HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 04 2003sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 4, 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
Fred Allen, Jr.
Members Absent: Jerry Meyer
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the July 24, 2003 Meeting of the
Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 4, 2003
4:00 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS:
A. Callaghan Creek Preliminary Plat (S-1385), located north of Raines Road
and east of the Sullivan Road intersection.
B. Williams Short-form PCD (Z-5944-A), located at 3221 John Barrow Road.
C. Brown Accessory Dwelling (Z-7429)- Conditional Use Permit
1814 East 38th Street
II. REGULAR AGENDA:
1. Bryant Revised Short-form PCD (Z-5505-J), located at the southwest
corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane.
2. Hunter Short-form PD-C (Z-7468), located at 6124 Buz Lane.
3. Dodson Short-form PD-C (Z-7469), located at 1119 South Van Buren Street.
4. Brown Short-form PD-C (Z-7470), located at 11209 Barrett Road.
5. (LU03-09-02) A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-630 Planning District
from Single Family to Commercial and Suburban Office for an area south
of West 12th Street at Fair Park Boulevard.
5.1. Elliott Short-form PD-O (Z-7471), located at 1313 South Tyler Street.
6. Levi Short-form Revised PD-R (Z-7345-A), located on the southwest
corner of Monroe Street and C Street.
7. (LU03-01-05) A Land Use Plan Amendment in the River Mountain
Planning District from Transition to Mixed Office Commercial for the
southwest corner of Sam Peck Road and Cantrell Road.
7.1. Highway 10 at Sam Peck Revised POD (Z-5059-B), located on the
southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck Road.
2
Agenda, Page Two
II. REGULAR AGENDA: (CONT.)
8. Capitol Hills Apartments Revised PD-R (Z-6120-H), located on the
southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue.
9. The Villages at Rahling Road Revised PCD (Z-6323-H), located on
Rahling Circle (Unrecorded Lot 11).
10. Blackthorn Subdivision Revised PD-R (Z-6378-B), located on the north
side of Taylor Loop Road, west of Oaks Bluff Drive.
11. Glen Valley Preliminary Plat (S-1397), located east of Gooch Road and
west of the Heatherbrae Subdivision - Phase III.
12. Hopson and Sach's Preliminary Plat (S-878-A), located on the south side
of Kanis Road, east of John Barrow Road.
13. Otter Creek Business Park Preliminary Plat (S-1328-A), located on Otter
Creek Court.
14. Culzean Estates Preliminary Plat (S-1398), located on the north side of
David O. Dodd Road, east of I-430.
15. Culzean Estates Subdivision Recreational Facilities Conditional Use
Permit (Z-7473), located on the north side of David O. Dodd Road, east of
I-430.
16. Wimbledon Greens Apartments (S-1399), located on the southeast corner
of Baseline Road and Wimbledon Loop.
17. Watershed Project Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1400), located on
Springer Boulevard, south of I-440.
18. Fellowship Bible Church Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-6149-F), located south
of Hinson Road, east of Napa Valley Road.
19. Upshaw Short-form POD (Z-7472), located at 11523 Kanis Road.
20. An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 16,968 to allow for the installation of a
self-closing gate for the back entrance of Otter Creek Subdivision, located
across Wimbledon Loop in the Otter Creek Subdivision.
21. An Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas providing for modification of Section 36-342.1 (Urban
Use).
ITEM NO.: A 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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
2
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.
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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
3
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.
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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
4
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. 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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
5
Mr. Watson stated he would meet with his client and discuss the comments. He
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.
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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
6
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.
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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
7
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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant was working with the
Arkansas Department of Health to resolve the outstanding wastewater issues related to
the plat. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the July 24,
2003 Public Hearing.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
8
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the Consent
Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 24, 2003)
The applicant was not present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the August 7,
2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated the request was not received as required by the
Planning Commission By-Laws and would require a waiver of the By-Laws to allow the
deferral.
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws to allow the deferral of the request. The
motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred
to the September 4, 2003 Planning Commission agenda. Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent
Agenda for deferral to the September 4, 2003 agenda. A motion to that effect was
made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. The item was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested a deferral to the October 16, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated
the applicant was still trying to resolve issues with the Arkansas Department of Health
with regard to the wastewater collection and treatment facility. Staff stated they were in
favor of the deferral request.
Staff noted the request was the third deferral request and typically the By-Laws only
allowed for three deferrals. Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the
By-Laws.
Staff also stated the applicant did not request the deferral until one day prior to the
Public Hearing. Staff noted the By-Laws stated all request should be made in writing at
least five day prior to the Commission meeting. Staff stated this too would require a
waiver of the By-Laws.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S- 1385
9
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to the third deferral request. The
motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to the time frame for the deferral
request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to defer the request to the October 16, 2003 Public Hearing. There
was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
NAME: Williams Short-form PCD
LOCATION: 3221 John Barrow Road
DEVELOPER:
Larry Williams
3222 John Barrow Road
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
Rowland, Inc
P.O. Box 9003
Little Rock, AR
AREA: 0.89 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 (1 zoning lot) FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
ALLOWED USES: Various retail uses - indoor.
PROPOSED ZONING: PCD
PROPOSED USE: C-3 uses and a used car lot with a limited number of cars to be
located on an existing vacant lot.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Waiver of right-of-way dedication to John
Barrow Road and West 32nd Street.
BACKGROUND:
A request was denied by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1995 to allow the site be
by utilized for rental of U-Haul trucks and trailers. The office activity was to take place
from the convenience store located on the site.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing vacant graveled lot (Lot 7) to
display eight (8) to ten (10) vehicles and to utilize the site for the sale of
automobiles. The applicant has indicated Lot 7 would accommodate
approximately fifteen vehicles with right-angle parking. The applicant has stated
ten of the spaces will be utilized by the auto dealership and the remaining five
spaces will be used as customer parking.
The office operation of the business will take place in the tobacco shop, which is
located on Lot 8. The applicant has stated there will be no auto repair taking
place on the site.
There are no new curb-cuts proposed as a part of the development. The
applicant has indicated the site will utilize the existing curb-cuts from John
Barrow Road. The applicant has also indicated the site will be screened and
landscaped per city code.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of right-of-way dedication and street
improvements to John Barrow Road and West 32nd Street.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing commercial strip center with a four bay self-service
carwash facility. There is a vacant gravel lot located adjacent to West 32nd
Street. The uses in the center include a tobacco store, beauty shop, and a tax
preparation service.
The area to the east of the site is vacant as well as the area to the north of the
site. There is a church located on the northwest corner of West 32nd Street and
John Barrow Road and a mixed commercial development located on the
southwest corner of West 33rd Street and John Barrow Road. Located south of
the site are a mixture of commercial uses such as a day care, food service and
office uses.
Abutting the site to the east are single-family homes. Although the area contains
vacant lots, the area adjoining the development to the east does not contain any
vacant lots.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
John Barrow Neighborhood Association along with all owners of property located
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
3
within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within
300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. West 32nd and West 33rd Streets are classified on the Master Street Plan as
commercial streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. Provide design of street conforming to “MSP” (Master Street Plan). Construct
one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with
the planned development.
3. A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the two intersections
(West 32nd Street and John Barrow Road and West 33rd Street and John
Barrow Road).
4. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Section 31-175 and the “MSP”.
5. Close one driveway. Consult Traffic Engineering at 379-1818 for additional
details.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186(e).
9. “Streetlights”. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. Contact
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information
regarding streetlight requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer 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 if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to
evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire facilities
will be required. If additional water facilities are required, they will be installed at the
Developer's expense. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated,
contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the
developer. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
4
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The
applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a strip retail
center and car lot.
The proposal for a strip retail center does not require a change to the Land Use
Plan. The car lot is proposed as an ancillary use to the strip commercial center
and an existing business and would not have a significant impact on the Land
Use Plan, which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in an
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan has a
goal of enhancing the climate directed towards encouraging new businesses and
commercial establishments to locate in the area but does not list objectives or
action statements relevant to this case.
Landscape: A nine (9) foot wide on-site street buffer is required along Barrow
Road. The landscape ordinance also requires a nine (9) foot wide on-site
landscape strip along Barrow Road and a nine (9) foot wide landscape strip
along the northern perimeter of the site.
A total of eight (8) percent of the expanded vehicular use area must be
landscaped with interior landscaping islands.
Building Codes: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 3, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff briefly described the
request to the Committee members noting additional information needed on the
proposed site plan. Staff requested the applicant indicate fencing and signage
proposed as a part of the development. Staff also noted the parking area would
have to be constructed of a hard surface material and requested the applicant
include a striping plan. Staff requested the applicant provide the days and hours
of operation of the proposed automobile sales business.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted the applicant would be
required to dedicate right-of-way for all boundary streets and to construct the
streets to Master Street Plan standard. Staff requested one of the driveways
from John Barrow Road be closed as a part of the development. Staff stated in
the case of a hardship an in-lieu contribution was possibility.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a nine-foot wide on-site
street buffer would be required along John Barrow Road and West 32nd Street.
Staff stated this was a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance (Land Use Buffer)
and the Landscape Ordinance. Staff noted if the applicant could not meet the
Landscape Ordinance, a waiver from the City Beautiful Commission would be
required. Staff also noted the new parking area would be required to be
landscaped, including interior islands.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant failed to furnish staff with the requested additional information from
the Subdivision Committee meeting. Without this additional information, staff is
unable to review the proposal from a technical standpoint. Staff recommends
this item be deferred to the September 4, 2003 Public Hearing.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the item be deferred to the September 4, 2003 Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 24, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had failed to furnish staff with the requested information after the July 3, 2003
Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommended the item be deferred to the
September 4, 2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair placed the item on the consent
agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
6
STAFF UPDATE:
ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff on August 14, 2003 addressing most of
the issues raised at the July 3, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the property. The applicant
has proposed to place a six foot opaque fence along the north, west and east
perimeters of the sales lot. The applicant has also indicated no signage is proposed
presently but any future signage would be located near the intersection of John Barrow
and West 32nd Street and conform to signage allowed in commercial zones or a
maximum of thirty-six feet in height and one-hundred sixty square feet in area.
The applicant has indicated the parking will be constructed of 4-inch concrete and
striped to include 10 parking spaces. The site plan also includes a nine-foot landscape
strip with 18-inch compact holly shrubs on three foot centers located along West 32nd
Street and John Barrow Road.
The applicant has indicated there will not be any new structures added to the site. The
applicant has stated the office will be housed in the Tobacco Store located on the site.
The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation will be from 8:00 am to
8:00 pm Monday through Saturday. The hours of operation will coincide with the hours
of operation of the Tobacco Store.
The applicant has requested a deferral of Public Works comments for a period of five
years. These include the street improvements to West 32nd Street and West 33rd Street,
the dedication of right-of-way to West 32nd Street and West 33rd Street, and the radial
dedication to John Barrow Road. The applicant is also requesting to be allowed to
maintain all driveway locations on John Barrow Road for the five year period. The
applicant has stated they are a small business and the deferral for five years would
allow the owners time to recoup capital expanded before providing the required street
improvements.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed request. The proposal includes the development
of a vacant lot with a used car lot facility servicing eight to ten automobiles. Staff does
not feel this use is appropriate for this site. The city and the neighborhood have tried to
maintain the integrity of John Barrow Road and the placement of a used car lot is not in
keeping with previous actions and goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request to rezone the site to PCD to allow a
used car lot to develop on the site.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Larry Williams was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the request. Staff
stated the proposed development, a C-4 use, did not fit with the development pattern
along John Barrow Road. Staff stated the applicant was also requesting a five year
deferral of right-of-way dedication, street improvements and Public Works comment to
close one of the existing driveways on the site.
Mr. Williams presented his development plan to the Commission. He stated his desire
was to allow eight to ten cars on the lot. He stated he would pave the parking area and
would install the required landscaping and screening. Mr. Williams stated economics
was the primary reason for his request. He stated he and his partner operated the
tobacco store located on an adjoining lot and all the sales activity would take place in
the existing building. He stated with the development of the business this would
increase revenues to the City.
There was a general discussion concerning the development pattern along John Barrow
Road and the existing strip retail centers and occupancies. It was noted there was a
new strip center located near the site which was less than fifty percent occupied. The
Commission questioned the applicant if he was willing to limit the number of vehicles for
sale on the site. Mr. Williams stated the intent was to allow space for eight automobiles
for sale and two spaces for customer parking. He stated the desire was for a small
scale car lot and not a full blown automobile dealership.
The Commission quested if the PCD ran with the land or the owner. Staff noted the
applicant was not the property owner but did have an executed affidavit from the
property owner. Staff stated the PCD was tied to the land and not the applicant. The
Commission questioned if the applicant was willing to amend his application to limit the
approval to him and his partner. Mr. Williams stated he was willing to this stipulation of
his approval.
The Commission also asked Mr. Williams if he would be willing to stipulate there would
be no detailing of automobiles and no repair of automobiles. Mr. Williams stated he was
willing to add this to the conditions of his approval.
There was a general discussion concerning the requested street improvements and the
requested deferrals. The Commission questioned if an in-lieu contribution would be
acceptable. Staff stated this was acceptable. Staff stated they were also supportive of
the request to defer the street improvements, the right-of-way dedication and the closing
of the driveway for five years. Staff stated at the end of the five years the applicant
could still take advantage of the in-lieu contribution.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5944-A
8
The Commission questioned if comment had been received from the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association. Staff stated they had not received any comment from the
neighborhood association.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended to include all conditions
outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. The motion noted the conditions
of approval also included limiting the number of automobiles for sale to a maximum of
eight, the approval was limited to Mr. Williams and his partner only and was not
transferable to any other person or company and there was to be no repair or detailing
of automobiles on the site. The motion was approved 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-7429
NAME: Brown Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1814 East 38th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jerimaine Terrell Brown
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
construction of an accessory building containing a
four-car garage on the ground floor and an accessory
dwelling on the upper floor. The property is zoned
R-2.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the north side of East 38th Street, 6 lots east of
Springer Blvd., in the Granite Mountain Community.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a neighborhood comprised of single family
residences. The larger surrounding area does contain a variety of other
uses; including a community service organization, city park, small
commercial strip center, a church and a former Housing Authority
development. Staff is concerned that the proposed accessory dwelling is
out of character with the remainder of the single family residential
properties in the immediate neighborhood, and in fact, may not be
compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the Granite Mountain
Neighborhood Association were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
One, on-site parking space each is required for the accessory dwelling
and the existing house. The site currently has a paved driveway large
enough to accommodate the required parking. The applicant proposes to
extend a driveway into the rear yard to access the proposed new four-car
garage.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
None required.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7429
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main located in easement on east side of property.
