HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_06 12 2003sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 12, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10) in number.
II. Members Present: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Judith Faust
Bob Lowry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Mizan Rahman
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Gary Langlais
Jerry Meyer
Members Absent: Fred Allen, Jr.
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the May 1, 2003 Meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
Approval of the Minutes of the Special Called May 29, 2003
Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes
were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
JUNE 12, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. 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.
A.1 Green Acres Short-form PD-R (Z-7365), located north of Taylor Loop
Road east of Gooch Lane.
B. The Ranch Tract G Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-285-ZZ), located on
the west side of Chenonceau Boulevard just north of Cantrell Road.
C. Gyst Auto Shine Revised Short-form PCD (Z-6639-A), located at
2200 Wright Avenue.
II. NEW ITEMS:
1. Hillside Village Preliminary Plat (S-91-C), located on the southeast corner
of University Avenue and “O” Street.
2. Chenal Valley Phase XXVIII and XXIX Revised Preliminary Plat
(S-867-XXXX), located north of LaMarche Drive west of Rahling Road,
east of Chenal Parkway and south of Valley Falls Estates.
3. The Cedars at Wellington Lake - Tract E, The Villages of Wellington
Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1042-W), located on the north side of
Wellington Hills Road just west of the intersection with Willington Village
Road.
4. Weston Square Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1271-A), located on the
southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Parkway Place.
5. Lot 2 Geneva Industrial Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1384), located at
6524 Geyer Springs Road.
6. Callaghan Creek Preliminary Plat (S-1385), located north of Raines Road
east of the Sullivan Road intersection.
Agenda, Page Two
7. Cotton Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1386), located at 7724 Arch Street.
8. Martin Estate Preliminary Plat (S-1387), located at 13621 Heinke Road.
9. Sanders Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1388), located at 7011 Cantrell
Road.
10. Tropical Galleries Revised Short-form PCD (Z-4052-B), located at
315 West 12th Street.
11. Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long-form PRD (Z-6120-G), located on
Capitol Hills Boulevard west of Rushmore Avenue.
12. Fellowship Bible Church Parking Facilities Zoning Site Plan Review
(Z-6149-E), located on the southeast corner of Napa Valley Drive and
Hinson Road.
13. Breshears Revised Short-form PD-C (Z-6481-C), located at 600 North
Tyler Street.
14. Pleasant Hill Road Short-form POD (Z-6806-A), located at 13701 Pleasant
Hill Road.
15. Lot 11 RR Lincoln Park Subdivision Revised PD-R (Z-7328-A), located on
the northwest corner of Woodlawn and Taylor Streets.
16. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-29-02) in the Barrett Planning
District, located near 25902 Cantrell Road, a change from Single Family to
Commercial.
16.1. Fletcher Short-form PD-I (Z-7411), located at 25902 Cantrell Road.
17. A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU03-01-03) in the River Mountain
Planning District, located south of County Farm Road near the intersection
with River Valley Marina Road, a change from Single Family and
Park/Open Space to Commercial.
17.1. River Harbor Long-form PCD (Z-7412), located on County Farm Road
east of River Valley Marina Road.
18. An Appeal of a Notice of Violation, located on a tract bounded by I-30,
Childress Road and Baseline Road.
19. An Appeal of a Notice of Violation, located north and east of
David O Dodd Road in the Kenwood Estates Subdivision.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: A 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 to the 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.
STAFF UPDATE: (May 1, 2003)
The applicant has petitioned to defer this item to the June 12, 2003 Planning
Commission Meeting. Staff recommends placing this item on the consent agenda for
deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 1, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 12, 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: (June 12, 2003)
Staff recommends this item to be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. The
applicant has failed to furnish Staff with the required information to complete the review
process. This is the third deferral for the item and customarily after three deferrals a
request is withdrawn.
Staff would recommend the applicant re-file an application at a later date when the
applicant has resolved the outstanding issues associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (June 12, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: A.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.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) 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.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has requested this item be deferred to the June 12, 2003 Public Hearing.
Staff is supportive of the requested deferral.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 1, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the June 12, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the
requested deferral.
The Chairman placed the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. The
applicant has failed to furnish Staff with the required information to complete the review
process. This is the third deferral for the item and customarily after three deferrals a
request is withdrawn.
Staff would recommend the applicant re-file an application at a later date when the
applicant has resolve the outstanding issues associated with the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation that the item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. Staff stated the applicant had failed to
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7365
3
furnish the required information to complete the review process. Staff stated the
deferral was the third requested deferral of the item and per the Planning Commission
By-Laws customarily after three deferrals a request was withdrawn. Staff stated the
item should be withdrawn and re-file at a later date when the applicant has resolved the
outstanding issues associated with the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
NAME: The Ranch Tract G Subdivision Site Plan Review – Stonebridge Apartments
Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On the west side of Chenonceau Boulevard just north of Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Embrey Partners
1100 NE Loop 419 Suite 900
San Antonio, TX 78209
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 15.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF-18 and R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 - Pinnacle
CENSUS TRACT: 42.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Deferral of Master Street Plan requirements to
Patrick Country Road as agreed to in Ordinance No. 16,814 dated December 20, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
On November 29, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a site plan
for the development of a 260-unit apartment complex. The development included
eleven buildings and a clubhouse/office building. The development was never
constructed.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
2
Also approved by the Board of Directors was an Ordinance (Ordinance No. 16,814
dated December 20, 1994) to amend the Master Street Plan and to allow a waiver of the
Subdivision requirements with regard to double frontage lots (S-285-S). The Master
Street Plan amendment included the deferral of the requirement to provide Master
Street Plan improvements on Patrick Country Road. The deferral was approved to
allow the developer to construct the Master Street Plan required widening when one of
the following occurred: 1) any additional development (exclusive of the apartment
development on Tract G) which abuts or takes access to Patrick Country Road at the
southwest corner of the Ranch, Tract G; 2) any development within the Ranch along
Patrick Country Road south of said creek; 3) development of over 50% of the office tract
in The Ranch at the northeast corner of Patrick Country Road and Highway 10; 4)
extension of any street from the Ranch to Patrick Country Road.
January 29, 2001 an application was filed for a 260 unit apartment complex to be
located on this site. The application was withdrawn without prejudice at the March 8,
2001 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing the construction of 260 apartment units on this 15.1
acre site. The design will incorporate a Country French architectural theme.
Custom features include nine (9) foot ceilings, crown moldings, cast stone
fireplaces, plush carpet, computer desks, oval garden tubs and full size
washer/dryer connections. The site is proposed as a limited access with the
placement of gates along Chenonceau Boulevard.
On-site amenities include a community center, which consists of a Leasing
Center, Resident Center and Resort Style Pool. The Leasing Center includes a
dramatic site display and reception area along with the management business
offices. The Residents Center incorporates an elegant business center and
conference room, in addition to a resident social hall with coffee bar, comfortable
seating and entertainment center.
In addition to a full range of resident services, residents will have their choice of
detached, direct access, or two car garages.
The applicant proposes thirteen, two and three story apartment buildings, one
community center complex, five detached garage buildings containing thirty
spaces, one laundry facility and one mail center. The exterior of the buildings are
proposed as wood frame construction with brick, stucco and hardy board plank
siding. The applicant proposes dimensional composition shingles as the roofing
material.
The units are estimated at the following square footages: 72 units at 680 square
feet, 64 units at 750 square feet, 40 units at 1050 square feet, 48 units at 1150
square feet, 12 units each at 1460 square feet, 1250 square feet and 1350
square feet. The units are proposed as one to four bedroom units.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site without a road in place. The existing
Chenonceau Boulevard stops just short of the subject site. The Ranch
Development is located east of the site with a school, a variety of office buildings
and commercial uses. A preliminary plat for a new single-family subdivision was
filed for the area adjacent to the site to the northeast in the summer of 2002. The
area to the south of the site adjacent to Cantrell Road and zoned C-3 is currently
vacant.
A church is located across Patrick Country Road at the intersection with Cantrell
Road. Patrick Country Road is a narrow unimproved roadway with a wooden
bridge located near the southwest corner of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Johnson Ranch, the Maywood Manor and the Aberdeen Court Property
Owners Associations along with all owners of property located within 200 feet of
the proposed site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing, Staff has
not received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Patrick Country Road has been granted a deferral for this project of Boundary
Street improvements for this project. Right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline
has been dedicated by a previous plat.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. Storm water Detention Ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
4. A grading permit is accordance with Section 29-186 (c)& (d) will be required
prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and
drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of
construction.
5. Obtain NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
6. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. Contact Little Rock Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpot) for more information regarding
street light requirements.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
4
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210. The width of the primary
driveway must not exceed 36-feet. The emergency access must be located
as far as practicable from the property line but not less than the entrance
radius (20’).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, capacity contribution analysis required. 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: According to Central Arkansas Water’s records water
service will be available to this property when the proposed 12-inch main is
installed and accepted by Central Arkansas Water. Service is not available at
this time. 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
the meter connection (s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off
the private fire system. Please submit two copies of the plans for the private fire
line to Central Arkansas Water for review. Contact Central Arkansas Water at
992-2438 regarding procedures for installation of private fire lines. 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 system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to
provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752
concerning fire hydrant placement.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on
bus radius, turnout and route.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
5
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: The proposed land use buffer along the northern perimeter falls
short of the forty-two (42) foot average width requirement by 5.3 feet (5,883
square feet). At least seventy (70) percent of this buffer must remain
undisturbed.
In order to receive credit, landscape islands within the interior of the vehicular
use area must be at least 300 square feet in area and 7 ½ feet in width.
A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern
perimeter of the site.
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.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many 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.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 10, 2003)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. Staff introduced the item indicating the application was a multiple
building site plan review for a site zoned MF-18 and a 20-foot strip to the north
zoned R-2, Single-family. Staff stated the R-2 zoned portion would not need to
be rezoned but would not be calculated in the density allowed nor would the
applicant be allowed to place any buildings or parking in the R-2 zoned portion.
Staff stated the northern portion of the site (the R-2 zoned portion) contained
0.467 acres and the MF-18 zoned portion of the site contained 14.6536 acres.
Staff stated the overall density of the development was 17.743 units per acre.
Staff stated the proposed density was consistent with MF-18 zoned property.
Staff questioned if the proposed development was to be gated. Mr. Daters stated
the development was gated and adequate turn-around had been provided. Staff
also questioned the emergency access point located to the north of the site.
Staff stated the driveway did not meet the traffic access and management
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
6
requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Daters stated this gate was to be closed
“most of the time”. Staff requested further clarification of “most of the time”.
Mr. Daters stated he would resolve this with the applicant and respond to staff by
the requested date.
Staff questioned if there would be any playground equipment located on the site.
Mr. Daters stated he was not sure and would contact the applicant and if so
indicate the area on the proposed site plan. Staff also stated if the applicant
would be requesting Certificate of Occupancies as buildings were completed, a
phasing plan was required.
Staff requested the applicant provide the details of any proposed signage
(height/area/location) on the proposed site plan and provide the required
screening of the dumpsters on the site plan. Staff stated any site lighting must
be directional and directed inward away from residentially zoned properties.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant was
previously granted a deferral of boundary street improvements to Patrick Country
Road and Staff would continue to honor this request. Staff requested the
applicant (the Ranch Properties) submit a letter outlining the intentions of
boundary street improvements to avoid any future confusion as to when the road
was to be constructed. Staff also stated the use of Patrick Country Road for
construction of the apartment development was not a good idea since the road
was substandard. Mr. Daters stated the applicant would restore the road upon
the completion of construction of the apartment development.
Staff stated the main driveway should be narrowed to 36-feet. Staff also stated a
grading permit would be required and sidewalks would be required in accordance
with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code. Staff stated the stormwater
detention ordinance would apply to this project. Staff stated the project would
most likely qualify for an in-lieu contribution at the time of a building permit.
Comments from Central Arkansas Water were noted. Staff suggested the
applicant contact the water department for further clarification as to the
requirements stated. Staff also noted the comments from the Little Rock
Wastewater Utility and stated the applicant should contact this agency for
additional information as to their requirements.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the required buffer along
the northern boundary appeared to fall short of the required forty-two foot
average buffer. Staff stated at least seventy percent of the buffer must remain
undisturbed and a six foot high opaque screen would be required along the
northern boundary. Staff also stated the vehicle use area interior landscape
islands must be at least 300 square feet in area and seven and one-half feet in
width to receive credit for fulfilling the landscape ordinance requirements. Staff
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
7
stated the applicant would be allowed a transfer from the front side of the
development (Chenonceau Boulevard) to the rear of the development (Patrick
Country Road).
Staff stated the City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many
trees as feasible on the site and extra credit toward fulfilling the Landscape
Ordinance would be give for tree preservation.
There being no further items for discussion the Committee the 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 proposed site plan meets
the minimal requirements for the Subdivision Division Ordinance; multiple
building site plan review.
The applicant has indicated on the site plan the development will not be phased.
With this statement on the site plan from the developer the “Certificate of
Occupancies” will not be issued on single buildings or groups of buildings as they
are completed but will be held until the entire development is completed and all
buildings are ready for occupancy.
The applicant has also indicated gate locations and required turnarounds. The
applicant has indicated the northern gate to be an emergency access gate and
will only be used in emergency cases. The applicant has also shown the
southern driveway at the required 36-feet as requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a pool courtyard area but has not indicated on the
site plan a playground area. Staff would recommend the placement of
playground equipment (swings, slide, tot play equipment) in the landscaped area
around the pool to ensure children have access to play equipment.
The applicant has also included on the site plan the location of a monument sign.
The sign will be located near the southern drive on the south side of the
driveway. The note for the proposed signage states a six foot tall by twelve foot
long sign identifying the complex or the maximum allowed. Typical ordinance
requirements for signage allowed in multi-family zones would allow for a sign six
feet in height and no more than twenty-four square feet in sign area. Staff would
recommend the sign area conform to sign area allowed in multi-family zones per
the zoning ordinance.
The parking proposed more than exceeds the typical minimal required parking for
a development of this size. The applicant is proposing the total number of on-site
parking spaces including garages to be 530 parking spaces. Typically for 260
apartment units, 390 parking spaces would be required.
The applicant is requesting the previously granted deferral of street
improvements to Patrick Country Road be continued. Staff is supportive of this
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-285-ZZ
8
request. Staff has requested from the applicant a letter confirming plans for road
construction. The previous ordinance outlines the road development proposal
very explicitly and staff feels if the road is developed in the specified manner that
should suffice for any future development.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The applicant has met the minimum requirements of the
Ordinance but additional items that may be considered related to areas
designated for playgrounds and parks. Staff feels the applicant should place a
play area for children in the area of the pool courtyard.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends the applicant install playground equipment in the
pool/courtyard area of the site.
Staff recommends signage be limited to signage allowed in multi-family zones
per the Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 1, 2003)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had requested
the item be deferred to the June 12, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested deferral.
The Chairman placed the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had amended their request
to be able to apply for a building permit as one project but be allowed certificate of
occupancies as the buildings were completed. Staff stated they were supportive of this
request. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested site plan review subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
NAME: Gyst Auto Shine Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 2200 Wright Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Vincent Liddell
8101 Frenchman Lane
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
311 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.49 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Automated carwash and detailing shop.
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Hand use auto carwash and detailing shop.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Gyst House currently operates a car wash/detail shop at the northwest corner of Wright
Avenue and Park Street. The property was rezoned from C-3 to PCD by Ordinance No.
18,077 on August 3, 1999. The car wash had a nonconforming use status prior to the
PCD rezoning.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
2
The original PCD request was to redevelop the site by removing the existing building
and constructing a new 4450 square foot automated car wash building, expanding onto
the R-3 zoned lot immediately north of the existing car wash site. The applicant
proposed to access the site by utilizing a divided driveway from Park Street. There
were nine parking spaces proposed. The applicant proposed the hours of operation to
be from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. The applicant noted that all
work would be done within the enclosed buildings.
Access to the site was to be from Wright Avenue through a single entrance. The
applicant also proposed there was not to be any servicing of vehicles on the street (on-
site only). Along the north property line there was to be a six foot wood fence and a six
foot landscape buffer. The dumpster was to be serviced during daylight hours only.
The applicant was to have a single ground-mounted, monument type sign and
approximately 8 feet by 10 feet in area.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to retain the present use of the site, which is a carwash
and cleaning service for the general public. The applicant proposes to construct
two additional carwash bays on the site; one existing bay will be removed and
reconstructed and one new bay will be added. The applicant proposes a hand
wash carwash facility on the site.
The cars will enter the site and be taken from the customer by a carwash
attendant. The cars will then be moved into the line and vacuumed outside the
building. The cars will then move into one of the carwash bays and be hand
washed. After which the cars will be pulled to the front of the building to be hand
dried.
There are currently eight to ten employees of the business but the applicant
intends to increase that number to ten to fourteen with the proposed addition of
two new wash stalls. The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from
8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday and from 9:00 am through 3:00
pm on Sunday.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted previously, the site is currently being used by Gyst Auto Shine and
Detail as a carwash utilizing a single existing building. The area to the north of
the site is residential uses both single-family and duplex housing. There is a
church located to the south of the site across Wright Avenue and a beauty shop
and grocery store located to the west of the site.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, Staff has not received any comments from area residents. The
Central High Neighborhood Association and the Wright Avenue Neighborhood
Association 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
were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. All previous comment on the proposed development apply: On Wright
Avenue, dedicate right-of-way 30 feet from centerline.
2. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Wright Avenue and Park Street.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. The project would
qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction at the time of the building
permit.
4. Close the driveway on Park Street. All access is to be taken from Wright
Avenue.
5. Driveway locations and width do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Section 30-43 and 31-210. Generally, only a single driveway
apron is allowed with a width not to exceed 36-feet.
6. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
right-of-way prior to occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if larger
and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of the processes
used in this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer assembly will be required on the domestic water service. This device
shall be installed prior to any outlet.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
4
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is located on Bus Route #16 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 Mixed Use for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development for
demolition of an existing car maintenance bay to replace it with two car
maintenance bays.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: A six (6) foot high opaque wooden fence with its face side directed
outward is required along the northern perimeter.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 10, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the application. Staff presented the item
indicating there was a Planned Development previously approved for the site and
the time frame for submission of the final development plan had expired. Staff
stated the applicant was requesting a very similar site plan to the current
operation and not an automated wash system.
