVIOUS VARIANCES/WAIVERS GRANTED (Ordinance No. 18696 June 20, 2002):
1. A variance to allow reduced front platted building line for Lots 10, 11 and 12
(15-feet).
2. Variance to allow double frontage lots for Lots 4 - 12.
3. A variance to allow a reduced platted building line (25-feet) on Lots 4 – 12 adjacent
to a Minor Arterial.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1339
2
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 27.716-acre site into 94 single-family
residential lots. The lots will be accessed from West 36th Street and West 38th Street
and James Aulwes Drive will be extended into the subdivision. There will be 4,189
linear feet of new residential street with the development.
The proposed preliminary plat will be final platted in five phases. The following phases
are proposed:
Phase I Lots 1 – 14, and Lots 63 – 69 (21 Lots)
Phase II Lots 15 – 23, Lots 59 – 62 and Lots 70 and 71 (15 Lots)
Phase III Lots 46 – 58 and Lots 87 – 94 (21 Lots)
Phase IV Lots 35 – 45 and Lots 76 – 86 (22 Lots)
Phase V Lots 24 – 34 and Lots 72 – 75 (16 Lots
The applicant is proposing the average lot size to be 60-foot by 120-foot (7200 square
foot lots). The applicant is proposing an area for storm water detention located near
West 36th Street.
The applicant is proposing the roadway to be a 26-foot (back of curb to back of curb)
roadway with a 50-foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing the placement of
sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the subdivision.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirement to
construct West 36th Street and is requesting a reduced standard for West 36th
Street adjacent to the development.
The proposed request is to allow the continuation of the special reduced width
cross section of an 80’ wide right-of-way for West 36th Street. The applicant has
indicated West 36th Street near the Villa Vista Subdivision entrance would be
widened to 48’ to provide turn lanes into and out of the subdivision. The
applicant is also requesting a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements to
widen West 36th Street until no later than Phase 3 of subdivision construction.
B. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKS IN THE ORIGINAL
APPROVAL:
1. West 36th Street 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. Construct one-half street improvement to West 36th Street including 5-foot
sidewalks with Planned Development.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1339
3
3. Proposed residential street width standard is 26 feet back-to-back of curb.
Proposed pavement structure must be equivalent to standard residential
street.
4. Residential sidewalk of 4-foot width must have passing zones every 200
linear feet per ADA requirements.
5. Curve radii must be 150 feet for residential streets, 75 feet for minor
residential streets, or seek variance.
6. Street grades may not exceed 15% except minor residential streets may
not exceed 18% with special approval.
7. Cul-de-sac radii must be 40-foot minimum.
8. West 38th Street requires a sidewalk.
9. Indicate quantity of flow entering the subdivision from adjacent
watercourses.
10. A Grading Permit will be required per Sec. 29-186 (c) & (d).
11. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.
12. The 2 street names of “Villa Vista Drive” and “Vista View Lane” will be
approved as “Villa Vista Court” and “Vista View Circle.”
13. The street name of “Villa View Lane” will be approved as “Villa View
Cove.”
14. Pebble Lane is already named as James Aulwes Drive.
C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Under the Master Street Plan, West 36th Street is classified as a minor arterial.
The standard minor arterial has a 90 feet wide right-of-way width and the final
development cross section is a 59’ wide, five lane section. However, the Master
Street Plan also provides that in special circumstances, as approved by Staff and
the Commission, that an 80’ right-of-way with a 48’ street width can be utilized.
This special cross section is listed specifically for the portion of West 36th Street
from Barrow to Romine, and has been approved for other portions of West 36th
Street from Romine to Bowman due to width constraints at the I-430 overpass.
In the vicinity of Villa Vista, West 36th Street was recently widened as a City
project to a 36’ wide, three lane section, from John Barrow Road west to
approximately Dorset Drive. Along much of this segment, especially the portion
east of West Street, any further widening would have required purchasing and
demolition of residential structures. Due to the presence of constructed,
residential subdivisions along much of the corridor, West 36th Street will likely
remain a three lane, residential section for the foreseeable future.
Staff supports the continuation of the special reduced width cross section of an
80’ wide right-of-way for West 36th Street at this location west of Romine. West
36th Street, at the vicinity of the subdivision entrance would be widened to 48’ to
provide turn lanes into and out of the subdivision. This would be consistent with
the as constructed standard for West 36th Street at this location, and the Master
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1339
4
Street Plan for the West 36th Street corridor. Staff would also support a phasing
plan that provided all construction would be completed not later than Phase 3 of
subdivision construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated their
recommendation was approval for the continuation of the special reduced width cross
section of an 80’ wide right-of-way for West 36th Street adjacent to the Villa Vista
Subdivision. Staff stated they would also support a phasing plan that provided all
construction be completed no later than Phase 3 of subdivision construction.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16
Subject: Setting of Public Hearing for adoption of the 2002 – 2003
Zoning – Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
Request: That the Planning Commission receive comments from interested parties,
report from the Plans Committee and set a date for the public hearing
to adopt the 2002-2003 Zoning – Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Package
History: Throughout late 2001 and into 2002, the Planning Staff began compiling a
list of issues for the Planning Commission to consider as part of an
Ordinance Amendment package. On November 14, 2002, the
Commission accepted the list and forwarded it to the Plans Committee for
review. The Committee reviewed the various issues at several meetings
in late 2002 and early 2003. During the course of the Committee review
process, the list of proposed amendments was expanded by four (4)
items. Two (2) of those added items are viewed as “clean-up” matters;
correcting a typographical error and an incorrect title. Two (2) additional
new items were generated by the Board of Directors in response to citizen
concerns regarding accessory dwellings and accessory buildings.