No construction within easement.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No Comments.
CATA: No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 2003)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on the design of the proposed accessory dwelling. Staff
asked that the applicant provide the square footage of the existing house and
show the driveway to the accessory building on the site plan. Staff noted the
applicant’s statement that the accessory dwelling would be occupied only by
family members and no separate utilities were being requested. Staff also noted
that the property was covered by a valid bill of assurance that included the
following provision:
11. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, barn, or other out-building
erected on any lot in the subdivision shall at any time be used
as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any
residence of a temporary character be permitted.
The applicant was advised to meet with the neighborhood association.
Mr. Brown responded that he was scheduled to appear at the association’s
next meeting.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7429
3
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by July 23, 2003. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned lot located at 1814 East 38th Street is currently occupied by a
one-story, brick and frame, single-family residence. The applicant is in the
process of building a two-story accessory building. The ground floor is to contain
a four-car garage. The upper floor is proposed to contain an accessory dwelling.
The applicant has stated that the accessory dwelling will only be occupied by
family members and separate utilities will not be extended to the structure. With
recent additions, the existing house contains 1,473 square feet. The proposed
accessory dwelling has 960 square feet. A driveway will be extended from East
38th Street to the new garage-accessory structure. The house and property are
typical of those in this neighborhood. The accessory building will be constructed
of frame with white vinyl siding. The pitched roof will have red, architect shingles.
The bill of assurance for Granite Heights Subdivision No. 2 was recorded in 1962
and was binding for a period of 30 years with automatic 10 year extensions. The
bill of assurance does contain the following provision that is pertinent to the issue
before the Commission:
11. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, barn, or other out-building
erected on any lot in the subdivision shall at any time be used
as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any
residence of a temporary character be permitted.
Staff does have concerns about the proposal. It does not appear that there are
any other accessory dwellings in the neighborhood or the other nearby
residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood is comprised solely of well-
maintained, detached single-family residences. While there certainly is nothing
particularly onerous about the concept of an accessory dwelling, staff does not
feel that such a use is compatible with this neighborhood.
The applicant submitted responses to issues raised at Subdivision Committee
and reflected in the analysis above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7429
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2003)
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant sent the required “Notice of
Public Hearing” on July 28, 2003; 10 days prior to the public hearing rather than
the required 15 days. The Commission determined it appropriate to defer the
application.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 4, 2003 agenda. A motion to that
effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes and 1 nay. The
application was deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of denial. It was noted that a letter had been
submitted by the Union Pacific Railroad Company voicing concerns about
allowing a dwelling to be located in such close proximity to the railroad.
The applicant, Jerimaine Brown, addressed the Commission and stated he had
worked for 2 years to rehabilitate the house. He stated the trains traveled only
2-3 miles per hour and would not likely jump the tracks. Mr. Brown noted there
was no opposition from the neighbors. He presented papers signed by
neighborhood residents that he claimed were in support of his proposal.
Commissioner Muse commented that there were some homes in the
neighborhood that were as close to the train tracks. Jim Lawson, Director of
Planning and Development, stated the railroad felt it was important to get their
concerns on record.
Mr. Brown’s uncle addressed the Commission in support of the application. He
spoke at length about Mr. Brown’s character and family values.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rector, Mr. Brown stated the
accessory dwelling would only be occupied by a family member.
Commissioner Faust questioned the significance of the Bill of Assurance issue.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated the Commission is asked to
recognize the Bill of Assurance exists and to take it into account. She noted that
Mr. Brown could still be taken to court by an aggrieved neighbor.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7429
5
A motion was made to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. The approval is granted only to this applicant, Jerimaine Brown, and his
occupancy of the property.
2. The accessory dwelling is only to be occupied by a family member.
3. Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5
and 6 of the staff report.
4. The approval is not transferable to a subsequent property owner.
5. There are not to be separate utilities.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z-5505-J
NAME: Bryant Revised Short-form PCD
LOCATION: at the Southwest Corner of Colonel Glenn Road and Rocky Lane
DEVELOPER:
Johnnie Bryant
3606 Rocky Lane
Little Rock, AR 72210
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.76 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: Convenience store with gas pumps, auto repair garage,
stone works business
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Extension of allowable time for storage of repaired automobiles
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
The applicant submitted a letter dated August 20, 2003 requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a letter dated August 20, 2003 requesting the item be
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5505-J
2
withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. Staff
presented a recommendation of withdrawn without prejudice.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for withdrawal. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-7468
NAME: Hunter Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 6124 Buz Lane
DEVELOPER:
Carl Hunter
6124 Buz Lane
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.54 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single Family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Contractors Storage Yard
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone a single lot to PD-C to allow the applicant to
continue to utilize the site as a contractor’s storage yard. The applicant currently
owns a commercial business (lay-out, digging and pouring of footings and
foundations for commercial and residential buildings) and utilizes the site to park
his commercial equipment, such as dump trucks, backhoes and trailers. The
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7468
2
applicant will continue to utilize this site as his primary residence and the office
for his business. The employees of the company also report to the site to begin
the workday and park their personal vehicles on the site during the work day.
The parking areas are graveled and there is a gravel drive leading to a 24 foot by
30 foot metal storage building in which some of the equipment is stored. Buz
Lane is a very narrow asphalt drive and is not a publicly dedicated street. The
driveway is served by a 12-foot ingress-egress easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located in an unincorporated island and the city limits abuts the site to
the west. The site contains an existing single story single-family home with two
areas graveled for employee and equipment parking. There are single-family
homes located south of the site (two) and a liquor store adjacent to Cantrell
Road. This area is zoned PCD.
The area to the east of the site contains a automotive repair center housed in a
metal building and the automotive repair business is also using the rear of the
liquor store for repair also. Property west of the site along Cantrell Road is
zoned R-2, Single-family and contains a single-family home and there is a PCD
west of this area functioning as an auto repair shop. The area north of the site is
vacant land currently zoned O-3, General Office District and there are single-
family homes located on large tracts northeast of the site accessed from Ridge
Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association and the Aberdeen Court Property
Owners 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.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Buz Lane is not a publicly dedicated, maintained street.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service area. If annexed to the City, sewer would be
available and not adversely affected.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7468
3
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: This property does not have frontage and cannot have
additional or increased water service without a water main extension. It does not
have adequate fire protection.
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 Pinnacle Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Business Node for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development-Commercial for a contractor’s storage yard
and residential uses.
The request is consistent with the Planned Zoning District requirement of an area
shown as an Existing Business Node.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated the applicant currently lived in the
single-family home and was utilizing the yard area as a contractor’s storage yard.
Staff stated the site had been used in this manner for a number of years. Staff
stated there were no major issues associated with the proposed site plan. Staff
stated they would follow-up with the applicant to resolve any issues prior to the
public hearing.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7468
4
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted to staff the requested information on August 18, 2003.
The applicant has indicated there are two full time employees and seven
subcontractors of the company. The applicant has also indicated the fencing
located on the site is chain link fencing four feet in height.
There are two parking areas on site, both of which are graveled. The parking
areas are being used by the employees and for the storage of heavy equipment
overnight. Typically the zoning ordinance would require these areas to be
constructed of a hard surface material. Staff would recommend these areas
remain gravel to maintain the residential character of the site. Should the
applicant move his storage yard, the gravel areas could be removed and the
structure could easily convert to a single-family home.
The driveway to the site is very narrow and serves the automobile repair shop
and the two single-family homes; the home located just south of the applicant’s
property and the applicant’s property. Public Works staff does not feel the
roadway should be dedicated or that the roadway should be widened. This
driveway has functioned in this manner for a number of years and appears to be
sufficient. Also it is very unlikely that properties located to the north of this site
will develop utilizing this roadway.
The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the
property.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to rezone the site PD-C to
allow the existing contractors storage yard on the site to become a conforming
use.
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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no objectors present.
Staff stated they had received one letter of support from an adjoining property owner.
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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7468
5
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-7469
NAME: Dodson Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: 1119 South Van Buren Street
DEVELOPER:
A. H. Raynor
P.O. Box 166047
Little Rock, AR 72206
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Medical office storage building
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant, Doctor Jon Dodson, proposes the construction of a storage
building on this vacant lot to store his office’s overflow patient files. The applicant
has indicated the storage building has become necessary to relieve the
congestion in his existing building to free up space for additional examining
offices and administrative space. The applicant proposes to construct a 30 foot
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7469
2
by 80 foot storage building on this single lot. The lot adjoins the doctor’s office to
the south and a parking lot located to the west of the site.
The applicant proposes the building to be constructed of split face block and
have a shingled roof. The applicant has also indicated the building will be
constructed to give the appearance of a residential storage building.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant lot adjoining a parking lot to the west and open space further
west along Jonesboro Drive. There is a single-family home located on the corner
of Van Buren Street and West 11th Street, which appears to be vacant. There
are non-residential uses located along West 12th Street; three separate medical
offices, a day care center and several commercial uses. The uses north of the
site are primarily single-family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls requesting additional
information. There has not been any negative response from the neighbors
concerning the placement of the storage building. The Oak Forest 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.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed land use would classify 11th Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline
across the storage building and property frontage.
2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with the
planned development.
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.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7469
3
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
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 I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a Planned Development-Office to build a records storage building for a
medical office.
Since the PD-O application is attached to an existing Office use, a Land Use
Plan Amendment is not necessary.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Oak Forest Area Neighborhood Action Plan “A Guide to
Achieve Our Vision”. The plan lists an action statement of promoting the
construction of single-family homes on vacant lots.
Landscape: The proposed structure extends one (1) foot and nine (9) inches
over into the minimum six (6) foot nine (9) inch wide land use buffer area
required along the western perimeter. This width requirement takes into account
the reduction allowed within the designated mature area.
Evergreen shrubs should be used to screen this site from the residential
properties to the east and west.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7469
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. A. H. Raynor was present representing the request. Staff introduced the item
indicating the request was to allow the placement of a storage building on a
vacant lot to the west. Staff stated the building would abut an existing parking lot
owned by the applicant.
Staff indicated there were additional items necessary to complete the review.
Staff requested the applicant provide an elevation of the proposed building. Staff
stated they would recommend the building be constructed of split face block and
give the appearance of a residential storage building. Mr. Raynor stated he
would contact the applicant and pass along staff’s suggestions for construction
materials.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated an in-lieu contribution
would more than likely be acceptable for West 11th Street. Staff stated with the
construction of a storage building should not trigger the construction of West 11th
Street to Master Street Plan standard.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the proposed plan did not
allow for the required landscaping on the western perimeter. Staff stated the
minimum width allowed would be six feet nine inches. Staff requested the
applicant screen the building from the residentially zoned properties to the east
and west with evergreen shrubs. Mr. Raynor noted the area to the west was a
parking lot used by the applicant.
There were no additional items for discussion. The Committee then forwarded
the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
Mr. Raynor submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised
by staff at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The plan
indicates the structure will be constructed to blend with the single-family homes
in the neighborhood and will have a shingled roof. The applicant indicated the
building will be painted to coordinate with the doctor’s office to the south. The
applicant has also indicated there will be shutters installed on the building to give
the appearance of windows. Staff is supportive of the proposed building
construction materials and the design the applicant has indicated.
The applicant is requesting an in-lieu contribution for the construction of West
11th Street. Staff is supportive of the request.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7469
5
The applicant has indicated landscaping will be installed per the ordinance
requirements. There are several mature trees located on the site and the
applicant has indicated all efforts will be made to preserve these trees. The
applicant has indicated a minimum of six foot nine inch wide land use buffer area
along the eastern perimeter. The applicant has also indicated the placement of
evergreen shrubs along the eastern perimeter of the site to screen the adjoining
residentially zoned properties. Staff is supportive of the proposed landscape
plan. The area to the west of the proposed storage building is a commercial
parking lot, still zoned R-2, Single-family. Staff feels screening in this area is not
necessary.
The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance for the Cunningham Addition to
Little Rock which is very old. Staff is not able to read the Bill of Assurance but it
appears the Bill of Assurance deals primarily with the subdivision of the land into
blocks and lots with the dedication of streets and alleyways.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to rezone the site to PD-O to
allow the construction of a storage building.
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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. A. H. Raynor was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated their original comments had included the applicant should
construct the building from split face block. Staff stated they were no longer requesting
the split face block for construction. 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 for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-7470
NAME: Brown Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: 11209 Barrett Road
DEVELOPER:
Michelle Brown
P.O. Box 17051
Roland, AR 72222
ENGINEER:
James S. Aunspaugh
510 ½ South Claremont
Sherwood, AR 72120
AREA: 10.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Residence with a single chair beauty salon
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site is approximately 10 acres; with 330 feet of street frontage and 1500 feet
of depth. The applicant’s home is located near the center of the property. The
request is to allow a single chair beauty salon operated by the homeowner in the
structure. There are to be no additions or modifications to the exterior of the
structure. The applicant has stated the days and hours of operation will be from
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7470
2
9:00 am to 6:00 pm Tuesday through Friday. The applicant has also indicated
there will be a single identification sign located near the driveway. The sign is
estimated to be two and one-half feet by three and one-half feet.
There is currently a gravel drive accessing the property with a three car parking
pad located on the western side of the home. The applicant has indicated the
intention is to continue accessing the site with the gravel drive and to allow
customers will park on the current parking pad.