Staff noted comments from the previous Public Hearing. Mr. Dana Carney of the
Planning and Development staff stated the request should be reviewed on its
own merits and not from requirements, which were agreed to at the previous
Public Hearing. Commissioner Rector stated the Commission could require the
additional requirements as before to appease the neighbors. Commissioner
Rector stated it was important for the applicant to contact neighbors to get their
“buy-off” of the proposed project.
Staff stated additional items were needed on the proposed site plan. Staff
requested the applicant indicate the days and hours of operation and the number
of employees on the proposed site plan in the General Notes section. Staff also
requested the dumpster location be shown on the site plan along with the
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
5
required screening. Staff stated any additional site lighting must be low level in
intensity and directional, directed away from residentially zoned properties.
Staff requested all on-site parking be shown on the proposed plan. Staff
questioned if any of the new facilities would be automated car washing facilities.
The applicant stated the site was all hand wash.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the driveway on Park
Street should be removed. The applicant stated the driveway on Park Street was
critical to the flow of traffic onto and from the site. The applicant stated cars
entered the site from the drive on Park Street were taken by an attendant and
driven into the carwash bay, washed and moved to the drying area and then
returned to the customer to exit from the Park Street driveway. The applicant
stated the Wright Avenue drives were less used and primarily by patrons entering
the site from the west. Staff stated, since the drives were existing, the applicant
could maintain all the existing drives on Park Street and on Wright Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant would be
required to place a six-foot wood fence with its face side directed outward along
the northern property line.
Staff noted comments from all other agencies and suggested the applicant
contact these agencies for further clarification.
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
requested the screening fence be joined to the rear of the building and extend
outward to screen the parking areas. The request would allow the rear of the
building to act as the screening fence for the remainder of the site. Staff is
supportive of this request. This will allow for no activity to take place on the
northern portion of the site and in reality the 50-foot lot north of the building will
act as a buffer to the single-family residents to the north.
The revised plan indicated dedication of right-of-way for Wright Avenue and a
20-foot radial dedication at the intersection of Wright Avenue and Park Street.
The applicant has indicated traffic entering and leaving the site from Park Street.
Once the cars enter the site they are taken over by an attendant and routed
through the car washing process. Staff feels since the curb cut is existing and
the site has been functioning with ingress and egress in this manner the curb cut
may continue to exist.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
6
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 9:00 am to 3:00 pm on Sundays. Staff
feels these hours are conducive to the hours of operation of area businesses and
should have minimal adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The
applicant estimates the number of employees to be from ten to twelve maximum.
Staff feels with the hand washing activity the proposed number of employees
would be required to allow the process to proceed in a timely manner. Staff also
feels the number of employees would not adversely affect the site.
The applicant has not indicated the servicing of the dumpster. Staff feels the
dumpster should be serviced during day light hours only to minimize the negative
impact on neighboring residents.
The ordinance would typically require 22 parking spaces for an automotive
service type use of this size. The proposed site plan indicates nine (9) off-street
parking spaces. Based on the fact that the applicant is proposing extending the
current use of the site and the cars are lined-up to enter the washing stalls the
proposed parking should adequately address the parking requirements for this
development.
There is not any signage proposed as a part of this development. Staff
recommends any future signage be limited to signage allowable in commercial
zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff feels the redevelopment of this site should prove to be a positive aspect for
this general area and should have no adverse effect on the surrounding
properties.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends the dumpster be serviced during daylight hours only.
Staff recommends any signage comply with signage allowable in commercial
zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 1, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Commission’s By-laws.
Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the June 12, 2003
Public Hearing.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6639-A
7
There was no further discussion of the item. The chairman placed the item for inclusion
of the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the requested 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 requested revision to the existing PCD subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S- 91-C
NAME: Hillside Village Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: On the southeast corner of University Avenue and “O” Street
DEVELOPER:
Birch-Brooks, Inc.
1501 North University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White-Daters Engineers
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 5.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 – Heights/Hillcrest
CENSUS TRACT: 16
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 5.8 acre tract into two (2) non-
residential lots. The existing office building (9-stories with 107,892 square feet)
will remain on Lot 1-A-R and Lot 1-B-R will be used to develop a new office
project. The property is currently zoned O-3, General Office. Lot 1-A-R will
retain 418 parking spaces. Currently there are 113 parking spaces on Lot 1-B-R.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 91-C
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a developed site containing a nine (9) story office building with the
remainder in hard surface parking. Uses in the area include a mix of single-
family and multi-family as well as office uses. To the south of the proposed
development is the Forest Place apartment development. Also there is a
condominium development located south of the proposed site backing up to
University Avenue. There is an approved PCD located near the site but appears
to currently be functioning as a residential use.
Uses located to the east of the site include office uses and additional
condominium housing across Pierce Street. Single-family homes are located to
the north of the site and across University Avenue to the west.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property abutting the proposed site along with the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association, the Forest Park Neighborhood Association and the
Evergreen Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Property frontage on University Avenue, “O” Street and Pierce Street needs
to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standard.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Public sewer service not available for Lot 1-B-R. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Easement required along University Avenue, the south property line of Lot 1-
B-R and the south property line of Lot 1-A-R and the service easement extending to
the east. Contact SBC (Charles McDonald) at 373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: A 15-foot-wide utility easement will be required from the
existing utility easement paralleling the east side of Forest Place (service easement)
to Lot 1-B-R to allow for future water service to this parcel. All Central Arkansas
Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 91-C
3
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the applicant. Staff introduced the item
noting there were additional items necessary on the proposed preliminary plat.
Staff requested the applicant indicate the service easement to include all the
area adjacent to the lot line of Lot 1-B-R. Staff also requested the applicant
indicate the name and address of the owner on the proposed preliminary plat.
Staff stated the zoning classifications within the plat boundary and of abutting
properties should be include on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff noted the
parking remaining on Lot 1-A-R should be sufficient to meet the typical minimum
parking demand for an office use depending on the size of the building.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the property frontage
along University Avenue be brought up to current ADA standard.
Staff noted comments from all other reporting agencies. Staff suggested the
applicant contact each agency for clarification on specific issue.
There were no additional comments for discussion. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised by staff at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has included the zoning classification of the abutting properties as well
as the zoning classification within the plat boundary. The applicant has also
included the entirety of the access drive to the north and east of Lot 1-B-R as a
utility and access easement as requested by staff.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 91-C
4
The proposed preliminary plat conforms to the minimum standards for an office
subdivision as set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance. The building line along
University Avenue will conform to zoning setbacks for O-3 zoned property as
required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing tract of land into two (2) non-
residential lots both of which are zoned O-3, General Office and has indicated a
new office building will be constructed. The applicant is not proposing a cross
access parking agreement. There are 418 parking spaces contained on the
proposed Lot 1-A-R and the office building has 107,892 square feet of space.
The typical minimum parking required for a building of this square footage would
be 215 parking spaces. The proposed parking allocated to the existing office
building is sufficient to support the 107,892 square feet.
The applicant is proposing the construction of an office building on Lot 1-B-R.
The proposed lot currently contains 113 parking spaces. The remaining parking
located on the site, after construction of the new office building, will dictate the
square footage building allowed.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed preliminary plat should have minimal
to no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the proposed
application. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the request met the
minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to an office
subdivision. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request as filed
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the
above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
NAME: Chenal Valley Phase XXVIII and XXIX Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: North of LaMarche Drive, west of Rahling Road, east of Chenal Parkway
and south of Valley Falls Estates
DEVELOPER:
Deltic Timber Corporation
#7 Chenal Club Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 136.81 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 201 FT. NEW STREET: 15,600
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal Planning District
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A waiver of the Master Street Plan requirement to place sidewalks within the
subdivision and to allow an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
2. 20 mph and 150-foot SSD design for Flastone Lane and Flastone Drive.
3. Intersection street grade at Abbotsbury Court and Fernhurst Court.
BACKGROUND:
The Commission reviewed this request at their August 23, 2001 Public Hearing. The
applicant proposed to subdivision this 136.81 acre tract into 205 single-family residential
lots. The applicant proposed construction of 15,600 linear feet of new street to serve
the subdivision. The applicant proposed to final plat the subdivision in two phases.
Phase I was to include Blocks 118-120 and Phase II was to include Blocks 121-124.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
2
There were three additional items concerning the area at the August 23, 2001 Public
Hearing. The applicant requested a Master Street Plan Amendment, a Land Use Plan
amendment and a rezoning request.
The Master Street Plan at the time indicated a Minor Arterial running east-west through
the property. The abandonment of the Minor Arterial was approved by the Commission
at the August 23, 2001 Public Hearing.
A small portion of this property was zoned MF-6 and was shown as Low Density
Residential on the Land Use Plan. The applicant requested the site be down zoned to
R-2 and the Land Use Plan be amended to Single Family. These two request were also
approved by the Commission at their August 23, 2001 Public Hearing.
At the time of the proposal the applicant requested three variances for the proposed
subdivision. The first was a variance to allow an alternative pedestrian circulation
system. The proposed plat indicated a series of all-weather pedestrian trails in lieu of
sidewalks along the public streets. The applicant withdrew their request prior to the
Public Hearing.
The second variance was to allow a 20 mile-per-hour design standard and a 150 foot
stopping sight distance for a portion of Falstone Drive (near Lots 56-58, Block 121) and
a portion of Falstone Lane (near Lots 43-44, Block 121). The Ordinance requires a
minimum 25 mph design standard and a minimum 200 foot stopping sight distance for
residential streets. This variance request was also withdrawn by the applicant prior to
the August 23, 2001 Public Hearing. Public Works has reviewed the current request
and has approved the applicant to begin construction of the streets in the subdivision,
based on the previously approved preliminary plat, with reduced design standards.
The final requested variance was to allow two (2) streets with an increased intersection
street grade. The applicant proposed Abbotsbury Court (at Abington Lane) and
Fernhurst Court (at Falstone Lane) with a 10 percent street grade. The maximum grade
allowed by ordinance is five (5) percent. This request was supported by Public Works
and approved by the Planning Commission with the previous proposal at the August 23,
2001 Public Hearing.
Per the Subdivision Ordinance, a preliminary plat approved by the Planning
Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for one (1) year from
the date of approval or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time
the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning
staff. The applicant has indicated through correspondence with staff that work has been
progressing and the applicant has been working to final plat the development. The
water and wastewater lines have been installed and the streets for the first phase are
currently under construction. Staff feels the applicant has an approved preliminary plat
and the request is only for modifications to the previously approved plat.
A. PROPOSAL:
The current proposal includes the alternative pedestrian circulation system and
the request to allow a 20 miles-per-hour design standard at a 150 foot stopping
sight distance for a portion of Falstone Drive (near lots 56-58, Block 121) and a
portion of Falstone Lane (near Lots 43-44, Block 121). The two (2) issues
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
3
related to the street request have been previously approved. The requested
waiver is to continue the development of the streets based on the design agreed
to by the applicant and staff.
The waiver request before the Commission is the consideration of the all weather
trail system in lieu of sidewalks to serve the subdivision. The trail system will be
constructed of asphalt materials to allow the areas to be ADA compliant.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is undeveloped and wooded with varying degrees of slope. The Valley
Falls Estates Subdivision is located to the north. There is undeveloped property
to the east, west and south. The LaMarche Place single family residential
subdivision is located to the southwest.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from the
Margeaux Place Property Owners Association. All abutting property owners and
the Johnson Ranch and the Margeaux Place Property Owners Associations were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. This proposal is to substitute pedestrian trails for street-side sidewalks.
2. Identify the specific locations and grades requested for variances.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, if service
is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Installation of water facilities will be required in order to
provide adequate fire protection and water service to this property. All Central
Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
4
be met. Requirements for this development have been taken into consideration
when installing the existing infrastructure in this area. 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: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application. Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat stating the plat
was previously reviewed and approved by the Commission. Staff stated the
request before the commission was the consideration of all weather trails to
service as an alternative pedestrian circulation system. Staff noted that a small
amount of additional information needed to be shown on the plat drawing. In
response to a question from staff, Mr. White noted that the development would
not be gated and the streets would be public.
There was a general discussion concerning the all weather trails and the lack of
connectivity of the residents located to the north to the trail system. Staff stated
they were supportive of the request to allow trails as an alternative to sidewalks
but requested all residents have access to the trail system without having to
travel in the city streets. Mr. White stated he would consider adding additional
cut-through to allow the residents to the north and south access to the trail
system.
The requested variance for the street design standard and stopping distance was
discussed. Public Works commented additional information would be required
before a determination could be made with regard to support for the request. Mr.
White stated the streets were under construction. He stated the street design
was based on an agreement made with Public Works staff and the developer.
Mr. White stated two variances related to street issues had been resolved to his
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
5
knowledge and the only item before the Commission was the allowance of the
alternative trail/sidewalk issue.
The comments from the various other agencies and departments were noted.
Staff suggested the applicant contact these individually if there any specific
question.
There were no additional comments for discussion. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing to staff on August 28,
2003. The additional information as requested by staff at the May 22, 2003
Subdivision Committee meeting has been shown on the plat. The applicant has
noted the construction material of the all weather trail system. The trails will be
constructed of asphalt to allow the trails to be ADA compliant with the exception
of a few locations where the grade will not allow compliance.
The applicant has also indicated connectivity of the northern areas to the trail
system by allowing easements along additional lot lines as proposed for the
southern connection. Staff feels this is a better solution than previously
submitted. The current proposal allows most residents access to the trails
without walking in the city streets to access the system.
The applicant has also indicated access to the city park located west of this site
will be accomplished from an extension of Chenal Valley Drive. The desire of the
developer is to allow trails in the area, which would allow residents to access the
system and travel to and from the city park and other neighborhoods.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed preliminary plat. The lot configuration and street design is very much
similar to the previously approved preliminary plat. The exception is the
allowance of all weather trails to act as an alternative pedestrian circulation
system. This development is somewhat similar to the development pattern in the
area and should have minimal to no adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the Master Street Plan
requirement to install sidewalks within the subdivision and to allow all weather
trails as an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 867-XXXX
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
requested preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested waiver of the Master
Street Plan requirement to install sidewalks within the subdivision and to allow all
weather trails as an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
NAME: The Cedars at Wellington Lake – Tract E, The Villages of Wellington
Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: North of Wellington Hills Road just west of the intersection with
Wellington Village Road
DEVELOPER:
The Nelson Company
8 Phellos Court
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 7.48 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF-18, Multi-family 18 Units per Acre
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 – Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow an increased fence height adjacent to Wellington Village
Road (6-foot brick and wrought iron).
2. A waiver of the screening requirement along the eastern perimeter.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to develop six (6) buildings with 128 units of multi-
family housing on this 7.48 acre tract of land (17.11 units per acre). The
development will be an upscale development with covered parking along
the apartment buildings and a privacy gate at the east end of the project.
A secondary gate will be added to the site for emergency access only.
The applicant proposes the placement of a six foot brick and wrought iron
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
2
fence along the street side of the development. The fence will not be
extended along the remaining property lines.
The project looks out over an existing lake within the Wellington
development. The lake provides regional stronwater detention for the
area. The main entrance is located by the clubhouse and pool facility and
contains a mail kiosk for the residents.
The clubhouse is proposed as approximately 1040 square feet with a pool
and gazebo. The gazebo extends out over the water allowing access to
the water for residents. A maintenance building is proposed in the
northwest corner of the project. This building will be used to store
maintenance equipment and provide wash facilities for maintenance
employees.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tract of land sloping from the north to the south and to
the east. The regional detention facility is located on the southeast corner
of the site.
The area to the south of the site has developed as a POD with mini-
warehouse units and an office for a communications company is also
located to the south. The area to the north is vacant and zoned MF-6.
The area to the northeast has been preliminary platted with single-family
residential lots only a portion of which have developed. The area to the
west is also vacant.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The St. Charles Property Owners Association along with all owners of
property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public
Hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area
residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in
the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. Contact or modify median
breaks as indicated.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
3
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction.
3. Entrance lane at the main gate should be 18-feet wide.
4. The manual gate for maintenance vehicles needs to be set back away
from the right-of-way line at least one truck length plus length needed
for gate swing to prevent blocking of sidewalk and travel lanes when
entering and exiting through the gate.
5. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as
required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances.
Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more
information regarding street light requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer is available to the site. A Capacity Contribution
Analysis is required. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414
for additional details.
Entergy: A 25-foot easement along the east and west property lines is
required. Contact Entergy at 954-5165 for additional details.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: A 10 foot utility easement is required around the perimeter of the
property. Contact SBC (Charles McDonald) at 373-5112 for additional
details.
Central Arkansas Water: On-site fire protection will be required. The Little
Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine required fire
hydrant locations. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections
off the private fire system. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect
at the time of the request for water service must be met. 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 additional details.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
4
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: A portion of the proposed street buffer along Wellington Hills
Drive drops below the minimum seventeen (17) foot width allowed by
ordinance. The full width, without transfers, being thirty-four (34) feet.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along
the eastern perimeter of the site. However, this screen may be deemed in
appropriate because of the adjacent lake.
Utility easements cannot count as part of the eastern land use buffer area.
Utility easements are not shown on the plan submitted.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas from
vehicular traffic.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing
the application. Staff briefly introduced the item noting there were
additions needed to be shown on the proposed site plan. Staff requested
Mr. White indicated greens spaces on the site plan along with any
playground equipment and play areas for children. Staff also requested
the bedroom mix proposed within the development. Mr. White stated the
development would be one and two bedroom units. He stated the intent
was to not have playground areas on the site. He stated he would check
with his client before making the final determination.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
5
Staff questioned the covered parking. Mr. White stated the covered
parking would not be enclosed and would most likely be a flat roof. Staff
stated the buildings would require a setback from the side and rear
property line equal to the building height. Mr. White stated he would verify
the setbacks to determine if any variance were needed.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant
remove the western most gate or make the gate an emergency exit only.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to submit grading plans for
review prior to the start of construction. Staff noted the entrance and exit
lanes should be 18-feet wide.
Comments concerning landscaping were addressed. Staff stated the
eastern property line would require screening. There was a general
discussion concerning the screening along the eastern property line. Staff
noted easement from Entergy had been requested in this area and the
easement could not count in the buffer requirement. Staff stated if shrubs
were used for screening the mature height required was six (6) feet. Staff
stated the street buffer along Wellington Hills Drive dropped below the
required seventeen (17) foot minimum. Mr. White stated would correct
this deficiency.
There were no additional comments 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 at the Subdivision Committee meeting held May 22, 2003.