An Ordinance Amendment contact list of some 60± persons/organizations
was sent a copy of the proposed amendment package and asked to
submit comments to staff. Two (2) individuals responded and their
comments were considered by the Committee. Those same
persons/organizations will be notified of the Commission meeting dates
and asked again to submit any comments.
An attached discussion outline, briefly identifies each change within the
ordinance text.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Staff presented the item. There was no discussion. The item was placed on the Consent
Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent; setting the date of public
hearing as April 3, 2003.
March 20, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
NAME: Markham Inn Short-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located north of “A” Street between Harrison and Van Buren Streets
DEVELOPER:
S & B Corporation
12814 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Williams & Dean
18 Corporate Hill Drive, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 1.08 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Corporate Townhouse Extended Stay Hotel
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed a proposal at their February 6, 2003 Public Hearing
to allow the Markham Inn, Jimmy’s Serious Sandwiches and residentially zoned
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
2
properties to begin a two (2) phase development. The applicant proposed 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. The applicant proposed PCD zoning to allow the development
to occur.
The request for change in zoning was in preparation for the following improvements:
The Markham Inn would become the Markham House Suites. The proposal was to
renovate 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 would be completely renovated for a total of 69 rooms.
All of the furniture, fixtures, and equipment in the old hotel were to be completely
replaced. This facility would 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 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, three (3) 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 expand 515 square feet (indicated on the previous site plan). 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.
The applicant also proposed a Phase II as a part of the development. Phase II was the
area north of “A” Street and was the residential, townhouse development portion of the
project. At the suggestion of Staff and the Commission, the applicant withdrew the
request for the area north of “A” Street and re-filed the application as a PD-R currently
under review.
The request for the PCD, the area south of “A” Street, is currently being forwarded to
the Board of Directors for final action.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
3
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The current request is the Phase II portion of the development and includes 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 the existing alley. There will be an 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-three (33) 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 four single-family homes, two of which are boarded up. The
existing, now closed, Markham Inn is located south of the site across “A” Street.
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 for a prosthetic clinic is located north of “A” Street
on the corner of “B” Street and Van Buren Street.
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.
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
4
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. North Harrison would be classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential
street. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline.
2. 'A' Street would also be classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial
street. The existing dedication of right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline and
pavement width of 26' 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.
4. 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. Repair or replace any existing curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
8. 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
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
5
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
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.
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. Since the
applicant has applied for a Planned Development – Residential to construct
townhouses on the site and the development can be tied to a specific
development a Land Use Plan Amendment will not be required.
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: Areas set-aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscape areas will be required.
Building Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick, Mr. Steve Duffel and Mr. John Johnson were present
representing the application. Staff presented an overview of the development
indicating the application was the residential part of a previous proposal which
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
6
included commercial and residential reviewed at the February 6, 2003 Public
Hearing.
Staff requested the applicant include on the site plan additional items for
consideration. Staff requested the means of garbage collection be indicated in
the general notes on the site plan. Staff also requested any proposed fencing
along with materials be included on the site plan. Staff stated the sign location
had been indicated but the sign area had not been indicated on the site plan.
Staff requested this information be added.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated “A” Street in this area
should be built to Commercial Street standard. Mr. McGetrick stated Public
Works had previously agreed to allow the street to be constructed to Residential
Street standard since the area was residential and the area north of “A” Street
was predominately residential.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated if the site was under one
acre then a water source within 75-feet would be required. Mr. McGetrick stated
after the dedication of right-of-way the site was very likely to be less than one
acre.
Staff suggested the applicant contact the various outside agencies if there were
any questions concerning their comments. There was no further discussion of
the item. The Committee then forwarded the proposed request to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing some of the concerns
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
removed the two parking spaces along “A” Street previously shown now only
allowing one curb cut along “A” Street mid block. This curb cut enters a parking
area containing thirteen (13) parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing
the placement of thirteen (13) space along the alley accessed from Van Buren
Street and seven (7) spaces behind the buildings accessed from North Harrison
Street. This is a total of thirty-three (33) parking spaces on the site. The typical
minimum parking requirement for a multi-family development would be one and
one-half spaces per unit or a total of twenty-one (21) parking spaces. The
proposed parking is more than sufficient to meet the demand for the typical
minimum parking required.
The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted monument style sign to be
located near the Van Buren Street and “A” Street intersection. The applicant has
not indicated the sign area but Staff would recommend the sign area be
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7350-A
7
consistent with allowable signage in multi-family zones or not to exceed twenty-
four square feet in sign area.
The applicant has indicated decorative fencing will be used around the sign along
Van Buren Street and “A” Street and will not exceed forty-two (42) feet in height.
The proposed fencing height is consistent with allowable fencing heights within
the front yard setback per the zoning ordinance.
The applicant submitted elevations of the proposed units to Staff as requested.
For the most part Staff feels the proposed design is consistent with the
architectural style and construction of the Hillcrest area Staff would however;
recommend the single story buildings contain additional architectural features to
allow the buildings to not look as contemporary as presented. The applicant
has stated the addition of dormers, brackets and porches would soften the
buildings and add architectural detail to the structures.
Otherwise, to Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request. The proposed rezoning should have minimal impact on
the surrounding neighborhood if constructed in the manner presented.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site from R-3, Single-
family to PD-R to allow construction of Markham House Villas subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of this
report.
Staff recommends the sign area be consistent with allowable signage in multi-
family zones or not to exceed twenty-four square feet in sign area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the request to rezone the site from R-3, Single-family to
PD-R to allow construction of Markham House Villas subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F and H of the above report. Staff presented a
recommendation that the sign area be consistent with allowable signage in multi-family
zones or not to exceed twenty-four square feet in sign area.
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 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.