The site is located outside the city limits but within the city’s extraterritorial
planning jurisdiction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family home along with a barn and shop
building. The home is located south of Barrett Road and is located on a tract
more narrow than deep. The area south of Barrett Road has developed in this
manner with lots having approximately 300 to 500 foot of frontage. The area to
the north of Barrett Road contains single-family homes located on more narrow
tracts of land (they appear to be one hundred to one hundred fifty feet in width).
Pinnacle State Park is located to the east of the site along Highway 300.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received two informational phone calls from area
residents. 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. There is not an active neighborhood association located
in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: The site is located outside the city limits therefore cannot be served by
the Little Rock Wastewater Utility Company. The site is currently served by an
Arkansas Department of Health approved septic system.
Entergy: No comment received.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7470
3
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: This property is outside Central Arkansas Water service
area. The applicant has existing water service from the rural water company serving
the area.
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-Commercial for a single chair beauty shop in their
home.
Since the applicant will continue to use the primary structure as a residence, will
not alter the footprint of the structure, and will not have employees, a land use
plan amendment is not needed.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated they had contacted the applicant and
indicated there were no major unresolved issues related to the proposed
development. Staff stated the development was to allow the applicant to operate
a single chair beauty salon from her home.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant intends to utilize a portion her exiting home as a beauty salon. The
applicant has indicated this will be a single chair salon and there will not be any
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7470
4
additional employees. The days and hours of operation are proposed as
Tuesday through Friday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm with some appointments
extending beyond the posted hours. Staff is supportive of the requested hours.
The applicant has indicated there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for this
property.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff feels the addition of a single chair beauty
salon in the applicant’s home should have minimal adverse impact on the area.
The applicant has indicated there will be no exterior modifications to the site and
the only interior modifications are those necessary to install the washbasin and
the dryer.
The only signage proposed is an identification sign and is located at the driveway
The sign proposed is approximately two and one-half feet by three and one-half
feet. Staff is supportive of the requested signage.
The parking proposed is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand
(one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area). The applicant has in place
three parking spaces and the typical minimum parking demand would be three
spaces. Staff is supportive of the proposed parking plan.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to rezone the site to PD-C to
allow the applicant the addition of a single chair beauty salon on the site.
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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Ms. Michelle Brown was present representing the request. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. Staff
stated there would be no modifications to the exterior of the structure and parking was
existing.
Mr. Jim Rice addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he felt converting the home to a commercial use was not in keeping with the
neighborhood. He stated the home was a 200,000 thousand dollar plus home and the
resale of the home in the future would be difficult at best if the home was converted to a
beauty salon.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7470
5
Mr. Rice stated he was also concerned with the site. He stated there was an existing
manufacture home located on the site and all the contents of the home were laying out
in front of the manufacture home. He stated the site had not been mowed in several
months and grass and weeds were extremely high.
Ms. Brown stated she had been working with the bank to resolve some outstanding
issues and concerns. She also stated the manufacture home was to be removed and
she had called the moving company on two occasion and they were being
unresponsive. Ms. Brown stated she was willing to make as a condition of approval all
the litter be removed from the site and the grass would be cut.
There was a limited discussion concerning the manufactured home and the right
Ms. Brown had to remove the home from the site. The Commission asked if she could
have the home removed within 60 days of approval. Ms. Brown stated she was more
than willing to try to meet this deadline.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include the cleaning of
the site, the removal of all litter and debris and the cutting of the grass and the moving
of the manufactured home within 60 days of approval, subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. The motion carried by
a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: LU03-09-02
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-630 Planning District
Location: 1313 S. Tyler Street
Request: Single Family to Suburban Office and Commercial.
Source: Ramona Elliott
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
This application is a Land Use Plan amendment in the I-630 Planning District
from Single Family to Suburban Office and Commercial. The Suburban Office
category shall provide for low intensity development of office or office parks in
close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility. A
Planned Zoning District is required. The Commercial category includes a broad
range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional
services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and
scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to
develop a home base office for a physical therapy group.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded
the area of review to recognize existing zoning of C-3 at 12th street between
Harrison and Tyler Streets and to recognize the entirety of the C-1 zoned
Walgreen’s site between Fair Park Boulevard and Taylor. Staff also expanded
the area to provide a half block buffer of Suburban Office (which includes the
original application) to be between the Commercial node at 12th and Fair Park
Boulevard and the Single Family. This includes part of the area extending from
Harrison to Fillmore Street and southward to the mid-block between 13th and 14th
Streets more particularly described as the northeast and southeast corners of
13th and Tyler Streets, the north half of the two blocks bounded by 13th, Tyler,
14th and Taylor Streets and the northwest and northeast corners of 13th and
Taylor Streets. This expansion also includes a CUP for a daycare facility.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property at 1313 S. Tyler Street is a single family house currently zoned R-3
Single Family and is approximately .32+ acres in size. Properties along 12th
Street from Harrison Street to Taylor Street and in the 1200 block of Fair Park
Boulevard are zoned a variety of C-1, C-3 and C-4 commercial districts and
include medical offices, convenience stores, restaurants, and drug store uses to
name a few. South of this commercial node, the properties are zoned R-3 Single
Family and area comprised of single family residential structures and a day care
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-09-02
2
center. North of this node is a variety of O-3 Office, C-3 and PCD commercial
zonings along Fair Park Boulevard. This area is comprised of single family
residential units, multi-family units, convenience stores, offices and the like.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On March 5, 2002, a change was made from Commercial and Office to Mixed
Use about 1 mile northwest of the expanded area at University Avenue and W.
Markham Street to accommodate future development.
On July 17, 2001, a change was made from Single Family to Park / Open Space
at Oak Forest Park about ¼ of a mile west of the applicant’s property to
recognize existing conditions.
On April 20, 1999 changes were made from Single Family to Public Institutional
at 17th and Pine and a change to Mixed Use from Woodrow Street to Oak Street
along 12th Street to recognize existing conditions and to accommodate future
development.
On March 16, 1999 multiple changes were made from Office and Multifamily to
Single Family, Multifamily, Mixed Use, and Office about 1 mile northwest of the
study area in the vicinity of the intersection of University Avenue and C Street to
accommodate future development.
The applicant’s property and most of the property in the expanded area is shown
as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. The properties at the intersection
of Fair Park Boulevard and W. 12th Street, north and west of the expanded area
are shown as Commercial. To the north, the north side of W. 12th Street is
shown as Commercial between Fair Park Boulevard and Tyler Street, Mixed Use
between Tyler and Harrison Streets, and Office between Harrison and Van Buren
Streets. The remaining property to the east, south and west is shown as Single
Family on the Future Land Use plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
W. 12th Street is shown as a Minor Arterial with a modified standard of a 70 foot-
wide right-of-way to accommodate four lanes and a center turn lane at major
intersections. Fair Park Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial with a modified
standard for a 60 foot-wide right-of-way to accommodate four lanes and a center
turn lane and additional lanes at major intersections. Fair Park Boulevard has
two lanes south of the W. 13th Street intersection and four lanes with a median
between W. 13th and W. 12th Streets. S. Tyler Street is a Standard Residential
Street built to standard. W. 13th Street is also a Standard Residential Street but
is built with open drainage. Any non-residential developments on W. 13th Street
would be responsible for half street improvements. A Class III Bikeway is shown
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-09-02
3
on W 12th Street from Rock Creek to the Pine/Cedar intersections. A Class III
Bikeway is shown on Fair Park Boulevard from Zoo Drive to Mabelvale Pike. A
Class III Bikeway does not require any additional right-of-way or paving.
PARKS:
The applicant’s property is located a little over four blocks east of Oak Forest
Park and approximately three blocks west of the Jonesboro Drive leg of War
Memorial Park. The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 lists
Oak Forest Park as a Mini-Park consisting of less than five acres and is shown
as providing a playground for area residents. The Little Rock Parks and
Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows War Memorial Park as the closest park
available to provide park facilities within the plan’s Eight-Block Strategy of
providing park facilities within eight blocks of all Little Rock residents. However,
the portion of War Memorial Park along Jonesboro Drive is intended to serve as
a formal park entrance. The Jonesboro Drive portion of War Memorial Park is
separated from the main facilities of War Memorial Park by I-630. Oak Forest
Park is adequate to serve the current residents of the area. However, the
change to Suburban Office would encourage low impact development designed
to have a minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood and should not effect
the patronage of either park. The change to Commercial would recognize an
existing condition and should not result in a change the patronage of the parks.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Oak Forest Area
Neighborhood Action Plan “A Guide to Achieve Our Vision”. The Housing
objectives states to “Encourage more home ownership” and to “Enhance and
maintain all housing stock”.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s property is located in a stable neighborhood. The change to
Suburban Office would introduce non-residential uses into an area physically
separated from non-residential uses. Although the west side of Tyler Street north
of 13th Street is shown as Commercial, the house and large open area acts as a
buffer separating the existing residential uses and the existing Commercial uses
that front Fair Park Boulevard and W. 12th Street. The existing day care center at
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-09-02
4
the northeast corner of Tyler and W. 13th Street is the only existing non-
residential use that is inside the buffer provided by the neighboring residential
uses.
Currently, West 13th Street is the boundary between the intense Commercial
uses on Fair Park Boulevard and the less intense Single Family houses to the
south. The commercial uses and houses in the area do not face each other on
Fair Park Boulevard nor on 13th Street. With the residential units facing Tyler and
Taylor Streets, 13th Street is reinforced as a boundary line separating the uses to
the north from the residential to the south. Although concerns generally arise
when Commercial is abutting Single Family, this boundary line works because of
the orientation of the structures and the access points of each.
The changes to Commercial on the south side of W. 12th Street between Tyler
and Harrison Streets and the southwest corner of Fair Park Boulevard and 12th
Street would recognize existing uses. The clinic between Harrison and Tyler
Streets faces, and is accessed from, W. 12th Street. The Walgreen’s site is
partially shown as Office, Commercial and Single Family.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Capitol View Stifft
Station Neighborhood Association, Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,
Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, Goodwill Neighborhood Association,
Hope Neighborhood Association, Eileen Harrison, Love Neighborhood
Association, Midway Neighborhood Association, Oak Forest Neighborhood
Association, Pine to Woodrow Neighborhood Association, S. O. A. Neighborhood
Association, Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood Association, and War Memorial
Neighborhood Association. Staff has received 1 comment from area residents
that was are opposed to the change to Suburban Office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change to Suburban Office is not appropriate. This change
would introduce an incompatible use into a stable residential area.
Staff does believe it is appropriate to recognize the existing uses along 12th as
Commercial.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-09-02
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission.
Donna James made a presentation of item 5.1 so the discussion could
coincide with the discussion for item 5. See item 5.1 for a complete discussion
concerning the Short Form Planned Development - Office.
Obray Nunnley, Planning Commission Chair, asked why staff made its
recommendation to expand the application. Brian Minyard stated that staff’s
recommendation for Commercial along W. 12th Street would recognize the
existing C-1 and C-3 zoning. The recommended expansion of Suburban Office
requested in the application would provide a buffer to minimize the impact of non-
residential uses on the neighborhood even though staff believes the a change to
Suburban Office would not be appropriate.
Janelle Romandia spoke in opposition to the application and sited the Oak Forest
Neighborhood Action Plan encouragement of home ownership and preservation
of housing stock in the neighborhood.
Ruth Bell, Pulaski County League of Women Voters, spoke in opposition to the
application and stated that the area was viable for residential uses.
Deborah White spoke in opposition to the application and stated that she wanted
to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
Joe White spoke in opposition to the application and stated that he wanted to
preserve the residential nature of the neighborhood.
Roberts Hooks, President of Oak Forest Movers and Shakers Crime Watch,
stated that the proposed change did not fit the area and that it was contrary to
the home ownership goals of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Action Plan.
Ramona Elliot, representative of the applicant, spoke in support of the application
and described the nature of the proposed business and explained how the
operation of the office would not have a negative impact on the residential quality
of the neighborhood.
Obrary Nunnley, Planning Commission Chair, explained that a residential area is
intended to provide an escape from the hectic pace of life and that the
introduction of a non-residential use might disrupt the peaceful integrity of the
neighborhood.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with
a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, and 2 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 5.1 FILE NO.: Z-7471
NAME: Elliott Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: 1313 South Tyler Street
DEVELOPER:
Walthall, Elliott, More and Associates, Inc.
1313 South Tyler Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
P.O. Box 166047
Little Rock, AR 72206
AREA: 0.32 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-3, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Physical Therapy Base Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone these two single-family lots from R-3, Single-
family District to PD-O (Planned Development – Office) to allow a therapy
business to house their base operation. The applicant proposes to utilize an
existing single-family home located on the southern lot and the additional of a
two car parking pad on a vacant lot located north of the home. The use will
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
2
strictly be an office use only with the employees accessing the site only to
retrieve patient files, to check out equipment and/or materials or drop off files
after a therapy session. The site will also be used for administrative purposes
such as patient billing. The applicant has stated occasionally occupational,
physical as well as speech and language evaluations will be conducted on site.
The applicant has indicated there will be no more than three full time employees
reporting to 1313 South Tyler Street on a daily basis. The applicant has
indicated there will be a total of seven employees of the business. Leaving four
of the employees to only access the site when patient files are needed.
The applicant has indicated all traffic will access the site by the alleyway located
along the rear of the lots. The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be
from 7:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. The applicant has proposed
the structure will remain residential in character with placement of signage on the
rear of the lot adjacent to the alley. This will identify the structure for employees
and the occasional patient.
The applicant is also requesting signage at the alley and 13th Street and 14th
Street (off-premise signage) to direct traffic to the rear entrance.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing single-family structure and a vacant lot to the north.
The vacant lot is surrounded by a six foot wooden fence adjoining the rear of the
house and extending to the alleyway. There is a double gate located at the
alleyway. The single family structure has a three car garage accessed by the
alley.
There are single family homes located in the immediate area with all the non-
residential uses appearing to be located north of West 12th Street. Along West
13th Street fronting on South Tyler Street is a daycare and a vacant dilapidated
single-family home. Other non-residential uses along Fair Park Boulevard stop
at West 13th Street. There is a elementary school and an City Park located on
Harrison Street approximately two blocks to the southeast.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received two phone calls in opposition of the proposed
development and one phone call in support. The Oak Forest and the War
Memorial Neighborhood Associations 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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed land use would classify Tyler Street on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2. Any future construction must be in compliance with boundary street and
stormwater detention ordinance.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
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 I-630 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied
for a Plan Development-Office to establish an office for a physical therapy group.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office is a separate item
on this agenda (LU03-09-02 Item #5).