The applicant has indicated the fence along Wellington Village Road will
be a six foot brick and wrought iron fence. The columns will be on 40-foot
spacing. The applicant has also indicated the buildings will be 35-feet in
height and the setbacks proposed are more than sufficient to meet the
typical minimum setbacks for MF-18 zoned property.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 192 parking spaces on the
site. 128 spaces will be covered spaces and 64 spaces will be non-
covered. The covered spaces will be covered with wood frame and
shingles or canvas on steel frames. The typical minimum parking
requirement for a development of this size would be 192 parking spaces.
The proposed parking should be sufficient to meet the demand.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
6
The applicant has indicated the maximum building coverage is 47,200
square feet or 14.5 percent. The applicant has also indicated all site
lighting will be of a low level intensity and directional directed away from
residentially zoned properties.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the screening requirement along
the eastern perimeter. The applicant has stated the development intends
to take full advantage of the lake located on the eastern boundary of the
site and if a fence, wall or dense evergreen plantings is installed this will
take away from the amenities of the lake. Staff is supportive of the
request to allow the applicant not to screen along the eastern perimeter.
The site is proposed as a gated community. The applicant has increased
the gate widths as requested by Public Works to allow two travel lanes
into the site. The applicant has also indicated a secondary emergency
access to the site. The gates have been located into the site to allow for
trucks to pull off the road while opening the gates but the sidewalks will be
blocked. Staff supports this arrangement since the gates will only be used
in the event of an emergency and will not be used on a daily basis.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a single ground mounted sign
located near the entrance. The signage will comply with signage
allowable in multi-family zones or a maximum of 6 feet in height and 24
square feet in sign area. Staff is supportive of the requested signage.
The applicant is proposing a bedroom mix of one and two bedroom units.
There are 40 one bedroom units or 31 percent of the units and 88 two
bedroom units or 69 percent of the units. The one bedroom units will
contain 770 square feet and the two bedroom units will contain 1040
square feet.
The proposed development is a multiple building site plan review to allow
six buildings of multi-family units on this MF-18 zoned property. The
proposal includes 128 units or 17.11 units per acre. The proposed density
is allowable under the current zoning. The developer has also met the
setback requirements per the Zoning Ordinance for MF-18 zoned
property.
Staff is supportive of the two requested waivers and/or variances. The
increased fence height along Wellington Hills Road should have minimal
impact. The fence will be a wrought iron fence and will be “see through”
thus allowing light and air into the development. Also the fence will not
extend around the entire development only along the street side and for a
relatively short distance along the east and west property lines. The
development is not trying to project a secluded image just a secure image.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1042-W
7
The waiver of the screening requirement along the eastern property line
staff also supports. The applicant intends to take full advantage of the
lake located on the eastern property line and with the placement of
screening this would block the view of more than a few residents. Staff
feels with the lake the screening is inappropriate.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed development should have
minimal to no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the applicant not to
screen along the eastern perimeter.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an
increased fence height along Wellington Village Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
proposed 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 as filed
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the above report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request to allow the
applicant to not screen along the eastern perimeter and the requested variance
to allow an increased fence height along Wellington Village Road.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the
consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
NAME: Weston Square Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: On the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Parkway Place
DEVELOPER:
The Ashley Company
2851 Lakewood Village Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72116
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 12.393 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 – Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.10
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposed a multiple building site plan review for this 12 acre site at
Parkway Place and Chenal Parkway. The site is zoned C-3, General
Commercial District and construction is currently underway for the Kohl’s
Department Store. The owners desire to construct additional retail space on the
site in three (3) additional buildings.
The proposed structures will be free standing buildings not attached to the Kohl’s
store and be located on the east and north west portions of the site as shown on
the accompanying site plan. The proposed additional buildings will take access
from the existing points of ingress and egress already approved of the Kohl’s
development.
The building located adjacent to Oak Meadow Drive contains approximately
12,210 square feet of gross floor area. There are two buildings proposed
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
2
adjacent to Parkway Place Drive. One building will contain approximately 6,000
square feet the second will contain 4,600 square feet. Including the Kohl’s
building there is proposed 111,058 square feet of gross floor area proposed and
623 parking spaces.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is under construction for the Kohl’s Department Store with the rear wall
of the building currently being installed. The site has been clear with the
exception of the northwest corner, which has a few trees remaining. Across Oak
Meadow Drive is a vacant somewhat flat O-3 zoned piece of property. Adjoining
this site is a carwash and a convenience store located on the northeast and
southeast corners abutting Parkway Place Drive.
The area east of the site (across Parkway Place Drive) are office type uses and
to the south of the site is a large church. The City of Little Rock Fire Station #20
is located across Oak Meadow Drive to the southwest and the Parkway Place
Homeowners Association pool and park is located adjacent to the Fire Station
accessed by Gamble Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The St. Charles Property Owners Association, the Parkway Place Property
Owners Association and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Association, along with all owners of property located within 200-
feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing, staff has
received informational request from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Comments concerning boundary street improvements made with the previous
Kohl’s site plan review apply to this project.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. The driveways at Lots B and C creates an intersection with too many conflict
points. Contact Bill Henry at (501) 379-1816 regarding alternative
configurations.
4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Verify previous
drainage calculations and design to address the out parcel areas, or revise as
needed.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
3
Entergy: Provide dedicated easements for Entergy around the perimeter of the site.
Contact Entergy at 954-5151 for additional details.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluated this
site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) are required,
they will be installed at the Developer’s expense. All Central Arkansas Water
requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. This
development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed
water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: No comment received.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Portions of the proposed street buffers along Parkway Place Drive
and along Oak Meadow Drive drop below the twenty-five (25) foot minimum
width allowed. The full width requirements without transfers being fifty (50) feet.
Additionally, the fifty (50) foot width average has not been met.
Interior landscaping islands must be at least 300 square feet in area and at least
seven and one-half (7 ½) feet in width to count toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance interior requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicant. Staff introduced the
item to the Subdivision Committee members and indicated there were a few
additional items needed to be shown on the proposed site plan. In response to a
question of staff Mr. Riggins stated the driveway location had been set by Public
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
4
Works and the developer was working to install the drive at the requested
location. Public Works staff noted if the drive was moved to the north or south
this would cause additional conflict between the adjoining properties. Staff noted
there was not a good location for the drive and the drive had been placed in the
best location possible.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated boundary street
improvement comments made previously during the building permit review
process for the Kohl’s Department Store would apply to this proposal as well.
Staff stated the driveways at “Lots B and C” created an intersection with too
many conflicting points. Staff stated the drives from the two buildings along
Parkway Place should exit into the parking lot of Kohl’s and not on the entrance
drive from Parkway Place. Staff requested the applicant configure the parking lot
lanes in this area and close off two of the drive lanes, which would help to
eliminate some of the conflicts. Mr. Riggins noted the changes would be
considered.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated portions of the
landscaping dropped below the allowed minimums. Staff requested the applicant
revise the plan to include at least a twenty-five foot minimum width. Staff also
stated all interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet in area to
count toward fulfilling the Landscape Ordinance requirements.
There were no additional comments 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 on May 28, 2003 addressing most
of the issues raised by Staff at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee
meeting. The applicant has removed the term Lots from the site plan.
The request is for a multiple building site plan review. The applicant proposes
the placement of four (4) buildings containing 111,058 square feet of commercial
space. There are 623 parking spaces proposed within the development. The
typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 493
parking spaces.
The building sites have been arranged to somewhat appear to stand alone. The
applicant is not proposing the subdivision of these areas into lots but staff feels
this could become a request in the future. Based on one space per two hundred
and twenty-five square feet of gross floor area the buildings site would have
sufficient parking to meet the typical minimal parking demand.
Building A contains seventy-one parking spaces and 12,210 square feet of gross
floor area and 71 parking spaces. The typical minimum parking requirement
would be 54 parking spaces. Building B contains 6000 square feet of gross floor
area and 30 parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for Building
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
5
B would be 26 parking spaces. Building C contains 4600 square feet of gross
floor area and 23 parking spaces with 20 parking spaces being the typical
minimum parking required. Should a restaurant locate in one of the buildings
parking would then become a concern of staff since the typical minimum parking
requirement for a restaurant facility is based on one space per one hundred
square feet of gross floor area.
The applicant is proposing six (6) foot side yard setbacks adjacent to Lot 2 Tract
A Parkway II Commercial Subdivision and a three point two (3.2) side yard
setback adjacent to Lot 3 Tract A Parkway Place Plat C-117. Per the Zoning
Ordinance for C-3 zoned property no side yard setback is required.
The applicant has indicated the rear of the Building A will be constructed of
masonry and will not have any additional openings than those required by fire
code. The building height will be a maximum of 26 feet and most buildings will
be at 19-feet 8-inches in height.
Landscaping comments have been addressed. The applicant has increased the
landscaped area on the east side of the lot from 6.7 feet to 9 feet as required by
staff.
The applicant has worked with Traffic Engineering to resolve some of the
conflicts at the entrance intersection from Parkway Place Drive. The applicant
will place a series of stop signs and has move one entrance/exit from the service
drive to the parking lot.
To staff ‘s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The request is for a multiple building site plan review; a
technical review and the applicant has complied with all the minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the application.
There were objectors present. Staff presented the item and stated the applicant had
met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to site plan
review. Staff presented a recommendation approval of the request as filed subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the Staff Report.
Mr. Brian Gibson spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he was a
member of the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee and the
action plan supported by the Commission four years ago was to limit commercial
activities in the area. He stated his concern was for the increased traffic in the area and
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1271-A
6
the lack of data concerning the impact of the Kohl’s store. He stated the request was
premature. He stated the approval should be given only after the Kohl’s store had
opened and the effect of the traffic in the area had been determined.
Mr. Michael Bell spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concern was for the increased traffic and the lack of sidewalks. He stated with the
increased commercial density in the area the amount of cut-through traffic would also
increase.
Mr. James Quickel spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated the
amount of traffic in the neighborhood would increase. He stated motorist leaving the
store would travel through the neighborhood to get to Parkway Place to cross over and
continue to travel west on Chenal Parkway. He questioned if a traffic light was
warranted at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Parkway Place. Staff stated they
were not 100% sure but they did not believe a light was warranted at the intersection.
Mr. Quickel stated he was also concerned with the removal of the trees in the median
for a park. There was a discussion between the Commission and Staff concerning the
tree cutting. Staff stated Kohl’s was paying for the removal of the trees in the median.
Staff stated this area was shown on the Parks Master Plan as a part of the trails system.
Mr. David Raley spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concerns were traffic on Loyola and Pride Valley. He stated he was also concerned
with the tree clearing for the proposed park. He stated the clearing appeared to only
give a better view of the Kohl’s store and not a park as the project was being presented.
There was a general discussion concerning the need for a traffic signal at the
intersection of Parkway Place and Chenal Parkway. Staff stated when a traffic light was
warranted then one would be installed. They stated at this time they did not think one
was warranted. The applicant was asked if they would commit to funds for a traffic
signal when one was warranted. Mr. Riggins stated there would be no way to attribute
the traffic and the need for a traffic light to the Kohl’s store.
The Commissioner stated they were sympathetic to the neighborhoods concerns but
based on the request the Commission had no choice but to approve the proposal. The
Commission stated the applicant had met the minimum requirements put before them
under the ordinance. The Commission stated the neighborhood should begin to think
longitudinally and change the ordinances to place additional requirements on
applicants.
A motion was made to approve the item as filed. The motion carried by a vote of
9 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S- 1384
NAME: Lot 2 Geneva Industrial Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 6524 Geyer Springs Road
DEVELOPER:
B & R Rentals
6524 Geyer Springs Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 3.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Industrial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 13 – 65th Street East
CENSUS TRACT: 20.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A reduced rear yard setback.
A. PROPOSAL:
The site contains an existing office/warehouse and the applicant propose the
placement of four (4) buildings totaling 30,000 square feet of mini-warehouse on
the rear of the lot. The developer will allow the rear of the eastern most building
to act as screening. The remainder of the site will be fenced with an eight (8)
foot chain link fence.
The drive from the existing development will be extended to service this area and
the applicant proposes the placement of concrete to serve as drives between the
buildings.
The development will be constructed in three phases. With the office and 7,900
square feet of mini-warehouse being constructed in the first phase. In the
second phase 6,900 square feet of mini-warehouse will be added and the third
and final phase will add two rows of buildings and 15,200 square feet of mini-
warehouse.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1384
2
The applicant is proposing the western most building to be located ten (10) feet
from the rear property line. This will require a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a reduced rear yard setback from the typical 25-foot rear yard
setback.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing office/warehouse building with a loading dock
located on the south side of the building. The rear of the lot is vacant and grass
covered with a large detention pond located near the end of the existing drive.
Other uses in the area include office/warehouse activities along Geyer Springs
and 65th Street. Located west of the site is a large mini-warehouse development
accessed from 65th Street. The Sear Service Center is located to the south of
the site. The area is primarily zoned I-2 and/or C-3, General Commercial with
the exception of areas, which have not been rezoned and are functioning as non-
conforming uses located along 65th Street and Geyer Springs Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest United for Progress, the Geyer Springs Neighborhood Association
and the Wakefield Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing
along with 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:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
4. Show the current right-of-way width and locations on the plan. A minimum
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1384
3
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee
will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private
fire system. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private hydrant(s) are required; they will
be installed at the Developer’s expense. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in
effect at the time of request for water service must be met. This development will
have minor impact on 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: Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for details
concerning turning radius around buildings. Place fire hydrants per code.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Areas set-aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide a landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant. Staff briefly described
the proposed project indicating to Mr. McGetrick there were additional items
needed to be shown on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the dumpster was
shown in an easement and requested Mr. McGetrick relocate the dumpster to the
north outside the easement.
Staff also requested Mr. McGetrick indicate on the site plan the proposed fencing
material and height. Staff questioned how customers would enter the site and if
there would be a keypad where the key pad would be located. Staff questioned
if the facility would have 24-hour access and the type security that would be used
for the site.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1384
4
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant would be
required to repair any broken curb and gutter or sidewalks prior to occupancy.
Staff also stated stormwater detention did apply to the project and the applicant
had not located the detention facility on the proposed site plan. Staff requested
Mr. McGetrick indicate the location for review.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated irrigation would be
required for the site. Staff also stated the areas set aside for buffers and
landscaping appeared to meet with ordinance requirements.
Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and requested Mr. McGetrick
contact them directly concerning the turning radius around the buildings for the
development.
There were no additional comments 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 concerns
raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting on May 22, 2003. The
applicant has worked with the Fire Department to resolve the issue of turning
radius around the buildings and has located the detention facility on the site plan.
The applicant has also indicated the fencing will be chain link eight feet in height.
This request complies with the fencing height allowable on industrially zoned
property.
The applicant has indicated the site will have 24-hour access but will not have an
on-site manager until fully developed. The normal hours of operation will be from
7:00 am to 7:00 pm daily. The applicant has stated the gate will be electronically
monitored through the entrance codes to determine persons accessing the site at
any given time.
The applicant has indicated compliance with the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance. The applicant has stated water will be collected and piped to
underground detention.
The proposed request is a multiple building site plan review to add four (4)
buildings to the site. The applicant is requested a reduced rear yard setback.
The request is to allow a ten (10) foot setback. The typical setback per the
Zoning Ordinance is 25-feet. The request to allow a reduced rear yard setback
should have no impact on the area. The remainder of the building placement
complies with normal building setbacks per the Zoning Ordinance for industrially
zoned property and the applicant has met all the other technical requirements of
the ordinance.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1384
5
Staff feels the proposed development should have minimal to no adverse impact
on the area since the use is consistent with development in the area. The area is
primarily used for non-residential uses and industrial activities. The applicant
proposes the placement of the units on the rear of the existing lot and mini-
warehouse is a by-right use on I-2 zoned property. There are mini-warehouse
units located to the west of this site and a large warehouse building located to the
south.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application. There were no objectors present. Staff stated they had received one letter
of opposition of the proposed development. Staff stated to their knowledge there were
no outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff presented a recommendation
of approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the requested reduced rear yard
setback variance request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S- 1385
NAME: Callaghan Creek Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: North of Raines Road near the intersection with Sullivan Road
DEVELOPER:
M. Mellor Incorporated
10001 Mabelvale Pike
Mabelvale, AR 72103
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburger Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 38.8 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 22 FT. NEW STREET: 1850
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 – Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan requirements to Raines Road (1/2
street construction requirement).
2. A waiver of Master Street Plan requirements for the internal streets (to maintain
internal streets as private streets).
3. A waiver of Master Street Plan requirements for the internal sidewalk placement and
to allow walking trails as an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
4. A variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 12, 13 and 20.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 38 acre tract into 22 one-acre home
site, walking trails around a five acre lake and twelve acres of woodlands in a
private gated community. The development is requesting a waiver of Master
Street Plan requirements to allow the subdivision to develop with private streets
and walking trails as an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
2
The development is proposed as a fenced, private gated community with under
ground utilities and a private wastewater collection and treatment facility. The
applicant is proposing a Step System in which each unit will have a septic tank
where the solids are contained and the liquids are drained through lines to be
collected into a second holding tank to be treated and later be discharged into
the Callaghan Creek. (The site is located outside the city limits therefore
connection to the Little Rock Wastewater Utility system is not an option without
annexation.)
There are four waivers and variances being requested as a part of the
development. The applicant is requesting a waiver of Master Street Plan
requirements to Raines Road. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the
Master Street Plan requirements for the internal streets. As stated the streets will
be maintained as private streets and will be constructed to City standard with the
exception of sidewalks. The applicant has indicted the desired effect is that of a
rural setting.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow three of the 22 lots to develop at a
greater lot depth to width ratio than is allowed under the Subdivision Ordinance
and a variance to allow lots to development without public street frontage (private
streets will serve the development).
The City’s Master Street Plan also indicates a Collector street located on the
applicant’s western property line. Staff has reviewed the Master Street Plan and
has determined due to the development pattern in the area a Collector in not
needed in this location. Staff is requesting the Commission review the
abandonment of the Collector street from the Master Street Plan as apart of this
application.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant; tree covered and gently sloping from the west and north to the
east and south. The area is primarily single family in both stick built and
manufactured homes. The area to the south is a non-conforming non-residential
uses at one time used as a salvage yard.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest United for Progress, the Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association and
the Otter Creek Homeowners Association along with all abutting property owners
were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing, staff has not received any
comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Raines 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.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
3
2. There is an un-named collector street shown on the Master Street Plan that
runs along the western boundary of the proposed subdivision. A dedication of
right-of-way 30-feet from the property boundary will be required.
3. Provide design of boundary streets conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
4. A sidewalk is required on one side of Lake Lucca Road to the intersection of
Lake Luccea Court.
5. Obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
6. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District
of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
7. The proposed alteration of the floodway will require flood map revisions.
Obtain conditional approval from Pulaski County and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency prior to start of construction.
8. This typical section does not meet Master Street Plan cross section
requirements. The typical residential section is 26-feet wide from back of
curb to back of curb.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Installation of water facilities will be required in order to
provide adequate fire protection and water service to this property. All Central
Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must
be met. This development will have minor impact on 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: No comment received.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
4
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Mike Watson of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the
application. Staff briefly described the proposal indicating the site was located
outside the city limits but in the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Staff
stated the applicant was proposing the placement of a private wastewater
collection and treatment facility on the site. Staff requested the applicant provide
additional information concerning the wastewater collection and treatment facility.
Staff stated there were a number of waivers and variances being requested for
the proposed development. Staff stated the applicant was requesting waivers for
Master Street Plan requirements and lot development standards. There was a
discussion concerning the proposed Collector street located on the western
property line to extend from Raines Road north to eventually connect with
Sullivan Road. There was also a discussion concerning the ordinance
requirements with regard to setbacks related to a collector street. Mr. Watson
stated with the development pattern in the area a Collector street was no longer
necessary. He stated the area to the west had developed with a cul-de-sac and
the rear of the homes would abut the street. He stated even if his owner
developed one-half of the street the other one-half would not be developed.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right-of-way would be
required along Raines Road. Staff stated the Master Street Plan did require one-
half street improvements to the road and the waiver would have to be sought
from the Commission and ultimately the Board of Directors. Staff also stated per
the Master Street Plan a sidewalk was required along Lake Lucca Road to the
intersection of Lake Luccea Court.
Mr. Watson stated he would meet with his client and discuss the comments. Me
stated he would return a revised plan to staff by the requested date. There were
no additional comments 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 at
the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has requested
a five (5) year deferral of half street construction to Raines Road. Staff is
supportive of this request.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
5
The applicant has also requested a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow Lots 12, 13 and 20 to develop with an increased depth to width ratio. The
Subdivision Ordinance states no lot maybe developed at a depth greater than
three times the width [Section 31-232(b)]. Staff is supportive of the request to
allow an increased depth to width ratio for these three lots (Lots 12, 13 and 20).
The applicant is also requesting the subdivision be developed with private
streets. Per the Subdivision Ordinance private streets shall be discouraged
however private streets maybe approved by the Planning Commission to serve
isolated development. The streets are to be constructed to public street
standards and are only permissible in the form of cul-de-sac and short loop
streets. The lots may develop on private street frontage if explicitly approved by
the Planning Commission. The applicant has indicated the streets will conform to
Master Street Plan design standard with the exception of the sidewalk
placement.
Three of the lots will abut Raines Road and the internal street. A variance to
allow these lots to develop as double frontage lots is not required. (Section 31-
232(d) double frontage lots are prohibited however reverse frontage lots are
permitted where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or proposed arterial
street, freeway, expressway or railroad right-of-way.)
The proposed development will utilize a private wastewater collection and
treatment facility. The facility is proposed as a Step System utilizing individual
septic tanks to contain the solids while the liquids are pumped off. The liquids
are then collected to a centralized treatment facility where they are treated prior
to release in the Callahan Creek. The applicant will be required to work with the
State Health Department to obtain approvals of this type system.
There is a proposed Collector street shown on the City’s Master Street Plan
along the applicant’s western boundary. Staff has review the Master Street Plan
and has determined a collector street in this area is not necessary due to the
development patterns in the area. The area to the west has developed with the
rear of the homes abutting the proposed Collector street and the proposed
subdivision is to be developed with the rear of the homes abutting the proposed
collector street. Neither subdivision would take access to the street and both are
accessed by cul-de-sac streets. Staff will forward a Master Street Plan
amendment to the Board of Directors should the Commission approve the
removal of the Collector street from the Master Street Plan.
To Staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The request is consistent with development patterns in the
area and should have minimal to no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
6
Staff is supportive of the requested five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan
requirements to Raines Road (1/2 street construction requirement).
Staff is supportive of the request waiver to allow the internal streets and to
maintain internal streets as private streets.
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the paved walking trails to
serve as an alternative pedestrian circulation system.
Staff is supportive of the requested variance to allow an increased lot depth to
width ratio for Lots 12, 13 and 20.
Staff recommends the Master Street Plan be amended to remove a proposed
collector street from the Master Street Plan adjacent to the western boundary of
the proposed development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Mike Watson of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the request. There
were objectors present. 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 also presented positive recommendations of the waivers and
variances to the Subdivision and Master Street Plan Ordinances. Staff stated they were
supportive of the requested five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan requirements to
Raines Road (1/2 street construction requirement) and the request to allow the internal
streets to be maintained as private streets. Staff stated the request for paved walking
trails to serve as an alternative pedestrian circulation system was also being supported.
Staff presented a positive recommendation of the Subdivision Ordinance variance
request to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 12, 13 and 20.
Staff stated the Master Street Plan included a proposed Collector Street along the
properties western boundary. Staff stated after a review of the Master Street Plan it
had been determined due to the development pattern in the area Staff was requesting
the proposed Collector Street be removed from the Master Street Plan. Staff stated if
the Commission agreed their recommendation would be forwarded to the Board of
Directors with the amendment request.
John Wallis spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his concerns
were with the discharge of the wastewater system into the creek. He stated his property
adjoined the site to the east and this was the low area of the site. He questioned how
the wastewater collection treatment system would be handled.
Mr. Gary Boyle raised questions concerning the proposed development. He stated he
was the fire chief in the area and he had not been contacted concerning the proposed
development. The Commission questioned why the volunteer fire department was not
contacted. Staff stated this was an oversight and they would work with the fire chief to
resolve his concern. Mr. Boyle stated he had a concern with the development only
allowing one entrance into the subdivision.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
7
Ms. Cindy Nalley stated she also was concerned with the proposed development and
the discharge into the Callaghan Creek. She stated the area was a rural area and the
development of the site with 20 new homes was somewhat intense. She questioned
the requested waiver of street improvements stating Raines Road was a narrow two-
lane road. She stated with the development there would be additional traffic into the
area and the roadway should be widened to accommodate the increased traffic.
Ms. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, questioned if the Commission could hear the
item. She stated the Subdivision Ordinance clearly required the submission of approval
from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the wastewater collection and
treatment facility at the time of preliminary plat submittal. Ms. Dawson referred to
Section 31-400 stating the Commission could not vote on the plat until the applicant had
all the required documentation necessary.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed requirements and how
applications in the past had been handled. Staff stated in the past they had not
reviewed an application which would be utilizing a private wastewater collection and
treatment facility.
The applicant stated the Health Department required construction drawing prior to the
issuance of a letter stating a design would work in an area. Staff stated then a letter
stating they would not approve the concept would need to be furnished.
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 26, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S- 1386
NAME: Cotton Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 7724 Arch Street
DEVELOPER:
ML Cotton
2912 Christopher
Hensley, AR 72065
ENGINEER:
Edward Lofton
15415 Oakcrest Lane
Little Rock, AR 72206
AREA: 1.41 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: Not zoned. (Outside the City Limits in the area in which
there is subdivision jurisdiction only.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 – 65th Street East
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Waiver of Master Street Plan requirements to Arch Street (½ street
construction).
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to place a mini-warehouse development on this
site located outside the city limits but in an area in which the city exercised
subdivision control. The request is for a multiple building site plan review
to place three rows of buildings on the site, which currently contains an
existing single-wide manufactured home.
The applicant is proposing the development is phases with 2000 square
feet of warehouse to be constructed in the first phase. Additional phases
will be constructed based on need for warehouse in the area. When the
development is complete the applicant proposes approximately 18,700
square feet of mini-warehouse storage. The applicant has indicated the
existing manufactured home will be removed when the southern two rows
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1386
2
of warehouse are added.
The applicant is requesting a phasing plan with regard to the hard surface
drives and parking. The applicant is requesting a waiver of Master Street
Plan requirements to Arch Street with regard to ½ street improvements.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The rear of the site has recently been cleared and is gently sloping to the
west. There is a main line of the Union Pacific Railroad located on the
western property line. To the north of the site is vacant and wooded and
to the south of the site is a rather large salvage yard. The area contains a
mix of residential and non-residential uses included homes both stick built
and manufactured. The non-residential uses include a liquor store,
automotive repair and warehouse activities. There are mining activities
taking place to the north and east of the site.
Arch Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial
but is unimproved. The roadway is a two lane road with open ditches for
drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest United for Progress 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 one letter of concern from an adjoining property owner.
The concern is related to drainage and not the use of the site for mini-
warehouse development.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. The proposed 25-foot right-of-way dedication for Arch Street is
acceptable.
2. The driveway entrance should be reconfigured to meet Arch Street
with 15 degree +/- of a 90 degree angle. The width should be
increased to 26-feet to provide two way traffic.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
4. Provide design and construct street conforming to the Master Street
Plan or obtain a waiver from the Board of Directors. (Note: The
property is not located within the corporate limits.)
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1386
3
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: On-site fire protection may be required. The Fire
Department having jurisdiction needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) are required, they will
be installed at the Developer’s expense. All Central Arkansas water
requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for
details concerning turning radius around buildings. Place fire hydrants per
code.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: An on-site street buffer twenty-six (26) feet in width is
required along Arch Street. The plan submitted does not allow for the
required nine (9) foot wide landscape strip around the perimeter of the
proposed vehicular use areas required by the Landscape Ordinance.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Ed Lofton and Mr. Cotton were present representing the request. Staff
briefly described the request indicating the site was located outside the
city limits but within the planning jurisdiction in which the city exercised
subdivision control. Staff stated the request was for a multiple building
site plan review to place three rows of mini-warehouse in phases. Staff
stated the phasing plan would be based on the market demand in the
area.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1386
4
Staff requested the applicant move the northern building to the north to
within ten feet of the property line to allow additional lane space between
the rows of buildings and to allow the rear of the building to act as the
required screening. Staff also requested the rear buildings be shortened
to allow a 25-foot setback from the rear property line to allow for
maneuverability around the buildings.
Staff questioned the drainage precautions that would be used to alleviate
the concern of the adjoining property owner. Mr. Lofton stated he would
work with the County to determine the best location of drainage to protect
the adjoining property owners.
Public Works comments were addressed. The applicant indicted the
dedication of right-of-way was not an issue but the applicant stated a
request would be made for a waiver of one-half street improvements.
Staff also requested the driveway be realigned to intersect with Arch
Street.
Landscaping comments were discussed. Staff stated the plan submitted
did not allow for the required landscaping around the perimeter of the
vehicular use area nor the twenty-six feet required along Arch Street. Mr.
Lofton stated he would revise the plan to include these areas.
There were no additional comments 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
concerns raised at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated the site will be available from 6:00 am to 6:00
pm Monday through Saturday during the initial start-up and have 24-hour
access after completion. The site will contain a leasing office with a
manager on-site for daily rentals.
The applicant has indicated there will not be any outdoor storage of
automobiles, R.V’s or boats on the site. The applicant has also indicated
the site will be gated at full development. The applicant intends to install
an access controlled keypad to allow customers access to the site after
hours.
The applicant is requesting the development be constructed in phases.
The initial phase will include the development of a 20-foot by 100-foot mini
warehouse building. The northern and southern buildings are proposed to
be single side loading with the center building to be double loading. The
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1386
5
applicant is proposing the hard surface paving to be phased with the
building construction. Staff is supportive of this request.
The site plan does not include the required rear landscaping. The
applicant is required to place a minimum of 6.7 feet of landscaping along
the rear property line. With a35-foot setback the applicant should be able
to install the required landscaping in this area. There is not any building
landscaping required therefore staff will not support a reduction in
landscaping along the rear property line. The applicant will also be
required to install landscaping in the front of the development, which
should be easily installed in the front building setback.
The applicant has indicated the driveway widths to be 25-feet as
requested by staff. Staff feels with the wider drive isles emergency
vehicles will be better able to maneuver the site.
The applicant has requested a waiver of Master Street Plan requirements
to Arch Street. Staff would recommend a five (5) deferral of ½ street
improvements. If the area has not developed at that time staff would
consider an additional deferral.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development. The request is for a
multiple building site plan review to develop mini-warehouse buildings on
the site. The applicant has met the technical requirements of the
ordinance with regard to landscaping building setbacks and parking. The
site is located in an area were there is a broad mix of uses and the
proposed mini-warehouse development should have minimal impact on
the surrounding area if approved.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year deferral for ½ street
improvements to Arch Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
request was for a multiple building site plan review and a request for a waiver of
street improvements to Arch Street. Staff stated the only issue was the street
improvements. Staff stated they would support a five (5) year deferral for ½
street improvements to Arch Street but not a waiver. Staff stated they were
supportive of the request to reduce the land use buffer along the rear of the
property.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1386
6
The applicant stated they did not want to install the improvements nor was a
deferral a solution. The applicant stated with a deferral this was an expense that
was there and at some point could be requested. The applicant stated with the
street construction the project was not a viable project. He stated the number did
not work.
There was a discussion concerning the waiver of street improvements with the
Commission stating the decision would be a Board of Directors matter.
A motion was made to approve the proposed site plan as filed. The motion
carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the request to waive the Master Street Plan
requirements for ½ street construction. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes,
10 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S- 1387
NAME: Martin Estate Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: 13621 Heinke Road
DEVELOPER:
HO and L Martin Estate
8503 Kling Road
Mabelvale, AR 72103
ENGINEER:
Laha Engineers
6602 Baseline Road
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 19.21 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: Not zoned. (In an area outside the city limits in which there is
subdivision regulations only.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A waiver of Master Street Plan requirements for street improvements to Gina Drive
and Heinke Road.
2. A waiver of Right-of-way dedication to Gina Drive.
3. A variance to allow a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3).
4. A variance to allow a reduced platted building line for Lot 1.
5. A variance to allow Lot 1 to develop with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
A. PROPOSAL:
The Martin Heirs are requesting a subdivision of this 19.21 acre tract into four (4)
single-family lots. The land is inherited property and each of the children will be
given a share. There are five waivers and/or variances being requested. The
applicant is requesting a waiver of Master Street Plan requirements to Heinke
Road and Gina Drive. The applicant is also requesting the private access/utility
easement extending from Gina Drive to the north not be developed to Master
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1387
2
Street Plan standard. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement
for dedication of right-of-way to Gina Drive.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow Lot 3 to develop without public
street frontage and two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance for Lot 1. Lot
1 will require a variance from the depth to width ratio standard and a variance to
allow a reduced front platted building line.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single family home with the remainder of the
property being vacant. Portions of the property are located in the 100 year flood
plain. Both Heinke Road and Gina Drive are developed as substandard streets.
Gina Drive is a narrow roadway with open ditches for drainage. Heinke Road is
narrow with deep open ditches for drainage.
At the intersection of Heinke Road and Gina Drive on the western corner there is
an approved PD-R for an elderly housing project. The site was approved in mid-
2001 and has never developed.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, Staff has not received any comment from area residents.
Southwest United for Progress and abutting property owners were notified of the
Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Heinke Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a Collector. A
dedication of right-of-way 30-feet from centerline will be required. Gina is
classified as a local street and a dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from the
section line (within Pulaski County) will be required.
2. For the subdivision of land into less than five acre lots, internal streets and all
boundary streets must be constructed to Master Street Plan standards. This
would include Heinke, Gina and the un-named private easement. Construct
streets to Master Street Plan requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1387
3
Central Arkansas Water: A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of
connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main
extension will be required in order to provide service to Lot 3. All Central Arkansas
Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
This development will have minor impact on 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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Troy Laha was present representing the applicant. Staff gave an overview
of the proposed development along with the requested waivers and variances.
Staff stated the site was located outside the city limits (adjacent to the city limits
to the north and Saline County to the south).
Staff noted additional items needed on the proposed site plan. Mr. Laha stated
the zoning classifications and the abutting property owners to the north and east
would be added. He stated his clients would be requesting waivers of street
improvements to both Heinke Road and Gina Drive. He stated there were no
improvements in the area and to improve Heinke Road adjacent to the site was
not practical.
There were no additional comments for discussion. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the issues
raised at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated “lots” instead of “tracts” on the proposed plat. The applicant has also
indicated a reduced platted building line on Lot 1 to conform to the building
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1387
4
footprint of the existing single-family structure. The applicant has also indicated
the names of the owners of property located to the north and east of the
proposed preliminary plat.
The proposed plat lies on the northern boarder of the Pulaski/Saline County Line.
The proposal is the subdivision of a tract owned by the Heirs of HO Martin. The
children propose to subdivide the site into lots to allow for future development
and/or sale. There are numerous waivers and variances required to allow the
subdivision to develop.
The subdivision will require a variance to allow the creation of a lot without public
street frontage [Section 31-231]. Staff is supportive of this requested variance.
The proposed Lot 3 will be served by a 50-foot access and utility easement which
should allow for sufficient ingress and egress. The request will also require a
variance to allow a reduced platted building line on proposed Lot 1. Staff is
supportive of this request. The typical platted building line along an collector
street is 30-feet [Section 31-256 (1)]. The lot is developed with a single-family
home and the request is based on existing conditions. The proposed platted
building line will be 30-feet with the exception of around the building footprint
where the building line will be reduced to follow the structure. The proposed
plat also requires Lot 1 to develop with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
[Section 31-232(b)]. The Subdivision Ordinance requires no lot maybe
developed with a ratio more than three times as deep as it is wide. Staff is
supportive of this request as well.
The applicant is requested a waiver of Master Street Plan requirements to Gina
Drive. Staff would support of deferral of Master Street Plan requirements to
Gina Drive. The road is a narrow road which dead ends just past this site. The
entire road has developed in Saline County. The applicant is also requesting a
waiver of Master Street Plan requirements to Heinke Road. Staff would support
a deferral of these improvements to Heinke Road as well.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication to Gina Drive.
Staff is not supportive of this request. Staff feels if the subdivision is developed
the right-of-way should be dedicated to the city.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed platting will have no adverse impact
on the surrounding area.
In summary:
Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan
requirements for street improvements to Gina Drive.
Staff recommends approval of a five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan
requirements for street improvements to Heinke Road.