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Oak Forest Area Neighborhood Action Plan “A Guide to
Achieve Our Vision”. The Housing objectives states to “Encourage more home
ownership” and to “Enhance and maintain all housing stock”. This conversion of
a single-family residential unit to an office use is counter to those goals.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
4
Landscape: Landscaping and associated screening will be required if a new
parking area is to be developed.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
The applicants were present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was to allow the use of an existing single-family residence as a base office for a
occupational and physical therapy business. Staff requested additional
information from the applicant to include any proposed signage along with the
location and the sign area.
Staff suggested the applicant add two additional parking spaces on the vacant lot
to the north. Staff stated the spaces would be required to be hard surface and
should be installed in a manner that should someone desire to build a residential
structure in the future the parking could serve as the driveway and/or parking for
the new home. Staff also requested the applicant provide details on the revised
site plan to include the proposed parking.
Public works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right-of-way
would be required along South Tyler Street per the Master Street Plan. Staff
stated no widening would be required. Staff noted the applicant would be
allowed to back into the alley to help maintain the residential character.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant would be
required to screen any and all new parking areas. Staff stated a landscape strip
would be required along the northern property line of the vacant lot.
There were no further items for discussion and 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 August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated a directional sign will be placed at each end of the alley to direct
traffic to the site. The applicant has also indicated a wall sign will be placed on
the garage to identify the business. The applicant has requested a wall sign not
to exceed twenty-four square feet in aggregate sign area.
The applicant has also revised the site plan to include a two car parking pad on
the vacant lot to the north. The parking pad is proposed as twenty feet in width
and twenty-four feet in depth. This would allow for cars to comfortably pull into
the site and not block the alley.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
5
The applicant has indicated all customer traffic will access the site from the alley
and there will be no clients or employees parking in the front drive or the street
adjoining the structure.
The applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance, which is dated April 19, 1926.
The Bill of Assurance addresses the division of the land into lots and blocks and
the dedication of streets and alleys for public use. There does not appear to be a
conflict with the proposed use and the Bill of Assurance submitted.
Although the proposed office use is relatively small in scale, staff does have
concerns that lead to staff’s non-support of the request. First, the proposal is to
convert the residence into a office use. Although the structure will remain
residential in character, there will be an increase in traffic to the site. The
property is located mid-block in a neighborhood that, from all appearances, is
solely single family. Staff believes the proposed use would be better located at
the fringe of the neighborhood, in an area of mixed uses or where it could serve
as a transition from intensive non-residential uses to residential uses. Staff is
concerned that placing this use at this location could negatively impact adjacent
residential properties. In the past, staff has drawn a hard line at West 13th Street
and has taken the stand that non-residential uses should not cross any further
into the neighborhood. Staff feels to allow this use into the neighborhood would
be introducing non-residential activities into an area the neighborhood and the
city has worked to revitalize and protect.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were objectors present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Ms. Janelle Romandia addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed
request. She stated the Commission had been handed a petition with the neighbors in
the area signing in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the
neighborhood had worked to keep non-residential activities along West 12th Street. She
stated the location was in the heart of a single-family neighborhood.
Ms. Romandia stated the request was not in keeping with the Neighborhood Action Plan
supported by the Commission and the Board of Directors. She stated the applicant was
requesting to utilize the alleyway for access to the site and the alley was not designed to
handle commercial traffic. She stated the site was located only one block from 12th
Street, the area identified for commercial uses in the area.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
6
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the use was
inappropriate for the site. She stated the applicant had indicted the use of the alleyway
for access to the site and questioned who maintained the alley and who would be
responsible for repairing the alley when the alley deteriorated from commercial use. It
was noted the City did not maintain alleys and the maintenance was the responsibility of
the property owners.
Ms. Deborah White addressed the Commission in opposition of the development. She
stated she had lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and was requesting the
Commission deny the request since the request was not in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Joe White addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated he had lived in the 1300 block of South Tyler Street for over 20 years. Mr. White
stated the non-residential uses should be limited to 12th Street and University Avenue.
He stated the homes located behind the site also used the alley to access their homes
and most had small children. Mr. White stated the property owners were concerned
with the use of the alley by a commercial business for safety reasons.
Mr. William Shepard addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated he lived next door to the site on the south at 1315 South Tyler Street. He
stated he shared a driveway with 1313 South Tyler Street. Mr. Shepard stated there
was no parking on the street along the east side of South Tyler Street. He stated on
separate occasions during the past month the applicant was parking on the street and
there were commercial vehicles parked in the drive where he could not access his
home.
Mr. Robert Hooks addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
He stated UALR was chipping away the homes to the south and 12th Street was the
dividing line to the north. He stated the Stephens Neighborhood was a fragile area and
the City should work to continue to ensure the neighborhoods vitality. He stated parking
was a concern and the use of the alley a second concern. He stated the neighborhood
had signed a petition stating their opposition and the use was not in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Ms. Elliot, co-owner of the company, addressed the Commission with the proposed
development plan. She stated the use of the site was for administrative purposes only.
She stated the site would be used for billing purposes, payroll and scheduling. She
stated the therapist would only report to the site once a week to drop off files, make
copies and secure additional files. She stated there would be little to no customer traffic
to the site and if it was the desire of the Commission she would agree to no customer
traffic to the site.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7471
7
Ms. Moore, co-owner of the company, stated once the parking problems were brought
to their attention she had worked to ensure the commercial vehicles, the pest control
company, phone company etc. were not parking in areas not designated for parking.
Ms. Moore stated the business was not using the site for the business only getting the
site ready for use should the application be approved.
Ms. Walthall, co-owner of the business, stated there were two employees who would
report to the site daily with two other employees part of the day or every other day. She
stated there were five therapists who would access the site once a week.
There was a general discussion of how to structure the proposed request to be the least
intrusive to the neighborhood. The Commission questioned if the applicant would be
willing to revise the request to allow no customer traffic to the site. Ms. Elliot stated this
was acceptable. She stated if any clients could not be evaluated on the site where they
were located then the therapist could find an alternate location to evaluate the clients.
There was a general discussion concerning the use noting the use was similar to a
home occupation use. The Commission agreed the difference was none of the
applicants were going to live on the site.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include limiting the site to
no customer traffic, no deliveries, and no parents bring their children to the site for
evaluation and including all staff comments and recommendations included in
paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 5
noes and 2 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
NAME: Levi Short-form Revised PD-R
LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Monroe Street and “C” Street
DEVELOPER:
Lance Levi
320 North Monroe Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
Dee Wilson
2523 North Willow Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
AREA: 0.96 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R and R-3, Single-family District
ALLOWED USES: Duplex and Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: The creation of four single-family lots from three existing lots
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Waiver of street improvements to “C” Street.
2. Waiver of dedication of right-of-way dedication for “C” Street.
BACKGROUND:
On March 4, 2003, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,834 to allow the
conversion of an existing single-family structure into a duplex. Unit 1 was to occupy
approximately 1350 square feet and Unit 2 would occupy the remaining 850 square
feet. Each unit will have covered parking one of which is an existing two (2) car garage;
the second a covered overhang along the eastern side of the structure.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
2
There were no exterior modifications proposed to the structure with the exception of
needed maintenance and rehabilitation. The only interior changes were to be the
addition of a bathroom in Unit 2 and the addition of a wall to separate the units.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved PD-R and the expansion
of area to allow three existing platted lots to become four lots. Two of the lots will
have access to “C” Street and two of the lots will have access to South Monroe
Street.
The lots proposed will meet the 5,000 square foot minimum requirement for R-3
zoned property and will meet the fifty foot minimum width requirement and the
one hundred foot minimum depth requirement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a single-family structure located on the corner of “C” Street and Monroe
Street. Monroe Street is constructed without sidewalks in this area. A second lot
of the proposed subdivision contains a structure, which has been converted to a
duplex. The driveway for the site is a gravel drive. “C” Street is a very narrow
unimproved street (alleyway) with open ditches for drainage. The area appears
to be exclusively single-family with the exception of a house with a garage
apartment located on the corner of “C” Street and North Jackson Street and the
applicant’s recently approved duplex.
A PRD was approved to the south of the site to allow the development of
reduced setback detached single-family homes on eight (8) lots.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received one informational phone call from an area
resident. The Hillcrest Residents 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.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The preliminary plat must show a right-of-way width for Monroe of 25' from
centerline, one half of a standard 50' residential right-of-way.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
3
2. “C” Street does not appear on Bagley maps as a platted street or right-of-way.
The minimum width of right-of-way for a minor residential street is 45, not 15'
as shown.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Monroe and “C” Street.
4. Prior to final platting, “C” Street will have to be constructed to Master Street
Plan standards for a minor residential street. On Monroe Street, repair,
replace or construct any curb, gutter, and sidewalks with the planned
development.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Owner/developer must pay to relocate aerial phone cable or grant easement
for cable to remain in the present location. Contact SBC (Charles McDonald) at
373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. This development will have
minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
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 Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Residential Development to
divide three lots into four lots.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
4
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan since this request
does not change the density above the maximum density allowed for the Single
Family land use category.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The chapter on Land
Use and Zoning lists a goal recommending the enforcement of land use and
zoning policies to preserve Hillcrest’s unique neighborhood scale.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
The applicant was present representing his request. Staff stated the applicant
was proposing to revise a previously approved Planned Development and to
expand the area to include two additional lots to the east. Staff stated the
applicant’s desire was to replat three lots into four lots. Staff stated there were
additional items needed on the proposed preliminary plat to include the source of
water, source of wastewater disposal and the names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated “C” Street did not appear
on the Bagley maps. Staff requested a minimum right-of-way dedication of 45-
feet to allow access to the homes. Staff stated currently there was a fifteen foot
right-of-way in place which was not adequate to serve the area if additional lots
were to develop.
Staff also requested a 20-foot radial dedication at the intersection of Monroe and
“C” Street. Staff stated prior to final platting “C” Street would have to be
constructed.
Mr. Levi stated with a 45-foot dedication the right-of-way would intrude into the
existing homes. Staff stated the existing homes would be required to be shown
on the site plan to determine not only the right-of-way issue but also any
variances that were being created as a result of the new lot lines.
Staff noted comments from SBC and suggested the applicant contact them for
additional information. There were no further items for discussion. The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
5
has indicated the source of water as Central Arkansas Water and the source of
wastewater disposal as the Little Rock Wastewater Utility. The applicant has
also included the names of the abutting subdivisions as requested by staff.
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of three existing single-family lots into
four single-family lots. The area is zoned R-3 which would typically require a
minimum lot size of 50 by 100 foot lots and 5,000 square feet. The minimum lot
size is 5,900 square feet and the average lot size is 10,440 square feet. The
proposal is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirement for lot sizes.
Currently there is a single-family home located on the corner of North Monroe
Street and “C” Street (proposed Lot 1-R) and a duplex located on proposed Lot
4. The applicant has indicated he will develop Lots 2-R and 3 with single-family
homes in the future.
The applicant has indicated the structures on the proposed site plan as
requested by staff. The existing structures sit approximately 10-feet from the
property line adjacent to “C” Street. “C” Street is a narrow road with a 15-foot
right-of-way in place. This appears to have been dedicated with the Reutlinger
Addition to the north and no right-of-way was dedicated with the Howard Adams
Subdivision.
Staff is not comfortable allowing additional development on this tract. There are
currently several homes located adjacent to “C” Street which take access from
the roadway. This street was platted in this manner many years ago and has
served the area in its current state. Typically the fire department requires drive
lanes to be a minimum of eighteen to twenty feet in width. Although the street is
existing and is functioning to serve the area staff does not feel we should allow
any further subdivision of land increasing the non-conformity in the area.
Typically in the past the City has required dedication with the subdivision of land
to meet the current Master Street Plan requirement. “C” Street would require a
dedication of 50-feet of right-of-way or an additional 35-feet. As stated, the
applicant’s home along with an adjoining duplex owned by the applicant sit within
10-feet of the property line, thus not allowing for the dedication of any additional
right-of-way.
In addition, the cutting of these lots into smaller lots only reduces the buildable
area of Lot 2R which is encumbered by a large drainage easement. Staff feels
the additional footage being shaved from the rear of the lot should remain in Lot
2R to allow for additional buildable area.
Staff does not feel the request to revise the PD-R to allow the creation of a four
lot plat is a beneficial option for the city.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7345-A
6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Lance Levi was present representing the request. There was one objector present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated “C” Street only
had an exiting right-of-way of 15-feet and they did not feel approving the request and
allowing additional construction of “C” Street was desirable. Staff noted the Fire
Department typically required a 20-foot drive and a 26-foot right-of-way on all
development. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a waiver of right-of-way
dedication to Monroe and “C” Streets.
Ms. Donna Eubanks addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request.
She stated her home was located at 304 North Monroe Street; adjacent to Lot 2R.
Ms. Eubanks stated the duplex previously approved on “C” Street was proposed with
four parking spaces. She stated it was her understanding this would be the number of
automobiles on the site. She stated this had not been the case. Ms. Eubanks stated
there were trailers parking on the site along with a large number of automobiles.
Ms. Eubanks stated there was also a concern with the drainage easement located on
Lot 2R. She stated if depth was taken from this lot to create proposed Lot 3 this would
severely limit the buildability of the lot.
Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She
stated the access to the site was the primary concern. She stated with a 15-foot right-
of-way in place the addition of a lot and increasing the traffic on this substandard street
and the approval of the request to waive the right-of-way dedication was not a good
idea.
Mr. Lance Levi spoke on behalf of his request. He stated the staff write-up indicated
typically and not hard set rules for the street widths and the right-of-way dedication. He
stated the previous approval did not require right-of-way dedication and stated the
addition of one house should not impact the area. He stated the drainage was not an
issue. He stated there was drainage through Lot 2R and along the property lines of
Lots 1R, 2R and Lot 3.