Staff recommends denial of the request to waiver the right-of-way dedication to
Gina Drive.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1387
5
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a lot without public
street frontage (Lot 3).
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a reduced platted
building line for Lot 1.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lot 1 to develop
with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Troy Laha of Laha Engineering Company was present representing the request.
There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant and Public Works had
agreed to a 10-foot right-of-way dedication to Gina Drive. Staff stated this was the only
unresolved issue associated with the proposed request. Staff stated based on the
agreement the recommendation was now for approval.
Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request for a five (5) year deferral
of Master Street Plan requirements for street improvements to Gina Drive and the
request for a five (5) year deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for street
improvements to Heinke Road. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
reduced right-of-way dedication to Gina Drive of 10-feet.
Staff presented a recommendation of the requested variances to the Subdivision
Ordinance; the request to allow a lot without public street frontage (Lot 3), the request to
allow a reduced platted building line for Lot 1 and the request to allow Lot 1 to develop
with an increased lot depth to width ratio.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: S- 1388
NAME: Sanders Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: 7011 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:
Curtis Sanders
Friday’s Flowers and Gifts
7011 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Porter-Crawford Company
P.O. Box 5512
Little Rock, AR 72215
AREA: 0.58 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 – West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a multiple building site plan review to place a second
structure (30 foot by 50 foot or 1500 square feet) on the site adjacent to the
existing parking area. There are currently 12 parking spaces on the site and no
new parking is proposed.
The existing building is currently being used as a floral/gift shop and the second
structure will be used as a office/consulting center related to the floral shop. The
owner has indicated a large percentage of their sales is generated from
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1388
2
weddings and large parties. The owners have indicated there is not a place
within the existing building to meet with potential clients and have privacy or not
be interrupted.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing building being used as a floral/gift shop. There are
currently 12 on-site parking spaces, eight of which are located in the rear of the
building. Immediately south of the parking area is a relatively flat area where the
building is proposed to be place then the site drops dramatically to the south to
the property line.
There are newly constructed townhouses located to the west of the construction
site area and vacant land to the east. Along Cantrell Road to the west of the site
is a car wash and to the east of the site is a City of Little Rock Fire Station.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Meriwether Neighborhood Association along with all owners of property located
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required (this is
reduced from 55-feet standard width).
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
3. Storm Water Detention Ordinance applies to this property. Stormwater
discharges should be handled in a manner that will not cause excessive hill-
side erosion.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: A 10-foot utility easement along the east property line, extending from
Cantrell Road (north) to Ohio Street-Closed (south) will be required. Contact SBC at
373-5112 for additional details.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1388
3
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements
in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central
Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required
along the southern and western perimeters of the site which abut residential
properties.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 10, 2003)
Mr. Curtis Sanders was present representing the request. Staff briefly described
the proposed project indicating to Mr. Sanders additional items were needed on
the proposed site plan. Staff requested the applicant prove the location of the
dumpster along with the required screening.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way
45-feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated any curb, gutter or
sidewalk that was currently damaged or damaged in construction would be
required to be repair prior to occupancy.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening of adjoining
residentially zoned properties would be required. Staff also stated the areas set
aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet the ordinance requirements.
There were no additional comments 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 on May 23, 2003 addressing the
issues raised by staff at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated setbacks from all property lines as requested and located
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (con’t.) FILE NO.: S- 1388
4
the temporary cooler indicating the cooler would be used two days in February
and four days in May.
The applicant has located the dumpster in the rear of the existing structure and
indicated the proposed screening, six foot wood fence on three sides. The
applicant has also indicated there will be a six foot wood fence adjacent to the
rear building and adjacent to the westside of the building to screen the adjacent
residentially zoned properties. Staff is supportive of the screening. The site
drops dramatically outside the placement of the fence and the proposed
placement is the most logical place to screen the building from the adjacent
properties.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Friday and on Saturday from 8:00 am to 5 pm. The
applicant has also stated any additional site lighting will be low level intensity
lighting directed inward away from residentially zoned properties.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is requesting a multiple building
site plan review and has met all the technical requirements of the ordinance with
regard to setbacks, parking and landscaping. To Staff’s knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request and the development
should have minimal to no negative impact on the surrounding area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Sanders was present representing the application. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had met the minimum requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance and to Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval
of the request as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs
D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-4052-B
NAME: Tropical Galleries Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 315 West 12th Street
DEVELOPER:
Jerry Meyer
900 South Shackleford Road, Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.79 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD – for Tropical Plant Galleries
ALLOWED USES: Single use for Tropical Plant Galleries
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD – Multiple uses
PROPOSED USE: Tropical Plant Galleries and C/M Restoration
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site was originally considered by the Executive Committee of the Mansion Area
Advisory Committee (CZD) and deferred to the City, since the Committee was afraid of
the long-term implications of the Central Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. The site was
considered by the Little Rock Planning Commission for rezoning from “HR” High Density
Residential to “GB” and the request was denied at the July 26, 1983 Planning
Commission Public Hearing.
The applicant later submitted a request for a PCD for the site. The request was
approved by the Commission at the September 13, 1983 Public Hearing and by the
Board of Directors on December 6, 1983 (Ordinance No. 14,555). This ordinance was
modified on May 21, 1996 by an ordinance reaffirming previously approved single use
planned unit developments (Ordinance No. 17,190).
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-4052-B
2
The approved request allow for the site to develop as Tropical Plant Galleries. The site
was to be utilized by the applicant as storage for live plant materials. The applicant
proposed the placement of the distribution center for servicing the accounts in Arkansas
and the surrounding states. The development plan included the rebuilding of a portion
of a fire-damaged, frame and brick building for office space, the installation of a large
metal door on the Spring Street side, which would enable trucks to pull completely
inside the building for loading and unloading and the provision for 14 parking spaces
shielded by a 14-foot brick wall.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD to allow multiple
tenants to occupy the space at 315 West 12th Street. Currently there is a 10,066
square foot building located on the site that Tropical Plant Galleries occupies.
The applicants proposes to allow C/M Restoration to operate from the location as
well. C/M restores older homes in the Quapaw and Hillcrest neighborhoods and
the facility would be used as a workshop for restoration projects associated with
their business. All operations and storage of materials are proposed to take
place indoors.
The applicant proposes the placement of trailers in the rear and to park the
trailers on a gravel surface. The applicant is not proposing the placement of a
hard surface parking area due to the limited moving of the trailers and the
applicant does not desire to damage the root system of the several significant
trees located on the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently being used by the Tropical Plant Galleries. The owner only
uses a small portion of the building leaving a very large warehouse vacant. The
uses in the area include a mix of residential and non-residential uses. There are
large warehousing activities to the west and a vacant abandoned building to the
east.
Adjacent to the rear of the lot (West 13th Street) there are single-family homes
and vacant/depleted buildings.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Downtown Neighborhood Association along with all owners of property located
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-4052-B
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Boundary street improvements and storm water detention requirements do
not apply unless construction is proposed with a future building permit.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if larger
and/or additional meter(s) are needed. Due to the nature of this facility, installation
of a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer will be required on the domestic
water service for this facility. This device shall be installed prior to any outlet. All
Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water
service must be met.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use Urban for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development to provide
an office for a restoration business.
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 Downtown Neighborhoods Plan for the Future. The plan
does not contain any goals, objectives, or action statements that are relative to
this application.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-4052-B
4
Landscape: Parking areas need to be defined and fenced in order to protect the
giant trees on this site from having their critical root zones (75% of the tree drip
lines) compacted.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Jerry Meyer and Mr. and Mrs. Carslile were present representing the request.
Staff gave an overview of the rezoning request and stated the applicant was
requesting a revision to allow the addition of multiple uses on the site. Staff
stated the proposal included the additional a 16-foot by 65-foot office building at
some point in the future.
Staff noted additional items needed on the proposed site plan. Staff requested
the applicant indicate parking spaces and the location of the gravel parking area.
Staff also noted the significant trees located on the site and requested the
applicant protect at least 75% of the tree drip lines.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated at the time of construction
the applicant would be required boundary street improvements on the site. Staff
started all curb, gutter and sidewalk would be required to brought up to code prior
to occupancy.
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 comments at the
May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
parking stalls on the proposed site. The applicant has also indicated the gravel
parking area in the rear of the building. The applicant has noted at least 75% of
the tree’s critical root zone would be protected to enhance the survivability of the
significant trees located on the site. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant is proposing sales activities of Tropical Plant Galleries to take
place on occasion outdoors. This activity will take place along the Spring Street
side of the building. All other activities are to take place indoors and no outdoor
storage of materials is proposed.
The applicant is proposing the placement of seven (7) on-site parking spaces.
The parking proposed would not meet the typical ordinance requirement but staff
feels due to the nature of the development the parking proposed is sufficient to
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-4052-B
5
meet the demand. There will be limited customer traffic to the site since most of
the activity takes place at the client’s home. The days and hours of operation are
consistent with area business hours of operation and should have no adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to amend the existing PCD
to allow multiple uses to locate on the site. The site is shown as Mixed Use
Urban on the Future Land Use Plan and is located in the UU zoning district. The
use requested is compatible with allowable uses in the district and is consistent
with the Future Land Use Plan.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present. There was one objector present. Commissioner Meyer and
Commissioner Rector stated they would have to recuse on the item. Commissioner
Meyer stated he was representing the applicant in a real estate deal. Commissioner
Rector stated he had represented the applicant in a previous real estate deal. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated their
recommendation was based on the applicant complying with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the Staff Report.
Mr. Anderson Lewis addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
development. He stated he was opposed to increasing the intensity of the development
on the site. He stated he was the Pastor of the church located west of the site and
parking was the primary concern. He stated he also had concerns with the commercial
business operating during church service.
The applicant stated the additional use was a low intensity use. He stated the business
would not be open on Sunday or during the evening hours. He stated there would be
limited customer traffic to the site and there were only five (5) employees of the
business. He stated the site would utilize the existing parking area and add a small
parking area behind the building to be used as trailer storage.
A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion carried by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 recuse (Jerry Meyer and Bill Rector).
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
NAME: Capitol Hills Apartment Revised Long-form PRD
LOCATION: Capitol Hills Blvd. and Rushmore Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
10650 Maumelle Blvd.
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 31.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R, Planned Development - Residential
ALLOWED USES: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family; 16.57 units per acre – the creation of a three lot plat
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone 42.58+
acres from R-2, Single-family to MF-12, Multi-family. The rezoning request was
associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File
No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi-family was located in two tracts lying on
either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of a proposed
minor arterial street. The application was the third version of proposed multi-family
zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates.
The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of
the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the
proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
2
Valley Manor Subdivision, which is adjacent to the south. The application was later
withdrawn by the applicant at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of
the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street from R-2
to MF-12. The proposed multi-family property was in two tracts, a 27+ acre tract lying
south of the arterial street and a 7+ acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi-family
property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of
that neighborhood supported this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval
of the application. The density had been reduced from MF-18 to MF-12. The proposed
Multi-family property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with
only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street and an
arterial street. There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal
Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996.
The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center with their concern of
locating the 7+ acres of Multi-family property adjacent to their site. After reaching a
compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant withdrew this second application from
the Board of Directors’ agenda and filed a third version of the proposed rezoning
request.
The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the
proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed Multi-
family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit
Road, south of the proposed new arterial street. The 27+ acre tract lying south of the
arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second
(approved) application. The 7+ acres which was approved on the north side of the
arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was moved to a point south of the arterial, on
the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81
acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property)
was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a “reserved” tract on the Capitol Lakes
Estates Preliminary Plat.
The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2
to MF-12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any
development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on
the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres
within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not
developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of
sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer
improvement district, expansion or the existing sewer improvement district or some
other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property
zoned MF-12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty
(20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned
Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regraded
area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50)
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
3
percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The
rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12 and Tract C,
14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF-12.
Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes
Long-form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres).
The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse
development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on 11.59
acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of 5.3 units
per acre.)
On July 11, 2002 the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the
west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development – Residential to allow the
development of a 528 unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement
of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed for a
property zoned MF-12 and located to the east of the PD-R site. The request to rezone
the property to the east from MF-12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both
Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20,
2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the MF-12 property to PD-R and
Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the MF-12 site to R-2.
The applicant proposed the PD-R development to be constructed in three phases with
156 units being constructed in Phase of One and Two and 216 units in the third and
final phase.
West Kanis Road and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction and will be
completed with Phase I to allow access to the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow the
creation of a three lot plat to following the previously proposed phasing lines.
The applicant has indicated all three lots will have public street frontage but
access to the public streets will only be located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 will take
access through cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots have
been numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage
and utility plan have not changed from the original submission.
The applicant has revised the building placement ever so slightly to allow for the
landscape strips between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant has
indicated a cross access parking agreement is not required since each lot has
sufficient parking to meet the typical minimum parking demand for multi-family
development.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
4
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The
property is currently zoned PD-R with the remainder of the area being zoned R-2,
Single-family. The Oasis Renewal Center is located northeast of the site and the
Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located south of the site. Cooper Orbit Road
borders the eastern boundary of the property. The roadway is a narrow
unimproved roadway with deep ditches in several locations.
Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction
and will be completed with Phase I to allow access to the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received numerous phone calls from area residents
and one letter of opposition from the Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood
Association. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar
Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway
Place Property Owners Association, along with all residents, who could be
identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property owners within 200 feet of
the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. All previous comments on the proposed development and notes shown on
the plans apply.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required
for project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: Additional on-site easements required for electrical distribution. Contact
Entergy at 954-5165 for additional details
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Water service will not be available until all requirements
are complete and Central Arkansas Water has accepted the main in Capitol Hill
Blvd. Each lot will be required to have its own connection to the main line for water
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
5
service. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s)
will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter
connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. On site
fire protection will be required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate
this site to determine whether additional pubic 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. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time
of request for water service must be met. This development will have minor impact
on 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: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The
applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Residential
Development to create a three-lot plat.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Joe White was present representing the applicant. Staff introduced the item
indicating the revision to the PRD was to allow the creation of a three lot plat.
Staff stated the developer had sold one tract of land on the site and proposed to
sell two additional tracts. Staff stated with the plat a cross access easement
would be secured to allow all three lots access to the drive thus allowing the
development to retain only two exits from the development. Staff stated a shared
parking agreement was not needed since each of the lots would meet the typical
minimum parking requirements on their own.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
6
Staff noted comments for all other agencies and suggested Mr. White contact
them directly for specific questions. There being no further items for discussion.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing the concerns raised at
the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
the owners of properties abutting the proposed plat and the zoning classification.
The applicant has also indicated the number of parking spaces on each lot and
the number of units on each lot. The proposed parking is sufficient to meet the
typical minimum parking requirements for multi-family development and a cross
parking agreement is not required.
The access easement has been labeled as such and a general note has been
added to describe the function and rights of use of the access easement. Staff
feels this should eliminate any future concerns of right of access should this
become an issue in the future.
Staff is supportive of the proposed revision to the PD-R to allow the creation of a
three (3) lot plat. The proposed lot lines follow the previously approved phasing
lines. The plat complies with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance with regard to lot size, building setbacks and landscaping. The
building placement and site development will conform to the previously approved
PD-R. The proposed revision should have no adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood if approved since there is no change to the development with the
exception of adding lot lines where the previous phasing lines were indicated.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White and Mr. Andy Francis were present representing the application. There
were objectors present. Staff stated the request was to amend the previously approved
Planned Development to allow the creation of a three (3) lot plat. Staff stated the lot
lines would follow the previously approved phasing lines. Staff stated the proposed plat
met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and no waivers or
variances were being requested. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the
request as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of the above report.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-G
7
Ms. Anita Spence spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the
neighborhood had a long history of working with the applicant and they were not
convenience the development plan would be adhered to as stated.
Ms. Spence also requested the street name of Rushmore Avenue be changed to
Cooper Orbit Road. She stated this was very confusing when giving directions to
visitors. Staff stated Rushmore Avenue would not continue to the south but would turn
westward just south of the development. Staff stated the northern portion of Cooper
Orbit would most likely be changed to Capitol Hills Boulevard and the only remaining
portion of Cooper Orbit Road would be where Cooper Orbit intersected with Rushmore
Avenue.
Mr. Ross Phillips addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated the primary concern was that of traffic. He stated the development would
construct roadway to Master Street Plan standard which would result in a four lane road
entering into a two lane bridge. He stated there were no plans in the near future to
widen the bridge. Mr. Phillips stated this was a dangerous situation for travelers of the
roadway.
Mr. Francis addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated there were
possible miscommunications between the owner and the neighborhood. He stated the
owner never intentionally deceived the neighborhood.
Mr. Joe White stated the proposed development would be constructed of similar brick,
siding and architectural design. He stated the look of one development was in the best
interest of the developer as well as the neighborhood.
A motion was made to approve the requested revision to the Planned Development to
allow the creation of a three (3) lot plat. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no
and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6149-E
NAME: Fellowship Bible Church Parking Facilities Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Hinson Road and Napa Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Fellowship Bible Church
12601 Hinson Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 1.54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office – Zoning Site Plan Review
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 – Rodney Parham
CENSUS TRACT: 15
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The site is currently a parking lot owned by Fellowship Bible Church. The
applicant is proposing the placement of a parking facility on this site
currently zoned O-2. Fellowship Bible Church will expand their parking
facilities in this space. There are 150 parking spaces proposed within the
development.
The applicant proposes to remove one of the driveway entrances from
Hinson Road into the existing parking located closest to Napa Valley
Road.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a parking lot with the remnants of a building once
used by Doctor Cloud, DDS. The building burned earlier in the year. The
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-E
2
Terry Library is located to the south of the site and Fellowship Bible
Facilities are located west of the site across Napa Valley and east of the
site adjacent to the parking lot.
Other uses in the area include single-family homes and the Pleasant
Valley Country Club across Hinson Road to the north.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area
residents. The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association and all
owners of property located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the
public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. On Hinson Road and Napa Valley south of the driveway apron, repair
or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. Re-establish curb, gutter and sidewalk where the apron is to be
removed on Hinson Road.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: If there are facilities that need to be adjusted
and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438. That work
would be done at the expense of the developer. All Central Arkansas Water
requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-E
3
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas
will be required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff
introduced the item indicating the site was the former site of Dr. Cloud,
DDS, which had burned recently. Staff stated site was zoned O-2. Staff
stated O-2 zoning required site plan review. Staff stated the request was
a review for a parking lot.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the roadways
would have to be repaired prior to occupancy. Staff also requested the
applicant reestablish the curb, gutter and sidewalk where the current
driveway location was on Hinson Road.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated an irrigation system
would be required. Staff also stated the areas set aside for landscaping
appeared to meet the ordinance requirements.
There were no additional comments 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 comments
and concerns raised at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated the reestablishment of the curb along Hinson
Road as requested by Public Works staff. The applicant has also
indicated an irrigation system will be installed to water landscaped areas.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
request. The site is zoned O-2, which requires a zoning site plan review
prior to development. The applicant has met the technical requirements of
the site plan review process per the Zoning Ordinance and staff
recommends the parking lot be developed as presented.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-E
4
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had met the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a
zoning site plan review. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the
consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
NAME: Breshear’s Revised Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 600 North Tyler Street
DEVELOPER:
D. R. Breshears
6605 Kenwood
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.14 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Restaurant with a mixture of 36 seats; a catering-commercial use;
C-1 permitted uses.
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Revision to the PCD to allow extended hours of operation.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 15, 1998, the City of Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance
No. 17,820, rezoning the site from R-3, Single-family to PD-C. Ordinance No. 17,821,
which was also approved on September 15, 1998, deferred the right-of-way dedication
on Tyler Street and Woodlawn Avenue for five years.
The approved PD-C allowed the continuing use of the building as a deli/restaurant with
seating for a maximum of 36 persons, allowing seating on a proposed 20 foot by 17 foot
deck with proper screening and no outside speakers. C-1 permitted uses were
approved as alternative uses. The hours of operation were from 11:00 am to 6:30 pm
Monday through Saturday.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
2
On February 16, 1999, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.
17,933, approving two (2) minor revisions to the previously approved PD-C. The
applicant was allowed to add “catering-commercial” as a permitted use of the property,
in conjunction with the approved restaurant use. The applicant indicated there would be
no expansion of the existing kitchen facility or additional employees required. There
would also be no changes to the previously approved site plan.
The applicant also requested a modification to the hours of operation. The applicant
requested the daily hours of operation to be 10:30 am to 6:30 pm, Monday through
Saturday. The applicant indicated the delivery vehicle for the catering operation would
be a mini-van, the restaurant owner/manager’s personal vehicle, which he would drive
to the restaurant daily.
On May 17, 2001 Staff approved a revision to the hours of operation allowing a
restaurant to be open from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm.
The applicant proposed to revise the previously approved PD-C and was scheduled to
be heard before the Commission on February 20, 2003. The applicant withdrew his
request prior to the Public Hearing. The request was to allow construction of a second
structure on the site near the western property line adjacent to the alley. The applicant
proposed to use the building as a contractor’s storage shed. The applicant was not
proposing any plumbing to be located in the storage building.
The building was proposed at 35-feet by 45-feet and to be a single-story metal building.
There is an existing 18-foot by 20-foot concrete slab on the site, which would have been
incorporated into the new concrete slab used to support the new structure.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The request before the Commission is a request for a revision to the PCD to
extended hours as approved at staff level on May 17, 2001. The applicant
proposes the hours of operation to be from 10:30 am to 9:00 pm, Monday
through Saturday. All other terms of the PD-C will remain in effect.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a one-story 1373 square foot frame commercial building with a
16 foot by 10 foot deck on the rear corner.
There are single-family residences to the north, west and south. Fairpark
Elementary School is located to the east, across Tyler Street.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
3
There is an existing wood fence running approximately ½ the distance of the
north property line. Woodlawn Street has been constructed with curb and gutter
but no sidewalk adjacent to the site. Tyler Street has not been constructed to
Master Street Plan Standards and has open ditches for drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the public hearing along with all property owners located within 200-feet of the
site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site.
Planning Division:
This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use
Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a
revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development to modify the permitted
hours of operation for an existing use.
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 Hillcrest Neighborhood
Plan “A Blueprint of our Community.” The Crime and Safety goal listed an
objective of decreasing the number of late night and 24-hour businesses. The
two action statements listed under the objective included protesting the
establishment of late night businesses, and following the neighborhood land use
plan.
E. ANALYSIS:
There are several issues, which have been raised as a part of the development.
The original PD-C was approved a deli and the hours of operation were during
the normal working hours of area residents. The use was later changed to allow
a catering business to located on the site and the hours were extended from
11:00 am to 6:30 pm to 10:30 am to 6:30 pm.
The request included C-1 uses as alternative uses for the site. A restaurant is an
allowable use under the C-1 zoning classification.
The site was approved with limited parking. Staff felt the character of the
neighborhood did not lend itself to a hard surface parking area and street parking
would be suffice to meet the typical minimum parking demand.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
4
The concerns raised by residents have been noise, parking, alcohol, traffic and
the condition of the structure. Staff requested the Building Codes Division of the
Department of Planning and Development perform a site visit to determine if the
structure was in fact safe. Building Codes has stated the building is a safe
structure although there are repairs needed on the building none are a health
and safety issue.
The traffic to and from the site is a concern of staff as well. When the business
was approved it was felt the two could coexist in the neighborhood, as do many
other business located in residential neighborhood. The total seating capacity of
the restaurant is 35 persons. Staff still feels this use could be a good use located
within the single-family neighborhood.
The neighborhood also had concerns with the applicant encouraging patrons to
“bring your own bottle”. Staff has contacted the Police Department and this
practice has since stopped. The applicant has applied for a liquor license to
allow the sale of wine and beer on site. If the license is not approved then
patrons will not be able to drink on the site. With the patrons not bringing the
alcohol to the site this should minimize some of the concerns of litter on the site
as was previously expressed.
Staff feels the use is not out of character with the neighborhood. The site has
been a non-residential site in some form for many years and is very unlikely to
redevelop as a residence. There are numerous businesses in area
neighborhoods, which operate until 9:00 pm and the residents feel the business
is an asset to their community. Staff feels if the owners were to offer goodwill
and work with the neighborhood to resolve the issues this could be the case here
are well.
Staff would recommend all activity on the site end by 9:30 pm. Staff would
recommend there be no live music on the site and any music played not be
amplified in any form. Staff recommends the owner not be allowed alcohol on
the site unless approved a liquor license from the state. Staff also recommends
the management of the restaurant police the area daily to remove any litter,
which patrons may drop in the area. Staff recommends the management of the
Café encourage patrons to park in areas which would limit intrusion to the single
family homes located in the area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraph E of this report.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Ms. Suzanne Lumpkin was present representing the applicant. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to
conditions set forth in paragraph E above.
Mr. Tony Woodell President of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association spoke in
opposition of the proposed request. He stated the activity on the site after close was a
concern of the neighbors. He stated there were several business located in residential
neighborhoods in Hillcrest and this was the only location there were constant complaints
of the neighbors with regard to being a bad neighbor.
Mr. Ben Jones, Pastor of Woodlawn Baptist Church spoke in opposition of the proposed
request. He stated the site was located across from a school and this along with the
alcohol did not make for a good combination. He stated the previous use was a deli,
open during the daytime hours. He stated a deli was a good use for the site and
requested the Commission not allow the hours to be extended. He stated there were
numerous uses that could locate on the site and not be intrusive into the neighborhood.
Ms. Cindy White addressed the Commission in opposition. She gave the Commission
signed petitions of the area residents in opposition of the request to extend the hours of
operation. Ms. White stated the live music was a concern of the neighborhood. She
stated with live music the noise traveled much further and could be heard inside the
neighbor’s homes. Ms. White also stated the patrons blocked the drives of the
residents. She stated traffic into the neighborhood was a concern and the narrow
streets were not equipped to handle the parking for the residents and the restaurant.
Ms. White stated the applicant had requested a permit for the sale of liquor on the site
and had been denied. She stated an appeal had been filed with the state to allow the
sale of beer and wine on the site. She stated the location was across from an
elementary school and in close proximity to a church. Ms. White stated the
neighborhood would be better served by a business, which would only operate during
the previously approved hours.
Ms. Sherri Booe addressed the Commission stating she was not totally opposed to the
restaurant just the hours of use. She stated the previous uses were compatible to the
neighborhood and did not cause residents problems with blocked driveways or noise.
Ms. Betti Zimmerman spoke in opposition of the request to extend the hours of
operation. She stated she lived behind the restaurant with her elderly mother. She
stated there were occasions when emergency personnel were called to assist with her
mother and when the driveways were blocked or the streets were crowded with cars
critical time was lost in assisting those in need.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6481-C
6
Ms. Zimmerman also stated there were concerns with garbage trucks driving through
her yard to access the sites dumpster.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition in the proposed request. She
stated the use was a neighborhood grocery store originally but the demand for this use
had since gone by the waste-side. She stated the building was located in a relatively
stable neighborhood and the hours should not be extended against the neighbor’s
wishes.
Ms. Lumpkin stated the request was to be allowed to be open until 10:00 pm and then
proceed with closing and cleaning. She stated the request also included Sunday
Brunch. She stated the closing would take at least one to two hours and if he was
forced to vacate the site at 9:30 pm the owner would not be any better than the current
required closing time. She stated closing normally took two (2) hours thus requiring the
owner to stop accepting patrons at 7:30 pm.
There was a general discussion concerning the development and locating businesses in
residential neighborhoods. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development,
requested the Commission allow a conditional approval. He stated he would like to
work with the neighborhood and the restaurant to allow the use to continue. He stated
most of the concerns being raised by the residents the applicant had agreed to provide
goodwill and try to remedy.
Mr. Lawson stated the Commission could approve the request to allow the business to
operate under the following conditions: Accept no additional patrons after 9:00 pm and
to vacate the site by 11:00 pm, not sell alcohol on the site unless approved by the state
to sell wine and beer only, no live or amplified music and the applicant was to
encourage customers to not park were it would interfere with the parking of residents.
Mr. Lawson stated in other cities this type business was welcomed by the neighbors.
He stated if the Commission would approve the use for six (6) months then the situation
could be revisited by the Commission and if there was no change then the Commission
could determine if the use was an appropriate use in the neighborhood. The time would
expire six (6) months from opening. Mr. Lawson stated the item would still need to go
before the Board of Directors for final approval.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote
of 10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
NAME: Pleasant Hill Road Short-form POD
LOCATION: 13701 Pleasant Hill Road
DEVELOPER:
WXA Enterprises
P.O. Box 260
Roopville, GA 30170
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202
Little Roc, AR 72201
AREA: 7.50 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-I
ALLOWED USES: Excavating Company
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential and Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site housed a nonconforming industrial status until the site was rezoned to PD-I on
March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 18,237). The proposal included the existing business
at the time, CSR Hydro Conduit and James Rogers Excavation and gave the owners
the ability to expand their operation. The request included the placement of additional
new buildings, building additions and equipment storage and the placement of parking
areas. The nonconforming status had been in existence since prior to the property’s
annexation into the City of Little Rock in 1980. The additions were never made.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The current proposal consists of 7.5 acres, located on Pleasant Hill Road (a
private street), west of Vimy Ridge Road. The property is currently approved as
PD-I. The owners desire to rezone the site to POD to allow the residential unit
located on the site to function as corporate residential unit and the office building
located on the site as a quite office unit.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
2
The site currently contains a graveled area behind the single-family home. The
applicant proposes to remove the gravel area and place topsoil in this area and
reseed the site to give a residential appearance. There is a single story
concrete block building to be remodeled and used as an engineering design
office, specializing in the design of pole structures for power line facilities all
construction materials, equipment etc. currently on the site will be removed from
the site.
The applicant was issued a notice of violation of the Land Alteration Ordinance.
The applicant removed the trees around the perimeter of the site. A restoration
plan was been submitted to Public Works and approved subject to the rezoning
approval. If the zoning is approved the applicant will be required to replant one
tree for each tree cut on the non-residential portion of the site. If the rezoning is
not approved the applicant will be required to replant one tree for each tree
removed from the entire site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a single-family structure along with two non-residential
buildings. The single-family structure contains a large area in the rear that has
been graveled and equipment is being stored. There are not any trees located
along the perimeter of the site.
The area to the east of the site contains single-family residential homes located
on large lots. The area to the north, south and west are currently vacant tree
covered site.
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one letter in opposition of the proposed
request. The Quail Run and the Alexander Road Neighborhood Associations
and Southwest United for Progress, 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 were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A 50-foot access easement for Pleasant Hill Road should be shown on the
plat.
2. Any future construction will require widening Pleasant Hill Road for two lane
access.
3. Compliance with the approved site restoration plan is required.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: If project requires relocation of any facilities, this will be at the
expense of the owner. If this is conflict with current easements for lines “A” and “LM-
4” Center-Point Entergy Arkla will retain this easement. Contact Arkla at 377-4549
for additional details.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if additional
water service is needed. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Office Development for a new engineering office.
Since this application is a change from an existing PZD (PD-I) to a new PZD
(POD), with a resulting reduction in use (from PD-I to POD), 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 / I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan
does not contain any goals, objectives, or action statements that are relative to
this application.
Landscape: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff introduced the
proposal stating the case was a rezoning request and the applicant had violated
the Land Alteration Ordinance. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a plan to
Public Works and staff was agreeable to the restoration plan.
Staff indicated to Mr. McGetrick there were additional items needed to complete
the review of the rezoning request. Staff requested the days and hours of
operation and the number of employees reporting to the site. Staff also
questioned if there would be any outdoor storage areas. Mr. McGetrick stated he
would verify with his clients but to his knowledge there was to be no outdoor
storage.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the road was a private
street and if there was to be any future construction the road would have to be
widened to two travel lanes. Staff also stated compliance with the approved
restoration site plan would be required.
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 at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee Meeting. The applicant has
indicated there are 15 employees of the company reporting to the site
periodically. The applicant has also indicated there are approximately 3
customers daily. The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be
from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday.
There are five parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. The site
contains an existing 2550 square foot building and the applicant has indicated a
2000 square foot future addition. The site is a large area and although the
parking proposed is not sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand
for 2550 square foot office (6 spaces typical minimum) staff feels parking should
not be an issue.
The applicant has indicated there will be three to four pickups stored on the site.
These trucks will be parked near the office building, which is located to the rear
of the site and should have limited effect on the area residents. There is to be no
other outdoor storage of materials or vehicles. There will not be a dumpster
located on the site.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
5
The existing fencing will remain on the site. The non-residential portion of the
site is enclosed with a six foot chain link fence. The residential portion is not
fenced and will remain open.
The applicant has indicated the single-family portion will become a corporate
residence. There is an area in the rear, which is currently covered in gravel. The
gravel will be removed and the applicant proposes to place topsoil in this area
and reseed the site. This will give a more residential appearance to the site.
The applicant has indicated the garage will be used for automobile parking only.
The applicant has proposed the placement of a single ground mounted sign near
the entrance of the site. The sign is proposed to conform to signage allowed in
office zones or no more than six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area.
Staff recommends approval of the requested signage.
The site has been used for non-residential uses for a number of years and will
more than likely not redevelop as a residential use. Staff feels the proposed use
is less intense than the previous use and should have minimal to no adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item stating the
request was for a rezoning from PD-I to POD a less intensive use. Staff stated they had
received one letter in opposition of the proposed request. Staff stated the Public Works
conditions should be revised to include, the dedication of right-of-way 30—feet from the
center line of Pleasant Hill Road would be required and with any future construction the
roadway would need to be constructed to Master Street Plan standard.
Mr. Gary Briggs addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated his desire was to return the site to R-2, Single-family zoning.
Mr. McGetrick stated the desire of the applicant was to return the existing single-family
structure to a residential structure to be used as a corporate residence. He stated the
applicant would also clean the site of the remaining industrial equipment stored on the
site. Mr. McGetrick stated the use was a low intensity use with approximately five (5) of
the fifteen (15) employees accessing the site daily and there would be limited customer
traffic.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-6806-A
6
There was a limited discussion concerning the feasibility of the site returning to a
residential use. Staff stated this was not likely.
A motion was made to approve the application as filed. The motion carried by a vote of
10 ayes, 0 no and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7328-A
NAME: Lot 11 RR Lincoln Park Subdivision Revised PD-R
LOCATION: On the northwest corner of Woodlawn and Taylor Streets
DEVELOPER:
Michael Love
510 Pine Valley Road
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
Dixion Surveying
306 North Springfield
Plummerville, AR 72127
AREA: 0.38 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: A duplex in lieu of a single-family structure
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 19, 2002 the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the site
from R-3, Single-family to PD-R and create a two lot plat. The applicant
proposed to replat four lots (Lots 11, 12, 13 & 14) into two (2) lots (Lots 11R &
11RR) Block 20, Lincoln Park Subdivision. Lot 11R contains an existing single-
family structure and is 120-feet by 90-feet. Lot
11RR is 50-foot by 120-foot and faces Woodlawn. The replat resulted in a 7.1
foot rear yard setback from the west property line for the existing residence on
Lot 11R.
The applicant proposed to leave the existing structure (including existing ingress)
in tact on Lot 11R. The applicant proposed to remove the structure on proposed
Lot 11RR and construct a 1615 square foot two-story, frame residence with a
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7328-A
2
west side yard setback of 9.2 feet and an east side yard setback of 8.8 feet. The
proposed driveway for the property would be from the south, off Woodlawn.
The applicant proposed a wooden fence to separate the two properties along the
common property line of Lots 11R and 11RR. The fence was proposed at four
(4) feet within the building setback and six (6) feet along the remainder of the
property line. The lots have been final platted and the fence has been installed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow
the placement of a duplex unit on the second lot in-lieu of the single-family
home. The proposal includes the placement of a 27-foot three (3) car
driveway along Woodlawn Street to meet the parking demand for the site.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a guesthouse with the second lot containing an occupied
single-family home. There is a drainage ditch located along the west
property line with the guesthouse located adjacent to the property line and
a one and one-half (1.5) foot side yard setback. The guesthouse structure
is a wooden structure in good repair. The primary structure is a brick and
frame house located on the corner of these streets facing Taylor Street.
The structure has a double car carport with the loading from Taylor Street.
Woodlawn has been constructed with curb and gutter in place and no
sidewalks. Taylor is a narrow roadway with ditch swales for drainage.
The road surface is chip seal and no sidewalks are in place.
There is a church immediately east of the site across Taylor and single-
family homes are located immediately south of the site across Woodlawn.