Commissioner Floyd questioned the applicant as to the size home that could be
constructed on Lot 2R. Mr. Levi stated a 1200 to 1500 square foot home could be
constructed on the lot with little effort.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the existing
right-of-way. A motion was made to approve the request as filed subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: LU03-01-05
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - River Mountain Planning District
Location: Sam Peck Road & Cantrell Road
Request: Transition to Mixed Office Commercial
Source: Henry Kelley, Flake & Kelley Real Estate
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the River Mountain Planning District from
Transition to Mixed Office Commercial. Mixed Office Commercial category
provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses
are office or mixed office and commercial. A Planed Zoning District is required of
the use is mixed office and commercial. The PZD is being revised to change the
mix of commercial and office uses in the individual buildings.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant’s property is vacant land currently zoned POD and is 10.76± acres
in size. The eastern half of the applicant’s acreage is in the amendment area
while the remaining western half is located outside the study area. The north
side of Cantrell Road consists of vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family across
from Crocket Street, O-2 Office and Institutional for Offices across from Sam
Peck Road, and MF-12 Multifamily for the Grace Community Church. The south
side of Cantrell Road consists of an area zoned O-2 Office and Institutional for
medical offices along Cantrell Road and the Westside YMCA on Sam Peck
Road. The apartments to the south are zoned MF-12 Multifamily along Sam
Peck Road and Planned Development-Residential further to the west. The
property to the west consists of vacant land zoned R-2, a dentist office zoned
Planned Office development, and property zoned R-2 along Crocket Street.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On February 18, 2003 multiple changes were made from Transition to Single
Family, Park / Open Space, Low Density Residential, Office and Public
Institutional within a 1 mile radius of the applicant’s property to recognize existing
conditions.
On July 17, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Park / Open Space
at Pankey Park less than ¼ of a mile west of the application area to recognize
existing conditions.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-05
2
On April 20, 1999 multiple changes were made from Single Family and Low
Density Residential to Park / Open Space, Multifamily, Office and Commercial at
Cantrell and Black Road about ¾ of a mile west of the amendment area to
accommodate proposed development.
The applicant’s property is shown as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan.
The north side of Cantrell Road is shown as Park / Open Space across from
Crocket Street, Office and Public Institutional across from Sam Peck Road. The
area to the east is shown as Office along Cantrell Road and Public Institution to
the southeast along Sam Peck Road. The land to the south is shown as Multi-
family and Low Density Residential is shown to the west along both sides of
Crocket Street.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and is built to a width of four lanes
plus an extra center turn lane. Sam Peck Road is shown as a Collector Street
and is built as a two-lane road with open drainage fronting the applicant’s
property. South of the applicant’s property Sam Peck Road is built to Collector
Street standards. The portion of Sam Peck Road fronting the applicant’s property
would require half street improvements with the goal of making Sam Peck Road
conform to the standards outlined for a Collector Street outlined in the Master
Street Plan. There are no bikeways shown that would be affected by this
application.
PARKS:
The applicant’s property is located in close proximity to River Mountain, Pankey,
and Conner Park. The largest park, River Mountain Park, is listed in the Little
Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 as a Large Urban Park in the
inventory list of undeveloped parks. Pankey Park located at Russ and Piggee
Streets is listed as a Neighborhood Park of 5 - 20 acres and provides, a
playground, a basketball pad, and picnic tables. Conner Park is shown on the
map of existing parks but is not listed in the inventory of parks. All three parks
are located within a distance to fulfill the plan’s Eight-Block Strategy of providing
park facilities within eight blocks of all Little Rock residents. However, the only
developed park facilities are located at Pankey Park. The park is designed to
serve the current residents of the area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no historic districts that would be affected by this amendment.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-05
3
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan:
The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain
Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan includes an action statement that
recommends the preservation of the integrity of the Highway 10 design Overlay
District.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant’s property could develop as office uses in the area currently shown
as Transition on the Future Land Use Plan. A change to Mixed Office
Commercial would allow for the development of some commercial uses on the
applicant’s property that would not be allowed in the Transition or Suburban
Office categories.
The applicant’s property was the subject of a Land Use Plan Amendment for a
change from Transition to Suburban Office was a part of a Future Land Use
along Cantrell Road presented to the Planning Commission on January 9, 2003.
The change to Suburban Office was denied at that meeting. It was determined
that the Transition land use category allowed for office development similar to the
requirements found in the Suburban Office category but also allowed residential
development.
The application area is located in the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Any
development of the property in question would need to conform to the design
standards of the Highway 10 DOD.
In areas shown as Transition, a Planned Zoning District is required unless an
application conforms to the Design Overlay standards. The design standards of
the Highway 10 DOD are intended to protect the scenic value of the Highway 10
DOD through the requirement of PZD’s.
A revision of the POD is a separate item on this agenda. The POD is a mixed
office commercial PUD. This land use plan amendment would acknowledge that
while still providing Transition on the west.
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,
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU03-01-05
4
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 received 1 comment from area residents with questions
about the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate. A change to Mixed Office Commercial
would allow some commercial uses on a limited scale while avoiding the creation
of a commercial node.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to
approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 7.1 FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
NAME: Highway 10 at Sam Peck Revised POD
LOCATION: On the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Sam Peck
DEVELOPER:
Flake and Kelly Management
TCBY Tower, Suite 300
425 West Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 990
Little Rock AR 72203
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
ARCHITECT:
Williams and Dean Associated Architects
18 Corporate Hill Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
AREA: 10.68 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Office with a 15% commercial mix in each building
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: Office and Commercial with a 80% commercial mix on Lot 1
and a 10% commercial mix on Lot 2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
2
BACKGROUND:
In mid-1998, an application was filed to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to PCD
to allow a mini-warehouse development to be located on the rear of the site and a
restaurant seating 200 persons was proposed to be located on the north side fronting
on Cantrell Road. The application was later withdrawn from consideration prior to the
Planning Commission Public Hearing.
On June 3, 2003, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 18,880, approving a
POD for this site. The applicant proposed a preliminary plat and the development of
two office buildings, each on separate lots. The applicant proposed the development to
occur in two phases. The first phase would be the construction of a 66,000 square foot,
four story office building and associated parking (234 parking spaces). The second
phase would include a three-story office building consisting of approximately 50,000
square feet along with the associated parking (230 parking spaces).
The applicant proposed off-site improvements to include the intersection improvements,
a future traffic signal at Sam Peck and improved drainage. The ground floor of each
building would include a drive through facility for a bank or similar business.
The applicant requested the site be allowed to develop with O-2 and O-3 office uses
and fifteen percent of each building on the lower level of be allowed specific commercial
uses. The applicant indicated commercial uses would include: Antique Shop; Bakery or
confectionary shop; Barber or beauty shop; Book or stationary store; Camera shop;
Cigar/Tobacco and candy store; Clothing store; Custom Sewing or millinery; Clinic
(medical, dental or optical); Coffee shop; Delicatessen; Drugstore or pharmacy; Dry
cleaning drop station; Duplication shop; Eating place without drive-in service; Florist
shop; Health studio spa; Jewelry store; Laundry pickup station; Office equipment sales
and service; Optical shop; Photography studio; Restaurant; School (business); Studio
broadcasting or recording; Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic
endeavors).
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to revise a previously approved POD to allow Lot 1 to
develop with two single story buildings and to increase the requested commercial
uses allowed on Lot 1. The applicant is proposing the placement of the building
located on Lot 2 further west than the original proposal with a reduction in the
requested commercial uses and an increased square footage.
Lot 1 is now proposed to contain two buildings, a 57,000 square foot single-story
building and a 6,000 square foot (including the canopy) single-story building.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
3
The applicant is proposing the placement of a upscale food market similar to one
in Northwest Arkansas on the site. The market specializes in prepared meals as
well as specialty grocery items. The applicant has indicated the market will have
limited seating for patrons wishing to dine-in but much of the traffic would be
carryout. The applicant has also indicated a 10,000 square foot restaurant and
an additional 22,000 square feet of unclassified space. Eighty percent of the
space would be utilized by the uses listed below and the remaining twenty
percent would be office uses; general and professional. The site plan includes
an area of 3,000 square feet of out-door dining space. This area is to be shared
by the restaurant and the Market. The applicant has also indicated an out-parcel,
lease area, which would be utilized by a bank or similar operation with a drive-
through service. The total building square footage proposed is 6,000 square feet
including the canopy.
Antique shop; Bakery; Bar, lounge or tavern; Barber or beauty shop; Beverage
shop; Book or stationary store; Butcher shop; Camera shop; Catering,
commercial; Cigar/tobacco and candy store; Clothing store; College, University
or seminary; Commercial catering; Drug store or pharmacy; Dry cleaning drop
station – and drive thru; Custom sewing or millinery; Eating place without drive-in
service; Florist shop; Food store; Furniture store; Handicraft, ceramic sculpture,
artwork, printing or blueprinting; Handicraft, ceramic, sculpture or similar art work;
Hardware or sporting goods store; Health studio or spa; Hobby shop; Jewelry
store; Laboratory; Laundromat or pickup station; Medical Support Services;
Office equipment sales and service; Optical shop; Paint and wallpaper store;
Photography studio; Deli with specialty grocery, drive through, and outdoor
seating; Restaurant without drive through, but with a possible lounge as part of
the restaurant; Shoe repair; Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other
artistic endeavors); Studio broadcasting or recording; Tailor shops; Travel
bureau; Video rental store (excluding adult entertainment); Window blind and
interior decorator shop.
The applicant is proposing up to ten percent of 60,000 square foot office building
proposed for Lot 2 be approved for the uses listed below:
Bank or savings and loan office with drive through; Church; Clinic (medical,
dental or optical); Community welfare or health center; Day nursery or day care
center; Duplication shop; Establishment for a religious charitable or philanthropic
organization; Establishment for care of alcoholic, narcotic of psychiatric patients;
Outpatient medical space; Library, art gallery museum or similar public use;
Lodge or fraternal organization; Office (General or professional); Photography
studio; Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education; School
(business); School (public or denominational); School (art, music, speech,
drama, dance or other artistic endeavors); Studio (broadcasting and recording);
Travel bureau; Window blind and interior decorator shop.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
4
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a cleared vacant tract at the intersection of a principal arterial and a
collector. Street improvements adjacent to the site are not in place on Cantrell
Road or on Sam Peck. Cantrell has been constructed with curb and gutter but
there is not a sidewalk in place adjacent to the site. Sam Peck is unimproved
with open ditches for drainage.
The site is zoned POD and is shown as Transitional on the City’s Future Land
Use Plan. The area to the north is zoned O-2 and also shown as Transitional on
the City’s Future Land Use Plan. This area has developed with office buildings
containing general and professional office uses. Further north, a MF-12 zoned
site contains a church. Also to the north, along Cantrell Road, is a vacant tract
zoned R-2, Single-family and a tract zoned O-3 containing an existing office
building.
Adjoining the site to the west is a small lot zoned POD being used as a dentist
office. To the east of the site, across Sam Peck, is a vacant O-2 zoned piece of
property with a PD-O for an office building located further east. South of the site
has developed as multi-family with two apartment complexes. The Westside
YMCA is located to the southeast of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Piedmont Property Owners Association, the Pankey Community
Improvement Association and the Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood
Association were notified of the Public Hearing along with all residents, who
could be identified, located within 300-feet of the site and all property owners
located within 200-feet of the site. As of this writing Staff has received only
informational phone calls from area residents.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The revised plans appear to place the building directly over a major drainage
way. Show the proposed location of the re-routed drainage facilities. Building
should not be placed in drainage easements.
2. The drainage way must be designed such that overflows from the 100-year
storm will safely pass through the site without damage to structures or
adjacent property.
3. All previous comments apply to this revision.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
5
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Existing 15” and 8” sewer mains are located on the site. A relocation
of the mains will be required, at Developer’s expense. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based
on the size of connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private
fire system. 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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revision to an existing Planned Office Development for an
additional out-parcel building.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a
separate item on this agenda (LU03-01-05 – Item #7).
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan
includes an action statement that recommends the preservation of the integrity of
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
6
Landscape: Two additional landscape islands within the interior of the proposed
Phase I parking area will be required to more evenly distribute the interior
landscaping. To receive credit toward fulfilling interior landscaping requirements,
interior islands must contain at least 300 square feet.
Unless otherwise provided for, a six (6) high opaque screen, either a wooden
fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is
required to screen this site from the residential properties to the south and west.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was a revision to an existing POD to allow the addition of commercial uses on
the site. Staff stated the applicant also proposed a different layout to the site
plan. Staff noted additional items that needed to be shown on the site plan.
Staff stated a right turn lane was previously proposed and should be shown on
the current plan. Staff also noted the site plan did not include a dumpster
location and questioned if a dumpster would be located on the site.
Staff questioned the availability of parking should the development be developed
with ninety percent commercial uses. Staff stated the parking shown would be
sufficient if the applicant intended to utilize a cross access parking agreement
between the two lots. The applicant indicated this was the intent. Staff stated
this should be noted on the site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the development was
located on a large drainage way. Staff stated the building should be required to
be set at the 100 year flood level and allowances would be required for an
overflow pass should the underground drainage fail.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the interior landscape
islands would be required to be 300 square feet to count towards fulfilling the
landscape ordinance requirements. Staff also noted the Phase I parking area
landscaping would be required to be more evenly distributed. Staff noted a six
foot high opaque screen would be required along the south and west perimeters
of the site to count towards full filling the Landscape Ordinance requirements.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
7
The applicant was instructed to prepare a response to staff with regard the
additional items needed on the site plan. 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 August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the right-turn lane as was proposed on the previous site plan. The
applicant has also indicated the drainage will be piped through the site and the
floor elevation set above the 100-year flood elevation. The applicant has also
located the dumpsters on the site plan in the service alley and indicated
screening as required per the ordinance.