The remainder of the area is primarily single-family with a scattering of
duplex units.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, Staff has not received any comment from area residents.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet
of the site, who could be identified and the Hillcrest Residents
Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7328-A
3
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water
requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Singe Family for this property. The
applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Residential
Development to build a duplex instead of a single-family dwelling.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan because the
proposed density is not dissimilar to Single Family.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies
in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan “A Blueprint of our
Community.” Two action statements listed under the Housing goal
recommend notifying the neighborhood of demolitions and to preserve the
eclectic architectural character of the neighborhood.
Landscape: No comment.
Building Codes: No comment.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7328-A
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. Michael Love was present representing the application. Staff introduced
the item indicating this request was to revise a previously approved PD-R to
allow the construction of a duplex instead of a single-family home. Staff
noted to Mr. Love there were concerns with a duplex fitting the character of
the neighborhood. Staff stated the parking should be relocated to three
spaces exiting from Woodlawn Street. Staff stated the drive would be wider
than was typically recommended but would be allowed to retain the
residential character of the structure.
Staff requested details concerning the architectural design of the building.
Staff stated the design should match the existing architecture in the area by
being craftsman style.
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 revised the plan to include a 27-foot driveway along
Woodlawn Avenue. The applicant has also provided elevations to ensure
the structure will fit the architectural style of the neighborhood.
Staff feels the development is a good mix for the neighborhood. The site if
developed as presented will give the appearance of a single-family home
while providing a two-family residential mix to the neighborhood. The area
has developed primarily as single-family and the duplex would allow for
alternative housing in the area. The proposed parking is sufficient to meet
the typical minimum parking demand for a duplex unit (3 spaces typical
minimum parking required).
Staff feels the proposed development is a quality in-fill development and
should the structure presented be constructed it will be a quality
development in the area while maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request as filed subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff would recommend the site be developed based on the elevation
presented.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7328-A
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated they had received two phone calls in opposition of the
proposed request. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no other
outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the request as filed subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff stated
the recommendation included the site being developed based on the elevation
presented.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the
consent agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LU03-29-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Barrett Planning District
Location: 25902 Cantrell Rd.
Request: Single Family to Commercial
Source: Raymond Benny Fletcher, Shirley Fletcher
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
This application is a Land Use Plan amendment in the Barrett Planning District
from Single Family 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.
Staff is not expanding the application since the property covered consists of more
than one large lot in close proximity to an intersection.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant’s properties consist of three tracts of land currently zoned R-2
Single Family and cover a combined total of approximately 4.91 + acres in size,
with about .88 + acres located at the northwest corner of Morgan Cemetery Road
and State Highway 10, and two tracts of land covering about 4.03 + acres located
on the south side of State Highway 10. All of the applicant’s properties can be
described in two areas. The tract of land north of State Highway 10 is the site of
a vacant commercial structure (formerly a café) and accessory buildings, with all
of the surrounding land to the west, north, and east consisting of vacant property
zoned R-2 Single Family. The applicant’s properties on the south side of
Highway 10 are next to each other and consist of a vacant house on a large lot
while the remaining property is vacant. The neighboring properties on the south
side of Highway 10 next to the applicant’s property consist of a house on a large
lot to the east, vacant land to the south, and houses built on Lois and Connie
Lanes to the west. All of the neighboring property is zoned R-2 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
No Land Use Plan amendments have been approved within the last five years
within a 1-mile radius of the application area.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LU03-29-02
2
The applicant’s properties are shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use
Plan. All of the surrounding property is shown as Single Family on the Future
Land Use Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
State Highway 10 is shown as Principal Arterial while this segment of Morgan
Cemetery Road is shown as a Local Street. Highway 10 is built as a rural two-
lane highway and would be subject to half street improvements in order to
conform to Master Street Plan Standards. Morgan Cemetery Road is built as a
rural two-lane road with open drainage and also would be subject to half street
improvements in order to conform to Master Street Plan Standards. A Class II
Bikeway is shown from Ferndale Cutoff to Chenonceau Boulevard. The
improvement of Highway 10 to Master Street Plan Standards would require the
designation of a bike lane even though the Master Street Plan does not
recommend additional right-of-way or paving for Class II Bikeways.
PARKS:
The applicant’s properties are located 1/3 of a mile west of the Joe T. Robinson
Elementary and Junior High Schools and are located outside the city limits.
However, the Park System Master Plan recognizes public schools as facilities
eligible for providing for the recreation needs within eight blocks of all Little Rock
households as a part of the “Eight Block Strategy.” The applicant’s property is
also located near the “Take it to the Extreme” trail - the western leg of the
proposed loop system of trails intended to circle the city.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s properties are located outside city limits a little over 1 mile to the
west of the developing commercial node at the Chenal / Highway 10 intersection.
The applicant’s properties are also located about 1 mile west of Highway 300, the
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: LU03-29-02
3
western boundary of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Most of the
Commercial nodes on Highway 10 are located at intersections with Principal and
Minor Arterials. The applicant’s properties are located at an intersection of a
Principal Arterial with a Local Street.
The Commercial development that is occurring in the vicinity of the applicant’s
properties is located a little over a mile to the east at the Chenal / Highway 10
intersection. The Chenal / Highway 10 Commercial node contains land available
for non-residential development that is not yet developed to its full potential.
About 68.4+ acres of undeveloped non-residential land is located at the Chenal /
Highway 10 intersection. There are existing nodes of Commercial areas that are
not developed at the intersections of Highway 10 with Chenal Parkway / Highway
300 and Chenonceau starting one mile east of the applicant’s property. There
are nodes of Neighborhood Commercial that are not fully developed at the
intersections of Highway 10 with Barrett Road and Goodson Roads located about
one mile to the west. Most of the existing non-residential development at these
locations is primarily businesses that serve a rural market with much of the areas
shown as Commercial remaining vacant.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Greystone Manor
N. A. Staff has not received any comments from area residents at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A change to Commercial is pre-
mature at this time with other undeveloped areas of Commercial shown on the
plan in the general vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made
to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16.1 FILE NO.: Z-7411
NAME: Fletcher Short-form PD-I
LOCATION: 21900, 21901, 21902 Highway 10
DEVELOPER:
Raymond Fletcher
320 Garrison Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
James Farris
1485 Southern Hills Drive
Conway, AR 72032
AREA: 2.88 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential and a non-conforming restaurant
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-I
PROPOSED USE: Parking of dirt moving equipment and the storage of dirt and C-3
uses as alternative uses for the non-conforming commercial building.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the site located at 21900, 91901 and 21902
Highway 10 from R-2, Single-family to PD-I. The development contains two (2)
areas, one area north of Highway 10 and one area south of Highway 10.
Currently there is a non-conforming commercial business located on the site
north of Highway 10 (Dee’s Catering). The applicant is requesting C-3 uses as
alternative uses for the commercial building.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7411
2
North of Highway 10 there is also a single-family home and a garage located on
the site currently being used as a non-residential uses for personal projects and
repairs. The driveway exists off Highway 10 and is part of a large driveway for
the established business parking area.
In addition to the existing catering business, the applicant is requesting to utilize
the site located at 21902 as an excavation business. The property would be
used to park trucks and equipment as well as use one room in the house as an
office. The future plan is to build a carport structure for the protection of the
trucks and equipment. The size would be approximately 54 feet by 54 feet and
20 feet in height. The parking area is proposed to be located at the rear of the
site. The drive will extend from Morgan Cemetery Road to the rear of the
property. There are three (3) trucks, a Dozer and a backhoe.
To the east of the existing commercial building is a site approximately 0.88 acres
in size. This area currently is occupies by a barn, which houses a horse and is
surrounded by a chain link fence. The area immediately east of this site is an
additional 0.88 acre tract the applicant proposes to use for short-term
stockpile/storage of dirt and topsoil.
Property located south of Highway 10 (21901 Highway 10) is immediately south
of the commercial building. The site contains a residential structure currently
being used as a rental unit. The site is currently over two (2) acres and contains
two additional outbuildings. The applicant is requesting to utilize the back one-
half of the site (southern portion) to also stockpile/store dirt and topsoil.
The applicant has indicated the only addition of structures would be the proposed
carport.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The northern area contains an existing commercial building being used by a
catering service. The rear of the site is being used by the applicant for
equipment parking behind the existing commercial building. The area to the east
contains a small barn and further east the applicant has been storing dirt. This
site has perimeter trees and no safeguards are in place to protect the critical root
zones.
The site to the south contains an existing single-family home with dirt also being
store on this site. There are also perimeter trees on the site. There are not any
measure in place to allow erosion control.
The area to the north is vacant and wooded. The area to the east and west are
being used as single-family home site in a rural setting with homes located on
large lots.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7411
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The DuQuesne Place Property Owners Association and the Greystone Manor
Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing along with 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. As of this writing, staff has
not received any comment from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. If dirt storage is approved, permanent erosion control measures such as
sedimentation basin and diversion ditches should be provided.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if larger
and/or additional water meter(s) are required. All Central Arkansas Water
requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Barrett Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a Planned Development - Industrial for dirt storage and equipment parking.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7411
4
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: A minimum six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or a wall, is required where adjacent to
residential zones or uses. Additionally, a land use buffer equal in width to six (6)
percent of the average width and depth of the property is required.
One tree and three shrubs for every 30 linear feet will be required around the
perimeter of the site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance
requirements can be given only when properly preserving trees.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher were present representing the application. Staff introduced
the item indicating there were issues related to the site plan. Staff stated the
primary concern was with the protection of the existing trees on the site. Staff
also questioned if the northern drive was located on the applicant’s property.
Mr. Fletcher stated his son was in the dirt business and he was storing the dirt on
the site because of the proximity to the haul site. He stated the dirt did not
typically stay very long before it was transported to a new location for fill material.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening would be
required adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Staff also stated one tree
and three shrubs for every 30 linear feet would be required around the perimeter
of the site.
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 at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the eastern, western and
southern property lines of the area located south of Highway 10. Staff would
recommend a fence be placed behind the rear of the residential structure to
shield the dirt storage area from the view of Highway 10.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7411
5
The site to the north of Highway 10 the dirt storage area is adjacent to Highway
10 and Morgan Cemetery Road. The applicant has stated this area will be
shielded by dense plantings. The applicant has indicated the site has a high
bank and motorist cannot see the site from the roadway. Staff feels this area
should not be allowed storage because of the number of large trees located on
the site. The applicant has indicated the dirt will not be stored up next to the
trees but staff’s opinion is that the critical root zone cannot be protected with the
equipment moving dirt on this site. Staff would recommend dirt storage not be
allowed in this area.
The applicant proposes to place equipment behind the existing non-residential
building. Staff feels this is workable but the applicant should screen the area
from the roadway. The applicant has indicated existing trees in the area. Staff
feels a dense evergreen planting, a wall or fence should be placed in the area
extending from the highway to the rear of the storage area to block the view of
the equipment from passing motorist on Highway 10 along the western boundary.
The proposed addition of a 54-foot by 54-foot parking pad should have minimal
to no adverse impact on the surrounding area. The proposed location is in the
rear of the site and there is a densely wooded area located behind the proposed
building.
In summary staff is not totally opposed to the proposed request. The applicant is
requesting C-3 uses as alternative uses for the commercial building located on
the site. Staff supports this request. The building is a non-conforming
commercial business and the redevelopment of the site would most likely be with
a commercial business. The request for the temporary storage and stockpiling of
dirt on the site located south of Highway 10 staff feels if properly screened the
area could be used to store the dirt with minimal negative impact on the area.
Staff would further recommend that the area to the north not be allowed any
storage or stockpiling of dirt due to the protection of the critical root zone of the
trees located in the area. Finally staff recommends if the applicant is allowed to
store equipment behind the non-conforming building the area be screening with a
fence or dense evergreen plantings to block the views of the site from Highway
10.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no objectors present.
Staff stated the applicant was willing to limit the storage of dirt to the south side of
Highway 10 and screen the area as requested by Staff. Staff stated this was the only
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16.1 (con’t.) FILE NO.: Z-7411
6
outstanding issue associated with the proposed request. Staff stated their
recommendation was now approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for approval. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: LU03-01-03
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: County Farm Rd. near River Valley Marina Rd.
Request: Single Family and Park / Open Space to Commercial
Source: David Henry, Hudson Enterprises Inc.
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
This application is a Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning
District from Single Family and Park / Open Space 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.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is a marina currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately
10.52+ acres in size. The property to the north is rural property developed with
large lot Single Family residences and limited agricultural uses. All of the
surrounding property to the east, and west is vacant land or large lot residential
zoned R-2 Single Family. The Little Maumelle River borders the applicant’s
property on the south side. The land south of the river is zoned R-2 with a
railroad on the south bank.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made from Transition and Low
Density Residential to Suburban Office, Single Family, Park/Open Space, Low
Density Residential, Office and Public Institutional along both sides of Cantrell
Road within a 1-mile radius south of the applicant’s property.
On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park/Open Space
about 1 mile south of the application area at Pankey Park to recognize existing
conditions.
On April 20, 1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family and Low
Density Residential to Park / Open Space, Multifamily, Office, and Mixed Office
Commercial at Cantrell and Black Road about 2/3 of a mile southwest of the
applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development.
The applicant’s property is shown as Single Family and Park / Open Space on
the Future Land Use Plan. All of the land to the north is shown as Single Family
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (con’t.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-03
2
while the land to the east, south, and west is shown as Park / Open Space along
the floodplain of the Little Maumelle River. The land south of the floodplain is
shown as Single Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
County Farm Road is a rural two-lane road shown as a Collector Street on the
Master Street Plan. River Valley Marina Road is a Local street with open
drainage providing access to the marina. River Valley Marina Road would need
improvements to be brought up to the Master Street Plan standards for
commercial streets for any non-residential development in the area covered by
this amendment.
A Class II Bikeway is shown on County Farm Road from Pinnacle Valley Road to
Isbel Lane. The Master Street Plan states that Class II Bikeways should be of
the same construction as the streets on which they are constructed. The
minimum width for a Class II Bikeway is 6 feet back from the curb. If roadway
shoulders are used for bikeways, the shoulder should be six feet wide. This
width should discourage vehicular traffic use and keep the path free of debris.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the
applicant’s property is located along the route of the “Take it to the Edge” Trail.
The “Take it to the Edge” Trail is part of the development concept of a three-trail
loop system around the city. This loop system of trails is intended to link parks,
open space, and recreation areas located along the edges of the city. The “Take
it to the Edge” trail is intended to provide an urban interface with the Arkansas
and Little Maumelle Rivers. The “Take to the Edge” Trail coincides with the
Class II Bikeway shown on the Master Street Plan.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little
Rock recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s property is located in a low-lying area on the north bank of the
Little Maumelle River outside city limits. The existing commercial uses at the
marina are isolated from other non-residential and non-agricultural uses by both
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (con’t.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-03
3
distance and topography. Any land shown as Commercial at this location would
not have any buffers to the west, north, or east from potential development of
less intense uses. The Little Maumelle River would provide the only buffer
between Commercial uses on the applicant’s property and the land located on
the south bank. A railroad runs parallel to the south bank of the Little Maumelle
River. South of the railroad the land slopes upward to the Walton Heights
subdivision. The railroad and slope may limit the amount of potential land
available for non-residential development on the south bank.
The applicant’s property is located near the “Take it to the Edge” trail. The trail is
situated to take advantage of the recreational opportunities provided by the river
and to provide public an interface with the river. Since the applicant’s property is
situated on the north bank of the Little Maumelle River, future development of the
property could also provide access to the river. If designed correctly, both the
trail and development of the applicant’s could complement each other. However,
the Commercial land use category is broad enough that non-residential
development of the applicant’s property could be incompatible with both the trail
and neighboring land uses. Any type of commercial development that could take
place in an area shown as Commercial should be developed in a way that would
complement the recreational amenities characteristic of the area. In addition,
utilities and other infrastructure would need to be improved to serve any changes
in Commercial uses located on the applicant’s property.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Pleasant Valley
Property Owners Association, River Valley Property Owners Association, Pankey
Community Improvement Association, Piedmont Neighborhood Association,
Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, Secluded Hills Property Owners
Association, Walton Heights-Candlewood Neighborhood Association, Westbury
Neighborhood Association, and Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners
Association. Staff has not received any comments from area residents at this
time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A change to Commercial would
allow a broad range of uses that would be incompatible with neighboring land
uses and recreational amenities of the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. The
Planning Commission did not discuss item 17. A motion was made to defer the
item to the July 24, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was
approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recuse, and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
NAME: River Harbor Long-form PCD
LOCATION: County Farm Road east of River Valley Marina Road
DEVELOPER:
101 River Harbor Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 21475
Little Rock, AR 72221
ENGINEER:
Hope Engineers
322 North Market Street
Benton, AR
AREA: 33 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 FT. NEW STREET: 2632
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: Marina and Single-family (50 residential lots)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a two fold development on this 33 acre tract. The
proposal includes the subdivision of 22 acres into 50 single-family residential lots
and the redevelopment of an existing non-conforming commercial uses, River
Valley Marina, located on a 10 acre tract. The site is located within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction but not within the city limits of Little Rock.
The property is located on County Farm Road, south and east of its intersection
with River Valley Marina Road.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
2
The plan is to extend a waterway from the Little Maumelle River and provide 47
of the 50 lots with a waterfront setting. The proposed development is intended to
provide quality residential development and utilize the recreational and scenic
attributes of the Little Maumelle and Arkansas Rivers, and the surrounding area.
The applicant has contact the US Army Corp of Engineers concerning the
extension of the Little Maumelle. A permit has been issued but the previous
permit does not match the existing development. The applicant is working with
the Corp to determine what additional review procedures will be required.
A portion of the proposed project lines in the floodway per the Floodway
Designation Map for Pulaski County. The applicant has indicated they will work
with the County and the Corp of Engineers to remove this area from the
floodway.
The applicant’s project lies outside the city limits and will not be allowed to
connect to the City of Little Rock’s wastewater collection system. The applicant
has indicated a private wastewater collection system. Each unit will have an
individual septic tank where solids are collected. The liquids will be piped to a
centralized location for further treatment before being released.
The applicant has indicated an essential component of the proposed plan is the
redevelopment of the River Valley Marina. The Marina has been in operation on
the site since the late 1960’s. When the City expanded the Extraterritorial
Planning Jurisdiction in the area the site became a non-conforming use. The
proposed plan includes the removal of the existing marina buildings and
complete redevelopment of the site, providing essentially the same commercial
area under roof, but in new structures on a reduced portion of the real property.