The applicant has also indicated on the site plan a cross parking agreement for
Lots 1 and 2. The applicant proposes the placement of a 15,000 square foot
market (minimum typical parking would be 50 parking spaces), a 10,000 square
foot restaurant (minimum typical parking would be 100 parking spaces), 22,000
square feet of space being utilized by the list of users in paragraph A of this
report (typical minimum parking would be 97 parking spaces) and a 6,000 square
foot outbuilding (typical minimum parking required 14 parking spaces) Lot 1
would typically require 261 parking spaces. There are 210 parking spaces
proposed for Lot 1.
The applicant is proposing Lot 2 to develop with 60,000 square feet of office
space with the 10 percent of the space being used by users listed in paragraph A
of this report. Typically a 60,000 square foot office building would require 150
parking spaces. The development is proposing 257 parking spaces for Lot 2.
The parking proposed for Lots 1 and 2, if shared would be sufficient to meet the
typical minimum parking demand (467 proposed and 404 required) for the
development.
The previous proposal allowed for fifteen percent of each building be allowed
commercial uses from a specified list. Staff felt the fifteen percent was
reasonable since the applicant would be allowed to develop the site with ten
percent of the listed uses if the site were zoned office. The applicant is now
requesting to revise the request and allow up to eighty percent of some specified
uses listed in paragraph A be allowed for Lot 1 and ten percent of the uses listed
in Paragraph A on Lot 2. This equates to 42,400 square feet of commercial
space for Lot 1 and 6,000 square feet of commercial space for Lot 2. The
proposal would allow forty-two percent of the development to be commercial
uses. Staff feels this not appropriate. Staff feels a better mix would be the
15,000 square foot market, the 10,000 square foot restaurant and the 6,000
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
8
square feet of commercial space requested for Lot 2 with the remainder of the
site being developed with O-3 uses and the listed allowed accessory uses; with
no limit placed on the accessory uses.
The applicant has increased the landscaped areas to meet the minimum
Landscape Ordinance requirements. The applicant has also distributed the
landscaping on Lot 1 to break the sea of asphalt proposed. As was previously
proposed the landscaping located adjacent to Highway 10 is located in a utility
easement (water line) and the applicant will be required to provide plantings that
have shallow roots to not intrude into the water line. Staff is supportive of
allowing the utility easement to serve as a portion of the front yard landscaped
area.
The applicant has indicated signage larger than allowed by the Highway 10
Design Overlay District requirements. The proposal includes four sign locations.
The signage on the out-parcel lease area near the Cantrell Road and Sam Peck
intersection is proposed as eight feet in height and 208 square feet. The signage
proposed at the driveway location for Lot 1 on Sam Peck is also proposed as
eight feet in height and 208 square feet in area. The signage located near the
driveway entrance on Lot 2 is proposed as seven feet in height 84 square feet in
area. The applicant proposes a development sign to be eight feet six inches in
height and 221 square feet in sign area. Staff recommends the signage be
limited to a ground-mounted monument style sign no more than six feet in height
and seventy-two square feet in area, consistent with the Highway 10 Overlay
requirement for the individual lot identification signs and the development sign be
limited to no more than ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area.
Staff is supportive of the placement of the signage.
The applicant has indicated parking which extends into the 40-foot landscape
buffer required by the Highway 10 Overlay District. The parking extends
approximately 10-feet along the driveway along Highway 10 into the buffer area
angling to zero. Staff is supportive of the reduction in the buffer in this area.
The applicant is proposing a maximum building height of seventy feet. Typically
the maximum building height of O-3 zoned property is 45-feet with a foot being
added to the building height for each foot of setback from the property line. The
western property line is only sixty feet from the building. Staff feels the building
should be limited to no more than sixty feet in height.
The applicant is proposing the placement of an outdoor seating area on the site.
The proposal includes an area 50-feet by 60-feet and will be shared by the
Market and the proposed restaurant. The applicant is proposing the placement
of 20 tables and 3000 square feet of floor area. The typical minimum parking
required would be 30 parking spaces for this area. As stated previously there are
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
9
467 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development and 404 required for
all other activities. With the addition of the outdoor seating area and the 30
addition parking spaces required to meet the typical minimum parking demand
parking should be more than adequate to serve the development.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
Staff recommends the development be limited to the 15,000 square foot market,
the 10,000 square foot restaurant and the remainder of Lot 1 be limited to O-3
uses and the listed accessory uses with no limit placed on the accessory uses
and Lot 2 develop with a 60,000 square foot office building with O-3 uses and the
site be limited to ten percent of the accessory uses.
Staff recommends the signage be limited to signage allowed under the Highway
10 Design Overlay District.
Staff recommends the maximum building height for the building located on Lot 2
be limited to sixty feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Hank Kelly was present representing the request. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented to the Commission indicating the following recommendations would be
the terms of approval:
• Staff recommended approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
• Staff recommended the development be limited to the 15,000 square foot market,
the 10,000 square foot restaurant or the available square footage of the two
activities be limited to the list of requested uses listed in paragraph A of the above
report excluding bar, lounge or tavern and the remainder of Lot 1 be limited to O-3
uses and the listed accessory uses with no limit placed on the accessory uses and
Lot 2 develop with a 60,000 square foot office building with O-3 uses and Lot 2 be
limited to ten percent of the accessory uses.
• Staff recommended the signage be limited to signage allowed under the Highway 10
Design Overlay District.
• Staff recommended the maximum building height for the building located on Lot 2 be
limited to four stories.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5059-B
10
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
NAME: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised PD-R
LOCATION: On the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard 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 – placement of 2 trash compactors
on the site (one on Lot 1 and one on Lot 3)
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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
2
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 (Rushmore Avenue),
south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). 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
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 (Capitol
Hills Boulevard) 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 (Capitol Hills Boulevard) 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 (Rushmore Avenue)
and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). 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 (Rushmore Avenue) 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 (Capitol Hills
Boulevard). 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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
3
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)
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.
Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction and will
be completed with Phase I to allow access to the site.
Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003
approved a revision to allow the creation of a three lot plat to following the previously
proposed phasing lines. The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street
frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take
access a through cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were
numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan
did not changed from the original submission.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
4
The applicant revised the building placement ever so slightly to allow for landscape
strips between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access
parking agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the
typical minimum parking demand for multi-family development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved and revised PD-R
to allow for the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The applicant
wishes to install a trash compactor at either entrance to serve the entire facility.
The applicant has indicated a private contractor will service the compactors once
a week. The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should
allow the driver easy accessibility and minimal disturbance of the residents in the
early morning hours when the compactors are serviced.
The applicant has indicated the unit will be a mirror to the compactor located at
Carrington Park Apartments in West Little Rock. The site plan indicates the
compactors will sit in a “service well” below grade, where the residents pull up to
a turn-around and throw the trash into the top of the compactor. As indicated on
the site plan the sidewalk leading up to the unit will be handicap accessible. The
developer is proposing to screen the “service well” with landscaping and the
access point will have two wooden doors.
The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously
proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request
includes a restoration plan for the buffer areas. The Lot 1 (Phase I) buffer areas
were destroyed with grading of the construction area currently underway. The
approved site plan included a 30-foot undisturbed buffer area along the southern
and western perimeters of the site. The applicant submitted a proposal to
provide an additional 20-feet of property to the south to be retained in a
conservation easement and to replant the destroyed 30-foot buffer areas at
plantings required by the ordinance in cases when no buffer exist. The applicant
did propose the placement of three inch caliper trees not the mix of two and three
inch trees required by the ordinance and the placement of shrubs in the area.
The applicant stated they were unable to secure any additional land area to the
west and the proposal included plantings only similar to the plantings proposed to
the south.
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
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
5
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. Phase I of the
development is also under construction with a majority of the site currently
cleared.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received numerous informational phone calls from
area residents. 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. No comments on trash compactor locations. All previous comments on the
site 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 easement will be required in Phase II and III as it develops. The
exact location cannot be determined at this time. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for
additional details.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection to change allowing trash compactors. All
Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water
service must be met.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
6
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 move the location of dumpsters/trash compactors.
This 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: The proposed compactors will not intrude into required street buffer
width requirements with the transfers allowed by ordinance.
The required land use buffers along the southern and western perimeters of this
site have been removed in their entirety. An approved restoration plan is
required.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
applicant. Staff stated the request involved the placement of two trash
compactors on the site in lieu of dumpsters. Staff stated the applicant was
requesting to place the compactors adjacent to the two entrances to the
development. Staff stated the compactors would be located on Lot 1 or Phase 1
of the development and on Lot 3 or Phase 3.
Staff questioned if there was a suitable location outside the entrance locations.
Mr. White stated there was not. Mr. White stated the top of the compactor would
be at grade thus reducing the unsightliness of the dumpster. He stated the
Carrington Park Apartments located in West Little Rock had a similar dumpster
set-up and it appeared to be working well. Mr. White stated with the placement
of the compactors in this area the residents would be least inconvenienced and
would be able to dump there garbage when checking their mail, or conducting
business at the office or leaving the site.
Comments from other agencies were also discussed. Staff suggested Mr. White
contact these agencies individually if there were any questions or concerns.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
7
Staff stated there was a problem with the project currently under construction.
Staff stated the contractor had destroyed the buffer and extended some feet
outside the project area. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a restoration
plan which included plantings as required by the ordinance but the trees
proposed were three inch caliper trees, which were larger than the required mix
of two and three inch caliper trees. Staff stated the applicant was also proposing
a twenty foot undistributed buffer to the south. Staff stated the buffer to the west
was also destroyed and staff had requested additional land be bought for the
buffer in this area as well. Staff noted the applicant had contacted the property
owner to the west and was unable to secure any additional land to the west.
Staff stated they were requesting the applicant double the plantings required by
the ordinance and to add an additional thirty feet of undisturbed area to the
south. Mr. White questioned why staff was requesting such a large area. Mr.
Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the request was a
punishment. He noted the ordinance would typically require a forty foot buffer
area and the area had been reduced to thirty feet with the previous proposal. He
stated that at least seventy percent of the buffer was to remain undisturbed. Mr.
Lawson stated the applicant disregarded the ordinances and cleared the buffer
area so there should be some punitive damages.
Commissioner Rector raised some concerns of the history of the development.
He stated regardless of who cleared the buffer area it was the owner’s
responsibility to ensure it was maintained. He stated he felt staff’s request was
reasonable.
Mr. White was instructed to contact his client and pass along staff’s comments
and the Committee’s concerns. Staff noted a revised plan should be submitted
no later than August 20, 2003. There was no further discussion of the item, the
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting concerning the location of the trash
compactors and the required screening. The applicant has indicated there is not
a suitable alternative location and with the currently proposed placement this
should have minimal adverse impact on residents when the dumpsters are being
serviced. Staff feels although the entrance to the development is not the most
desirable location, the servicing of the dumpsters in early morning hours and the
potential noise of the garbage truck would negatively impact the residents and
concedes to the proposed location.
The applicant has not submitted a revised restoration plan to staff but in
conversations, the applicant indicated a restoration plan would be submitted to
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6120-H
8
staff outlining staff’s requested buffer areas and plantings. Staff would
recommend the restoration plan indicate buffers and plantings in the area
previously designated as the land use buffer area be planted at double the
plantings required by the landscape ordinance. This would include the area to
the south and the west on Lot 1 of the development. Staff would also
recommend the applicant plant all trees of three inch caliper. Staff also
recommends the applicant provide an additional 30-foot of land to the south to be
retained in a conservation easement. Staff would recommend this 30-feet along
with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a tract designated south of
Lot 3 to ensure the buffer be maintained in the future. If the 30-foot is a part of
the proposed single-family lots to the south (the proposed 30-foot is currently
indicated as part of lots being proposed for single-family development) there is
no assurance that when these lots are developed the buffer will be maintained.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request for the placement of the trash compactors on the site.
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 submit a restoration plan to include an additional
land area of 30-feet along the southern perimeter of Lot 1, the area be included
with the 30-foot buffer area remaining on Lot 2 and a tract south of Lot 3 and be
maintained as a conservation easement; the area previously proposed as the 30-
foot undisturbed buffer area on the south perimeter of Lot 1 be replanted at twice
the number of plantings currently required by the Landscape Ordinance with
three inch caliper trees and the area along the west property line of Lot 1 be
replanted at twice the number of required plantings currently required by the
Landscape Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were objectors present. Chairman Nunnley stated
the Commission’s policy had been to allow the applicant a deferral when fewer than
nine Commissioners were present. He stated eight Commissioners were remaining and
questioned if the applicant desire a deferral.
Mr. Andy Franics requested the deferral to the September 18, 2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made and approved to defer
the item to the September 18, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6323-H
NAME: The Villages at Rahling Road Revised PCD
LOCATION: Rahling Circle (Unrecorded Lot 11)
DEVELOPER:
Carla Spainhour
400 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.3 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PCD
ALLOWED USES: C-2 Permitted uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE: Office and Commercial Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On August 5, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,542 which
established The Village at Rahling Road Long-form PCD. The PCD established a 14-lot
development with C-2 uses being permitted. The initial action approved a site plan for
Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots
would be brought to the Commission on an individual basis as a particular development
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-H
2
was proposed. Subsequent actions have been approved to allow six small buildings on
the properties within the development. There are currently four buildings of the six
approved buildings completed on the rear lots.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing the placement of an 11,520 square foot building with
the possible expansion area of an additional 11,520 square feet to be used as
office and commercial lease space. The applicant is requesting a building
envelope be approved and the building size will be based upon tenant mix. The
applicant has indicated there will be 55 on-site parking spaces provided with
additional parking available on the street and the shared parking area located
within the development.
The applicant has indicated the commercial users will be C-2 permitted uses and
retail uses which are not listed, but would be enclosed and the office users will be
primarily General and Professional. The days and hours of operation are
proposed as 7:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days per week. The signage proposed is
consistent with signage allowed in office zones under the current zoning
ordinance (six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area).
The applicant has indicated a service drive along the northern side of the
proposed building to only serve this lot.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place. The property
was cleared and graded with initial development of the PCD. Access to the lot is
via Rahling Circle, off of Rahling Road. The O-2 and PCD zoned properties
immediately south and east of the site are undeveloped. Smaller office buildings
are located adjacent to the proposed site to the south and southwest. The larger
buildings of the multiuse PCD are located northwest of the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. 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. There is not an active neighborhood association located in the area.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No Comment.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-H
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based
on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.
Fire Department: On-site fire hydrant is 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 Chenal Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has
applied for a revision to an existing Planned Commercial Development for
development of a lot within the Commercial area.
The requested amendment to the existing Planned Commercial Development is
not such which would require a plan amendment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: The plan submitted falls 540 square feet short of fulfilling the 2,115
square feet of interior landscaping required by the Landscape Ordinance.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-H
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Ms. Carla Spainhour and Mr. Timothy Spainhour were present representing the
request. Staff noted there were additional items needed for clarification of the
proposed uses of the site. Staff requested details on the users to determine
parking required. Staff also stated the maximum sign area was six feet in height
and sixty-four square feet in area.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted the proposed interior
landscaping appeared to fall short of the required per the Landscape Ordinance.
Staff requested the applicant revise the site plan to include the additional
landscape area.
Staff noted comments from the various other agencies. Staff suggested the
applicant contact the agencies individually if there were any questions. There
was no further discussion of the item and the Committee forwarded the item to
the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the
primary users of the site will be C-2 permitted uses and retail uses not listed but
enclosed and general and professional office users. Staff is supportive of the
requested uses.
The typically minimum parking required would be 103 parking spaces (23,040
maximum building area at one space per 225 square feet). There are 55 spaces
proposed as a part of the development with street parking and a large parking
area across the street, which should provide sufficient parking, if parking were to
ever become an issue for the site.
The revised plan includes additional interior landscaping. To meet the minimum
interior landscaping requirements per the Landscape Ordinance the applicant will
be required to place 2,115 square feet of interior landscaping. The site plan
appears to meet this requirement. Staff is supportive of the proposed
landscaping.
The applicant has indicated water will be extended to the site by the developer as
required by Central Arkansas Water. The applicant has indicated the site will
utilize two dumpster locations and have been indicated on the proposed site plan
with the required screening.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6323-H
5
The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and
the Chenal Design criteria. The typical signage allowed in office zones shall not
exceed six (6) feet in height and 64 square feet in area. The proposed signage
complies with that allowed in office zones.
The applicant has indicated Lot 11 will be final platted prior to development. This
is similar to the previous proposals and the development pattern in the area.
The hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday through
Saturday. The proposed use and hours of operation are consistent with the
development pattern in the area and should have no adverse impact on the
surrounding area.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to revise the previously
approved PCD to allow the construction of a commercial/office building on the
site. The area is developing as non-residential neighborhood commercial and
office type uses.
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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Ms. Carla Spainhour and Mr. Joe White were present representing the request. Staff
presented the item with 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 for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
NAME: Blackthorn Subdivision Revised PD-R
LOCATION: on the north side of Taylor Loop Road, west of Oaks Bluff Drive
DEVELOPER:
Woodhaven Homes
3 Stone Haven Court
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Civil Design Engineers, Inc.
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.60 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Reduced front platted building line and a
reduced rear yard setback.
BACKGROUND:
This small parcel has a brief history for platting. A small lot single-family plat with a
short cul-de-sac was approved in 1996 with six (6) lots. The project did not work and
the owner offered a proposal for multi-family. The applicant filed an application for the
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
2
September 1997, Public Hearing, a proposal to construct eleven (11) multifamily units in
four (4) buildings resulting in a density of 6.5 units per acre. The applicant proposed
the parking to be internalized using the buildings to shield the parking.
The neighborhood and Staff were not supportive of the proposed multi-family
development. The applicant requested the PD-R application be withdrawn from
consideration.
On August 20, 2002, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,732,
which would allow this 1.6 acre site to develop with eight (8) garden style patio homes.
The homes were estimated to be 1800 to 2000 square feet of heated and cooled space
and accessed by a private street in the form of a hammerhead turnaround. The
applicant proposed the construction to be brick or frame homes with architectural
shingles to be of similar construction as the other homes in the area.
As a part of the Planned Development process, the applicant proposed a preliminary
plat (S-1353) for the site to create the eight (8) single-family lots. The development
proposed minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet for Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7. Lots 1, 4, 5 and
8 were above the 7,000 square foot minimum set by the Zoning Ordinance for a typical
R-2 zoned lot. The minimum lot size proposed for Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7 averaged fifty (50)
feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. The applicant proposed five (5) foot side yard
setbacks on all side property lines within the development. The applicant also proposed
a private street to serve the development, which was a variance and was approved as a
part of the development.
The applicant proposed to construct ½ street improvements to Taylor Loop Road
complete with the installation of a sidewalk. The applicant proposed a 30-foot platted
building line adjacent to a collector street (Taylor Loop Road) as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance and a 25-foot platted front building line on all the interior lots and
a 15-foot rear yard setback.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved PD-R to allow a
decreased front building line (from 25-feet to 15-feet) and to decrease the rear
yard setback on all lots to 10-feet. The applicant has indicated with the reduced
building lines and setbacks an increased building pad will be available.
The applicant previously proposed new home construction of 1,800 to 2,000
square feet of heated and cooled space. After review with the builder it was
determined the proposed square footage of home would not “fit” on the lot and
allow room for a garage. The intent of the developer is to offer housing
construction similar to those in the area and he is therefore requesting to develop
the lots with reduced standard.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
3
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is almost flat with some grade to the northeast. The single street through
the center of the development has been installed with a hammerhead turnaround at
the end. The developer has installed the street improvements to Taylor Loop Road
and the sidewalk on this side. There are a few trees scattered about the site. All
sides of the property abut single-family subdivisions. The area for many blocks in all
directions is zoned (and developed) as R-2, Single family.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from residents
in the area. The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association, the
Charleston Heights/North Rahling Road Neighborhood Association, all residents
located within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and all property owners
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. The increase in buildable area for the proposed homes will increase
stormwater run-off. Provide a demonstration that existing facilities can meet
detention requirements. Grade rear of lots to route to detention pond.
2. The previous plat showed that storm water would exit the site through an
adjacent platted easement. Show the route and facilities that will be provided
to safely route stormwater through public easements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: SBC request a ten-foot utility easement located at the back of the right-of-
way on the north side of Taylor Loop Road. Contact SBC (Charles McDonald) at
373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
4
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to
normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant
has applied for a revision to an existing Planned Residential Development to
reduce the front yard set backs in a proposed residential development.
The requested amendment to the existing Planned Residential Development is
not such which would require a plan amendment.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not
located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. James Dreher and Mr. Bill Dean were present representing the request.
Staff indicated the request was a revision to a previously approved Planned
Development and the request included the reduction of the front and rear yard
setback areas. Staff stated the previous proposal included a building envelope
which allowed for a 25-foot front yard building line and a 15-foot rear yard
setback. Staff stated the applicant was now asking to reduce this area to 15-feet
and 10-feet respectively.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted were some concerns with
drainage of the site. Staff requested the applicant demonstrate that the existing
facilities could meet detention requirements. Staff also requested the applicant
grade the rear of the lots to route the water to the detention pond.
Staff noted the previous plat indicated the storm water would exit the site through
an adjacent platted easement. Staff requested the applicant show the route and
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
5
facilities that would be provided to safely route stormwater through the public
easement. Mr. Dreher stated he was aware of Public Works concerns and was
working with the Director of the Department to resolve these issues.
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 August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated all the required information on the proposed preliminary plat and
the proposed PD-R site plan. The applicant is requesting a building envelope
which allows for reduced front and rear yard setback areas. A five foot side yard
setback was previously approved. The applicant has indicated the desire is to
construct 1,800 to 2,000 square foot homes with a double garage. With the
current building setbacks this is not possible. The applicant has indicated with
the additional 15-feet (10-feet in the front and 5-feet in the rear) the desired
housing type can be met. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel
with a reduced front yard area and a reduced rear yard area there will be any
negative impacts on area residents.
The applicant has indicated stormwater detention on the proposed site plan. The
proposal includes the routing of water from the site into a detention pond to later
be released through a dedicated easement. The applicant has also indicated
the rear of the lots will be graded to route the run-off to the detention pond. Staff
supports the applicant’s proposal for stormwater detention.
To Staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff is supportive of the request to amend the existing PD-R
to allow a larger building envelope for the proposed lots.
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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. James Dreher was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated they had received one letter of support from an area resident.
Staff presented the item with 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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378-B
6
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: S-1397
NAME: Glen Valley Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: east of Gooch Road, west of Heatherbrae Phase III
DEVELOPER:
Jack Wilson and Bill Bosley
9107 Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock, AR 72203
ENGINEER:
Civil Design Engineers, Inc.
15104 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 15.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 55 FT. NEW STREET: 2,267 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 - Chenal
CENSUS TRACT: 42.11
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow a reduced minimum lot width for Glen Valley Phase I – Lots 1
and 2.
2. A variance to allow a reduced minimum lot area for Glen Valley Phase I – Lots 1
and 2.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 15.4 acre site into 58 single-family lots.
The proposal includes the development of the lots with garden style patio homes.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
2
The lots will be developed in three phases with 23 lots in the first phase, 7 lots in
the second phase and 25 lots in the third phase. The applicant has indicated the
lots will be served by a series of residential streets (cul-de-sac’s) with no outlet
being planned to Gooch Lane.
The development includes a portion of Heatherbrae Phase 3 which was
previously reviewed and approved for a preliminary plat. The applicant is
proposing to revise the previously approved plat. The revision includes a
reduction of the on-site detention area. The applicant has indicated by working
with the Corp of Engineers, the previously required detention area may be
reduced.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a large drainage ditch extending
through the center of the site. There is a FEMA mapped floodway located along
the northern boundary of the site. The existing Glen Valley Drive dead-ends at
the proposed entrance into the subdivision.
There are single-family homes located in the area with the Heatherbrae
Subdivision located to the east and new homes being constructed on tracts on
Gooch Lane to the west. Gooch Lane does not extend into the proposed
development.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners abutting the proposed preliminary plat area along with the
Westchester/Heatherbrae and the Charleston Height/North Rahling Road
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Glen Valley Drive should be platted as 50 foot wide right-of-way and 26 foot
of pavement with a sidewalk on one side.
2. The street names must be approved by the Special Programs section of
Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at 371-4809.
3. The curve radius on Highlander must be 75 foot minimum.
4. The curb at the cul-de-sacs must transition from curve to straight with a 20
foot minimum radius.
5. Stormwater detention from Phase 1 and 2 of Heatherbrae was deferred to
Phase 3. The proposed detention facilities appear to retain only a small
portion of the total that will be required. Provide calculations to support the
sizing of the facilities for all previous phases of Heatherbrae and the
proposed expansion.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
3
6. The ditch and stormwater detention must be constructed with the first Phase
of the revised plat.
7. Ditch channels shall be reinforced concrete with suitable pedestrian fence
barriers. Channel size will be confirmed prior to construction.
8. A 25 foot access easement adjacent to the floodway is required.
9. As with the previous phases, downstream channel improvements may be
required to assure proper drainage and no standing water in the drainage
pipes and channels of the new subdivision.
10. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (f)
with this preliminary plat. Show the proposed grade for the lots and streets,
location of all drainage ditches and swales. A final grading permit will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site.
11. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per
Section 8-283 prior to construction.
12. The floodway and floodplain boundaries are based on outdated maps. Plot
the updated boundaries on the plat, showing a more detailed boundary
based on existing contours. Show the proposed finish floor elevations of
lots located in the floodplain.
13. Provide details of the design and function of the flow control structure. This
structure must be carefully designed to alleviate down stream drainage
problems in Phase 2.
14. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
15. A secondary subdivision access point to Gooch Lane would be desirable to
improve routine maintenance and emergency access.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required
for the project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: SBC request a ten-foot utility easement located at the back of the right-of-
way on all lots. Contact SBC (Charles McDonald) at 373-5112 for additional details.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
4
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to
normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Increase the 40-foot radius to 45-feet. 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: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Bill Dean and Mr. James Dreher were present representing the request.
Staff stated the request was to allow the subdivision of 15.69 acres into 55
single-family lots. Staff noted there were additional items that needed to be
shown of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff requested the linear feet of internal
street, the average size of the lots, the minimum lots size and the names of
recorded subdivisions abutting the plat area be indicated on the preliminary plat.
Staff also noted there were several lots that did not appear to be buildable lots
once all the required setbacks were placed on the lots. Staff suggested the
applicant review the lots and if necessary request variances for reduced front
platted building line and for reduced rear yard setbacks.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request was an
extension of the Heatherbrae Subdivision. Staff also noted all the detention for
Heatherbare was deferred to this Phase. Staff questioned if the proposed
detention was adequate to handle the stormwater runoff. Staff requested the
applicant provide details of the design and function of the flow control structure.
Staff stated the structure should be carefully designed to alleviate down stream
drainage problems.
Staff suggested the applicant secure a second entrance into the subdivision.
There was a limited discussion concerning the second access point suggested
off Gooch Lane. Staff stated the residents did not consider Gooch Lane a
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
5
publicly dedicated street.
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 preliminary plat to staff addressing most of the
issues raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the minimum lot size of the development at 55.8-feet by
120-feet and the average lot size of 60-feet by 120-feet. The applicant has also
indicated the names of the abutting subdivisions and the zoning classification.
The applicant has indicated Lots 1 and 2 of Glen Valley Phase I will require
variances from the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has indicated a
variance will be required for the minimum lot width requirement (minimum
required 60-feet) and the minimum lot area (minimum 7,000 square feet required)
for these lots.
The applicant has indicated the detention area as requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated the channel to be constructed of block. Staff is not
supportive of this request. Staff feels the channel should be constructed of
reinforced concrete to ensure stability.
The site is located adjacent to a designated floodway. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
required by ordinance. There is a question concerning Lots 13 and 20 Glen
Valley Phase 2 with regard to buildability. Lot 13 appears to be located below
the 100-year flood elevation. The applicant will be required to set the floor
elevation for this lot. With the dedication of the twenty-five foot access
easement, staff questions if the building area for Lot 20 is sufficient to meet all
the required setbacks. Staff recommends the applicant furnish a buildable area
for Lot 20 on the proposed preliminary plat.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates a road right-of-way extending into the
plat area. The preliminary plat indicates Gooch Lane with a 50-foot right-of-way
along Lot 7 Glen Valley Phase I. With the indicated right-of-way and the required
setbacks, this lot appears to be limited on buildable area. Staff recommends the
applicant abandon the right-of-way or indicate the buildable area on the proposed
preliminary plat.