The applicant has indicated the existing docks along the Little Maumelle will
remain but will be rehabbed.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing marina with a bait shop, boat repair and outdoor
storage boats. Along the river are also boats docked in both covered and open
slips. The area of the proposed single-family is currently vacant, grass covered
and being used as a hayfield.
The Little Maumelle River adjoins the site to the south. The area to the east and
the west are currently vacant and also being used as hayfields. The area to the
north of the site is developed with single-family homes on five acre tracts
adjoining the Arkansas River.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association and the River Valley
Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing along with all
owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents who could
be identified located within 300 feet of the site. As of this writing, staff has
received several informational phone calls concerning the proposed
development.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. County Farm Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a Collector. A
dedication of right-of-way 30-feet form centerline will be required. The 50-feet
wide right-of-way widths for internal roads are acceptable.
2. Provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct 18-
foot half-street improvements to County Farm Road including 5-foot sidewalks
with planned development. Construct other street improvements as shown
(26-feet minimum width plus sidewalks).
3. This property is outside the corporate limits of Little Rock. Stormwater
detention and grading permits are not required.
4. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District
of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
5. Obtain a NDPES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
6. The proposed alteration of the floodway will require flood map revisions or a
no rise certificate. Obtain conditional approval from Pulaski County and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency prior to start of work.
7. The minimum Finish Floor elevation above the 100 year flood elevation, as
established by Pulaski County, is required to be shown on the plat. (Note:
Maps indicate a base flood elevation of 264 feet or 12 foot above the typical
grade.)
8. Show the limits of the floodway on the proposed plat. Per FEMA regulations,
no fill or building construction is permitted in the floodway.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary. No connection maybe made to the existing
force main located in County Farm Road.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
4
SBC: SBC has some existing facilities that may need to be relocated or removed
for this construction project. Contact SBC at 373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: Water main extensions will be required in order to
provide fire protection and domestic service to this property. A Capital Investment
Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in
addition to normal charges. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. This development will have minor
impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized
to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Little Rock
Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family and Park/Open Space for this
property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for
a marina.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.
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: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
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 where
commercial property is adjacent to residential to the south, east and west.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape
plans stamped with the seal of a Register Landscape Architect.
Building Codes: No comment.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 22, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff briefly described the
proposal noting additional information was required to complete the review. Staff
requested a preliminary plat to encompass the entire ownership. Staff noted
front platted building lines and easements were the only requirement on the
preliminary plat.
Staff noted the comment from wastewater stating the development would be
required to install their own wastewater collection and treatment facility. The
applicant stated a consultant had been hired to design the system. The applicant
stated the system would include a septic system at each home with solids being
retained and the liquids being pumped to a centralized location for further
treatment before discharge.
Public Works comments were addressed. The applicant noted the streets would
be constructed to Master Street Plan requirement as requested. Staff also noted
the limits of the floodplain and the floodway. There was a general discussion
concerning the development and the requirements for developing in the
floodplain. Staff noted no development could take place in the floodway.
Staff questioned the material of the wall construction and the maintenance of the
wall. The applicant noted the wall would be constructed of wood and the
property owners association would be responsible for maintaining the wall.
Staff questioned if the existing river development would remain. The applicant
stated the existing docks would remain but would be rehabbed.
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 at the May 22, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
indicated a 30-foot platted building line along County Farm Road as required by
the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has also indicated the linear feet of
internal street within the development. The applicant has stated the streets will
be developed to Master Street Plan standard and be dedicated as public streets.
The applicant has also indicated the areas of outdoor storage. The applicant has
indicated an area near the marina building to be used for overflow boat parking.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
6
The applicant has indicated the current zoning of the single-family portion of the
site as zoned R-2, Single-family but the marina portion as zoned C-4. In the
General Note section the applicant has stated the zoning classification of the
single-family portion as an R-1 Zoning District. The C-4 zoning and the R-1
zoning are stated incorrectly. The entire site is zoned R-2, Single-family with the
marina being a non-conforming use. The proposed zoning classification is PCD
to allow the site to develop as a single-family subdivision and the marina to be
redeveloped.
The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size as 7,000 square feet with the
proposed average lot size being approximately 9,000 square feet. The proposed
lot sizes meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
commercial lot proposed is also adequate to meet the minimum requirements for
a commercial lot. The remaining portion of the property is located across the
Little Maumelle River. There is currently no access to the site and there is no
access to the site proposed.
The proposed development is intended to allow water access to 47 of the 50
proposed lots. The Little Maumelle River will be dredged to create an
embayment. The applicant is proposing the retaining wall of the bulkhead to be
constructed of wooden pilings. The applicant has indicated the maintenance of
the bulkhead to be by a property owners association. Per the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 36-459) the applicant is to establish in the Bill of Assurance for the
proposed subdivision “… the ownership, operation, construction and
maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space,
community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measures and
similar common elements in a development.” Since a proposed Bill of Assurance
was not submitted to staff for review staff is unsure as to the provision for
maintenance of the retaining walls. Staff would recommend if the proposed
development is approved the applicant establish the Bill of Assurance and work
with the City Attorney’s office to ensure the legal form and effect prior to final
approval of the proposed development.
Per the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-460 the Commission should take into
consideration when reviewing a proposed development the compatibility between
the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood. In addition the Commission shall involve a
consideration of water conservation, preservation of natural site, amenities and
the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Residential
Densities shall be determined on the basis of the following considerations: The
densities of the surrounding development; The densities allowed under the
current zoning; The urban development goals and other policies of the
comprehensive plan, the topography and character of the natural environment,
and the impact of a given density on the specific site and adjacent properties.
Staff does not feel the proposed development meet these criteria.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
7
Per Zoning Ordinance [Section 36-460(h)] “well designed open space is an
important factor in providing for innovative design and visual attractiveness.
Open space shall be evaluated utilizing the following general guidelines: (1) A
minimum of ten to fifteen percent of gross planned residential district areas shall
be designated as common usable open space. (2) Single-family, duplex, zero-
lot-line and townhouse development shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of
usable private open space per unit (3) No more than one-half of the common
usable open space may be covered by water.” Based on 22 acres of single-
family development the applicant would be required approximately 96,000 square
feet of open space. Although, a large portion of the area is designated as
common open space the development appears to indicated approximately 6000
square feet of open space in the form of a neighborhood park. The remainder of
the common open space is to be in the bulkhead, which the entirely may not be
considered as open space per the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has also indicated the floodway limits on the proposed site plan.
This information was received from Pulaski County Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map numbered 050179 0258, bearing an effective date of August 5,
1991. Per FEMA regulations, no fill or building construction is permitted in the
floodway. There is a process in which the limits of the floodway may be changed
and the applicant has indicated this process will be undertaken. Staff is not
comfortable with the approval of the proposed development without the
clearance from the Corp of Engineers for relocation of the floodway limits. Staff
would recommend the applicant secure the necessary approval from the Corp of
Engineers prior to the City of Little Rock approval of the proposed development.
To secure the necessary approval from the Corp of Engineers redesign of the
existing layout may be necessary. If this is the case the Commission is required
to re-evaluate the development based on a new layout.
The proposed development will also require alteration of watercourses. The
applicant has a previously approved 404 Permit, which does not match the
existing project. The permit authorized the continuing operation and
maintenance of an existing commercial marina. The authorization includes new
work, consisting of the dredging of, and the incidental redeposit of, dredged
material for a connection between the Little Maumelle River and a new
embayment being constructed for a 250-slip marina. The applicant has stated
they are working with the Corp of Engineers to determine if a major or minor
modification to the existing permit is required. Staff feels this is a key component
of the development. If the permit is not issued the development will not take
place. Staff feels the issues with the Corp of Engineers should be resolved prior
to approval by the City of Little Rock.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
8
The applicant has indicated the development will be served by a private
wastewater collection and treatment facility. Per the Subdivision Ordinance
(Section 31-400) all subdivision shall be provided with a sewage collection and
treatment system approved by the wastewater utility and/or the state board of
health. The sewage collection system shall be designed to handle the
anticipated flow of sewage from within the subdivision, including development of
future sections of the same subdivision and adjacent areas within the same
drainage basin.
The subdivider shall either install the improvements referred to or whenever a
septic tank and absorption system or private water supply is to be provided,
require as a condition in the bill of assurance of the subdivision, that those
facilities shall be installed by the builder of the improvements of the lots in
accordance with Section 31-400 of the City of Little Rock Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant has not provided any details concerning the proposed wastewater
collection and treatment facility nor has the applicant provided staff with any
approvals from the Department of Health or the State Department of
Environmental Quality.
Staff has some great concerns with the proposed development. In staff’s opinion
the proposed development does not meet the intent of the Planned Zoning
District’s General Purpose. The Zoning Ordinance states a PUD is not granted
for the benefit of the applicant, but are used to establish developments that are
compatible with the surrounding area, are harmonious with the character of the
neighborhood, do not have a negative effect upon the future development of the
area, permit coordination of the planning of the land surrounding the PUD or PD
and create a desirable and stable environment.
Staff feels the applicant is premature in the filing of the request. All necessary
approvals have not been obtained to allow the project to develop. There are
approvals needed from the Corp of Engineers concerning building construction in
a floodway, a permit to allow the dredging and creation of the embayment area
and approval of the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental
Quality for the wastewater collection and treatment facility.
The proposed request does not fit with the City of Little Rock’s Future Land Use
Plan. The Plan indicated the site as Park/Open Space and Single Family. There
is a request to amend the Land Use Plan to allow the marina portion of the site to
develop with a Commercial designation. Staff feels a Commercial designation in
this area does not fit. The area is predominately Single Family on the Plan.
Typically the Plan allows for buffers of less intense uses between Commercial
designations and Single Family. The Parks Plan indicates this area as a part of a
trail of parks connecting Two Rivers Park with other areas west of the city.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
9
Further more staff feels the proposed development does not fit with the character
of the surrounding area. The area has developed with homes on large lots (5-
acre tracts). The proposed development would allow for one-quarter acre lots at
best.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were objectors present.
Commissioner Lowry stated he would have to recuse on the item due to a conflict of
interest. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated there
were a number of unresolved issues related to the development that warranted
approvals prior to the City approving the development.
Ms. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, stated she did not feel the Commission could
hear the item based on the Subdivision Ordinance requirement of Section 31-400 (b).
She stated the wastewater collection and treatment issue would have to be resolved
prior to approval.
Mr. David Henry representing the applicant stated he disagreed with the City Attorney’s
opinion. He stated the development was a community and this requirement did not
apply to the development. He stated the system would be subject to ADEQ (Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality) approval and not the City of Little Rock’s
approval. He stated the approvals could not be secured without the approval of the City
of Little Rock approving the preliminary plat first. He stated once the City approved the
request then the applicant would work with the Corp of Engineers, the County, FEMA
and the Health Department to resolve the outstanding issues.
Staff stated they did not agree with this request. Staff stated if the project was located
within the City a plat would not be approved because a portion of the development was
located in the floodway.
Mr. Rusty McMullan spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concerns were with the discharge of the affluent into the Little Maumelle River. He
stated if the area was flooded the affluent would then be forced into the backwaters of
the Little Maumelle River. He questioned at what point an environmental impact study
would be conducted on the site.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17.1 FILE NO.: Z-7412
10
Mr. McMullan stated he was also concerned with the traffic the site would generate. He
stated with the development of 50 single-family lots there would be a significant
increase in the traffic on County Farm Road. He stated the roads in the area were not
equipment to handle such an increase in the amount of traffic.
Mr. Louis Bianco spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
primary concern was that of the lack of city services such as wastewater collection and
fire protection. He stated there were two (2) subdivisions currently under construction in
the area both of which received all the necessary approval prior to the City approving
the preliminary plat.
Mr. Paul Cook spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated with the
current FEMA regulations the homes would be required to be constructed at a minimum
of 12-feet above the road. He stated this would look out of place in the area. He stated
currently the homes were constructed on five (5) acre tracts and the proposed
development was out of character.
Ms. Ruth Bell spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated if the City
had a check list and went down the list checking off all the things that the subdivision
met then few items that would be checked off.
There was a general discussion concerning if the Commission should be considering
the request. The were a general consensus the application should be deferred for six
(6) weeks to resolve as many outstanding issues associated with the proposed request
as possible.
A motion was made to defer the item to the July 24, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 ones, 1 absent and 1 recuse (Bob Lowry).
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: LA-001
NAME: Denial of grading permit issuance for land
alteration activities
LOCATION: Undeveloped lot at Baseline, Childers, and I-
30 in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jim Hill, Putnam Realty, agent of owner.
REQUEST: Appeal denial of issuance of a grading permit
for land alteration activities.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of Baseline Road is a principal arterial. Childers Drive would be
classified by land use as a commercial street. I-30 westbound service road is
part of the freeway system.
2. Development Potential and Land Use
This 10 acre site is adjacent to I-30 west bound service road, Baseline Road, and
Childers Drive. The subject property is zoned C-3 and fronts I-30. The property
to the west across Childers Drive is R2 with a non-conforming CUP for a church.
The adjacent businesses to the east are zoned C-3. The property to the north
across Baseline Road is owned by Mr. Eddie Wilson and is zoned R2. Mr.
Wilson previously filed an appeal of the Public Works decision to deny the
issuance of a grading permit which was upheld by the Commission.
3. Neighborhood Position
Public Works has not received any inquiries or neighborhood comments.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
About the middle of April, Mr. Jim Hill, representing the owners of the above described
land, contacted Public Works seeking a grading permit to fill the property with
approximately 80,000 cubic yards of dirt from the adjacent I-30 construction project. Mr.
Hill presented a plan that would fill approximately 5 to 10 feet of dirt over the entire site
over a 1 ½ year to 2 year period. Mr. Hill stated that he has no other plans for
development of the property.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (con’t.) FILE NO.: LA-001
2
A plan has been presented on Mr. Hill’s behalf by the contractor for the I-30 work.
While the original submittal would have caused drainage problems and a large flat area
significantly higher than the surrounding terrain, the permit applicant has indicated he
would lower the fill to about 1 to 5 feet and maintain a drainage channel. A 15 foot
buffer area is to remain and any trees removed that are greater than 6 inches diameter
would be replanted. While these changes have been indicated verbally, no revised
drawings or cover letters have been received as of this writing.
Public Works has denied Mr. Hill’s request for a grading permit and he has appealed
pursuant to Section 29-195 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances (“Code”). Code
Section 29-186(d)(2) provides that a grading permit is required for construction activity
where the total volume of cut or fill is greater than 1000 cubic yards. Section 29-186(b)
provides that no land alteration shall be permitted until “city approval of all plans and
permits . . . and construction is imminent.”
Public Works denied a permit for the activity at this site because it was apparent there is
no planned construction other than the filling operation.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: (May 22, 2003)
Mike Hood of the Public Works Staff presented a brief description of the applicant’s
proposal and history of the permit actions to date. The applicant was not present.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they
supported the proposed request to withdraw the item.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
June 12, 2003
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.: LA-002
Name:
Unpermitted Land Alteration at Kenwood Subdivision
Location: Kenwood Subdivision on David O. Dodd Road in Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
Owner/Applicant: Davis Fitzhugh, developer and owner.
Request: Appeal a notice of violation issued for cutting or clearing
trees without a grading permit
STAFF REVIEW:
1. Master Street Plan
This portion of David O. Dodd Road is a minor arterial.
2. Development Potential
This 70 acre preliminary platted subdivision consists of 210 lots. Each lot is
approximately ¼ acre in size. Phase I has been final platted and 25 lots have
been developed into single family housing. Phase II is near completion. The
surrounding properties are zoned R2 with a CUP issued for the property to the
north. David O. Dodd Road borders the subdivision on the west and south.
3. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
This property along David O. Dodd Road was heavily wooded with mature
hardwoods. It was estimated the property contained 135 trees/acre totaling
approximately 9500 marketable trees greater than 12” diameter. All marketable
trees were removed without a permit.
4. Neighborhood Position
No neighborhood opinions have been presented to public works as of this writing.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Kenwood subdivision was preliminary platted in the City of Little Rock in 1999 and
revised in 2000. Phase I of the subdivision contains 25 lots and is completed with
nearly all the lots built on. A grading permit was issued for Phase II consisting of an
additional 15 lots which is near completion.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.: LA-002
2
During phase II development, all marketable timber was harvested from the remaining
future phases of the subdivision. The estimated total number of trees removed from all
platted areas was 9500. The number of trees removed on platted building lot acreage
was estimated to be 4260 trees. A Notice of Violation (“NOV”) was issued to Mr.
Fitzhugh on April 30, 2003 for cutting and clearing trees without a grading permit per
Little Rock Code Section 29-186(d)(3). Also, the NOV stated per Section 29-170(b),
each tree removed by activities proscribed by the Land Alteration Ordinance shall be a
separate violation. Violations are subject to a fine of up to $500 per each violation (i.e.
each tree).
When grading permits are issued for development of preliminary platted residential
subdivisions only clearing and grading for streets and drainage improvements is allowed
per Section 29-186(b). In this case, timber was cleared and harvested from the entire
site, including areas outside of any easements and right-of-ways, and outside the
boundary of the permit that was issued for Phase II.
The applicant is appealing the issuance of the notice of violation which required
restoration of all trees removed. Section 29-170(e) allows notices to be appealed to the
planning commission within 30 days of issuance. Per the NOV and Section 29-170(c),
the applicant must restore the property to the maximum extent practicable to its original
condition.
To summarize, approximately 9500 trees were removed without a permit. If proper
permits had been obtained and followed, the developer would have legally removed
5240 trees from the right-of-way and easment areas. However, 4260 trees were
removed from preliminary platted lot areas outside of right-of-ways and easements.
The land alteration ordinance requires that the site be restored to the maximum extent
practicable.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: (May 22, 2003)
Mike Hood of Public Works, and David Fitzhugh the developer, and Joe White with
White Daters was present. Mike Hood presented a brief history of the enforcement
action and stated all large trees, estimated at over 4000 trees had been removed from
the entire acreage. Mr. Fitzhugh presented some pictures showing that some trees
remain on the site, and he was willing to assure two trees would remain or be planted in
the front yard of each new house. Mr. Hood pointed out that this was a case that was
also enforceable in City Environmental Court. Mr. White pointed out that the lots are so
small, that the builders would have removed most trees anyway.
June 12, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.: LA-002
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had worked with the Public
Works Department and an agreement had been reached. Staff stated the applicant was
willing to pay the City $10,000 and the money would be placed in the Cities tree fund.
Staff stated the applicant would also be required to submit an erosion control plan.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.