Lot 17 Heatherbrae Phase 3 also appears to be limited by a sewer easement.
The proposed preliminary plat indicates a sewer easement crossing the lot
diagonally across the rear, limits the buildable area for the lot. Staff would
recommend the applicant furnish the buildable area for this lot as well.
The applicant is proposing the development of this site in three phases. There
are to be 23 lots in the first phase, 7 lots in the second phase and 25 lots in the
third phase. Staff is supportive of the phasing plan.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
6
The applicant has indicated Highlander Drive to end in a ½ cul-de-sac. Staff is
not supportive of this design. Staff feels the proposed ½ cul-de-sac is not
adequate to allow trucks to turn around. Staff feels the design should be a
hammerhead and the extension of the hammerhead into the access easement
for the drainage channel is acceptable.
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. The proposed development will be constructed at 3.57 units
per acres. Staff feels the proposed subdivision should have minimal to no
adverse impact on the surrounding area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report.
2. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 1 and 2
Glen Valley Phase I to develop with a reduced minimum lot width.
3. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 1 and 2 of
Glen Valley Phase I to develop with a reduced minimum lot area.
4. Staff recommends the applicant furnish buildable area for Lot 7 Glen Valley
Phase I, Lot 17 Glen Valley Phase 2 and Lot 23 of Heatherbrae Phase 3.
5. Staff recommends the channel be constructed of reinforced concrete.
6. Staff recommends Highlander Drive be constructed with a hammerhead
turnaround.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. James Dreher was present representing the request. There were objectors present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the requested variance to allow Lots 1 and 2 Glen
Valley Phase I to develop with a reduced minimum lot width and the requested variance
to allow Lots 1 and 2 of Glen Valley Phase I to develop with a reduced minimum lot
area.
Mr. Jim Nettles addressed the Commission with questions. He stated he owned the
property to the south Highland Drive. He stated he and the owner had agreed that
access to this site could be taken from Highlander Drive and was requesting the
Commission make this a condition of approval.
Staff stated typically the only time the Commission required an applicant provide access
to an adjoining property was when the parcel was land locked. Staff stated this was not
the case Mr. Nettles had access to his site from Taylor Loop Road.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
7
Mr. Gary Drawbaugh addressed the commission with questions. He stated his concern
was the right-of-way indicated on the site plan for Gooch Drive. He stated he and his
neighbors would like the right-of-way abandoned as a part of the development. He also
stated there were drainage concerns. He stated if the site were developed without
proper drainage then the residents of Gooch Drive would be severely impacted. He
stated the proposed development should be designed to allow the water to flow freely.
Mr. Dan Myers addressed the Commission with questions. He stated his concern was
also drainage and how the developer would address the issue.
Mr. Arthur Lee Jones addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated his home
was located at 4309 Glen Valley Drive. He stated is primary concern was the increased
traffic in the area. He stated all the traffic from Heatherbrae only had one exit. He
stated to add an additional 55 lots was a major concern.
Mr. Lee stated water was also a concern. He stated there were occasion when property
owners were evacuated from their homes in the Heatherbrae Subdivision because the
drainage was not adequate.
Mr. Dale Woodall addressed the Commission. He stated he was neutral. He stated his
concern was the existing situation on Gooch Drive and the garbage trucks. He stated
currently the trucks were utilizing a vacant lot to turn around but the lot had sold and a
new home was under construction. He stated one solution would be to allow a portion
of the existing right-of-way to be a turn around for the Gooch Drive.
Mr. Tom Deluca addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated his opposition was to the additional traffic on Glen Valley Drive. He stated when
he purchased his home he was told there would be approximately 20 additional homes
located in the proposed area. He stated now the developer was proposing 55 new
homes which was a vast difference.
Mr. Deluca questioned if access to the site could not be taken from Highway 10 at
Seven Acres Business Drive. Commissioner Rector stated crossing the creek, which
was a designated floodway, would be cost prohibited if the Corp of Engineers would
allow the crossing.
Mr. Tom Costa addressed the Commission with concerns of traffic, drainage and
construction traffic into the neighborhood.
Mr. James Dreher addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
applicant was willing to abandon the right-of-way indicated on proposed Lot 7. He
stated the lots staff questioned as far as buildable areas would be resolved through
minor lot line modifications. He stated with a slight shift the lots could be modified to
increase the buildable areas.
Mr. Dreher stated the owner was willing to allow access to the property to the south of
Highlander Drive. He stated Highlander Drive would be constructed with a
hammerhead turnaround as recommended by staff. There was a general discussion
concerning the development of the property and the access. Staff stated this was not
fair to the residents of Heatherbrae. They stated if this property was allowed access
this would increase the number of units by eight to ten thus only increasing the traffic in
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1397
8
the area. Staff stated the owner of the site to the south had access to Taylor Loop
Road.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the drainage of the existing subdivision and
the proposed subdivision. Mr. Dreher stated the owner had worked with the Corp of
Engineers and secured a location for the proposed drainage channel through the site.
He stated a portion of the water which traveled through the existing subdivision would
be diverted to the new drainage channel which would relieve most of the pressure on
the existing drainage structures. Mr. Dreher stated the applicant was willing to follow
staff’s recommendation that the channel be constructed of reinforced concrete.
A motion was made to approve the request as amended (the removal of the existing
right-of-way for Gooch Drive) including all variance request subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. The motion carried
by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. Commissioner Floyd noted he was opposed to
the variance request only.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: S-878-A
NAME: Hopson and Sach’s Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: on the south side of Kanis Road, east of John Barrow
DEVELOPER:
Mark Cover Power Products
7325 Kanis Road, Suite A
Little Rock, AR 72204
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks Surveying
P.O. Box 166047
Little Rock, AR 72206
AREA: 4.02 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 – Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT: 24.03
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide this 4.02 acre previously platted lot into
two non-residential lots. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial
and has road frontage on Kanis Road. The applicant has indicated there will be
dedication of right-of-way as required per the Master Street Plan (45-feet from
the centerline).
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-A
2
The proposed lots will be approximately 1.9 acres and 2.12 acres. The lots will
be approximately 160 feet in width and 530 feet in depth. There is to be a shared
driveway location from Kanis Road into the lots.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site which drops from John Barrow Road to the
south. There are non-residential uses located in the area, a nursing home,
medical equipment sales and service and an office supply store. The area to the
west abuts John Barrow Road is a commercial node complete with fast food
restaurants, a strip commercial center and a convenience store. The area to the
south of the site is zoned MF-12 and built as multi-family. The area immediately
east of the site is vacant and tree covered.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property abutting the proposed plat area along with the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required as shown on the
plat.
2. With development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct one-half street improvement to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk
with the planned development. Match existing improvements to the east.
3. The proposed narrow lot width will require that the lots share a single driveway
access centered on the property line. Show driveway access easement. The
width of driveway pavement must not exceed 36 feet.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior
to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage
plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for any shared stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-A
3
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: Additional fire hydrant(s) or on site fire protection may be
required.
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: (August 14, 2003)
The applicants were present representing the request. Staff briefly described the
request indicating the applicant proposed to replat a single lot into two lots. Staff
stated the site was currently zoned C-3, General Commercial.
Staff noted additional items needed to be shown on the proposed preliminary
plat. Staff requested the source of water, the means of wastewater disposal and
the names of recorded subdivision abutting the plat area. Staff also requested
the source of title and the name and address of the landowner to be provided.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the applicant would be
allowed only one access point into the site with a shared driveway between the
two lots. The applicant questioned the requirements. Staff stated the lot width
did not allow for the proper driveway spacing to allow two access points onto
Kanis Road. Staff stated the stormwater detention ordinance would apply to the
site and the applicant would be required to obtain a grading permit prior to any
work being done in the right-of-way.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-878-A
4
The applicant was instructed to submit a revised plan to staff no later than
August 14, 2003. There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated there will be a shared driveway into the site on the property line of
Lots 8-A and 8-B. The applicant has also indicated dedication of right-of-way 45-
feet from centerline on Kanis Road as required per the Master Street Plan.
The applicant has indicated the source of water as Central Arkansas Water and
the source of wastewater disposal from the Little Rock Wastewater Utility. The
applicant has also included on the proposed preliminary plat the names of all
recorded subdivision abutting the proposed plat area. The names of the owners
and the source of title have also been provided.
Staff is supportive of the proposed request to split the existing lot into two
commercial lots. The proposed lots exceed the minimum square footage
requirement for a commercial lot or 14,000 square feet and a lot width of not less
than 100-feet. To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues
associated with the proposed request. Staff feels the proposed replat 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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had failed to notify property owners are required by the Planning Commission
By-Laws. Staff stated the applicant was requesting the item be deferred to the
September 18, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the request.
Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the September 18, 2003
Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for deferral. A motion was made to approve the item as presented.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: S-1328-A
NAME: Otter Creek Business Park Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: on Otter Creek Court
DEVELOPER:
Otter Creek Land Company
#2 Otter Creek Court
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McGetrick & McGetrick
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 9.931+ acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 625
ZONING: C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
On November 15, 2001 the Commission approved an application to subdivide this
9.931+ acre parcel into eight (8) lots and one tract. Tract A was proposed as a
dedicated 200-foot drainage and sewer easement. Access to the project was proposed
from Stagecoach Road and Otter Creek Court. Otter Creek Court, which currently ends
in a cul-de-sac, was to be extended to the east to connect to Stagecoach Road. The
applicant proposed no access to Lots 1 or 8 from Stagecoach Road. All driveway
locations were proposed on Otter Creek Court.
September 4, 003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1328-A
2
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District
zoned site into five non-residential lots. The applicant proposes to extend Otter
Creek Court from the current terminus to Stagecoach Road to serve the
development. All driveway locations are proposed on Otter Creek Court.
As was previously proposed, the applicant proposes to dedicate Tract A (the
limits of the floodway) as a drainage and sewer easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped, grass-covered with a portion in floodway. The site
slopes from the west and south to the north. The area to the east is
undeveloped, wooded and is currently zoned R-2. The area to the south
contains a strip commercial development, a daycare facility and office uses with
C-1 zoning. The area to the west is a multi-family development (MF-18 zoning)
and the area to the north contains single-family residence many of which are
vacant with R-2 zoning as noted on the attached area zoning map.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Property owners within 200 feet of the site, Southwest United for Progress and
the Otter Creek Homeowners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. As
of this writing, staff has received no comment from the neighborhood.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. The proposed land use would classify Otter Creek Court as a commercial
street. The minimum curve radius on curve 2 should be 275' (235' if super
elevated).
2. 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.
3. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to construction.
4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
5. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
6. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
September 4, 003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1328-A
3
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The lots must share a single
driveway access centered on the property line. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the water main and meter connection(s) will apply to this project
in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing
water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
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: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff noted a
preliminary plat was previously approved by the Commission for the site but the
time frame for final platting had expired. Staff stated the applicant had revised
the preliminary plat from the previous submission; by reducing the number of lots
proposed.
September 4, 003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1328-A
4
Staff noted there were additional items needed on the proposed preliminary plat.
Staff requested the applicant include the minimum lot size, the average lot size
and the number of lots in the general notes section of the proposed preliminary
plat.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff noted the driveway locations
proposed did not meet the minimum ordinance requirement. Staff suggested the
applicant relocate drives 300-feet from Stagecoach Road and at least 150-feet
from the property lines. Mr. McGetrick stated the 150-feet from the property line
was not possible. Commissioner Rector questioned if the spacing requirement
from the property line could not be varied to maintain the spacing from the
intersection and to not allow access from Stagecoach Road.
The applicant was instructed to revise the proposed preliminary plat and submit
the requested additional information to staff no later than August 20, 2003.
There was no further discussion of the item after which 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 at their August 14, 2003 meeting.
The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size to be 136-feet by 251-feet or
34,136 square feet and the maximum lot size to be 172-feet by 370-feet or
63,640 square feet. The minimum lot size required for a C-1 zoned site per the
zoning ordinance is 7,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60-feet and a
minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The proposed lots are more than adequate to
meet the minimum requirements.
The applicant is proposing the placement of single driveways to serve the lots.
The applicant has located the driveways on Lots 1 and 5 at 200-feet from the
intersection with Stagecoach Road and 100-feet from the property line. The
ordinance requires driveways be placed 300-feet from intersections and 150-feet
from property lines. Staff is supportive of the placement of the driveways as
proposed.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a 30-foot platted building line along
Otter Creek Court and a 40-foot platted building line along Stagecoach Road.
The applicant has indicated the floor elevation will be set at 300 and 303; out of
the 100-year flood level.
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed subdivision should have minimal to
no adverse impact on the surrounding area.
September 4, 003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1328-A
5
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 variance to allow reduced driveway
spacing for Lots 1 and 5 of the Otter Creek Business Park Preliminary Plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed request. Staff presented a recommendation of approval subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff stated they recommended approval of the requested variance to allow reduced
driveway spacing for Lots 1 and 5 of the Otter Creek Business Park Preliminary Plat.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: S-1398
NAME: Culzean Estates Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: on the north side of David O Dodd, east of I-430
DEVELOPER:
Mystery Properties
16401 Chenal Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
McGetrick & McGetrick
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 40 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 123 FT. NEW STREET: 5800 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance for the lot depth to width ratio requirement for Lots 17, 33, 59, 72 and
119.
2. A variance for the minimum lot depth requirement for Lots 61, 62 and 114.
3. A variance for the minimum lot area require for Lot 114.
4. A variance for the minimum lot width requirement for Lots 59, 73, 96 and 117.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1398
2
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 40 acre site into 123 single-family lots.
The lots will average sixty-five by one hundred twenty feet or 7800 square feet in
area. The proposed subdivision will be developed in two phases with sixty lots in
Phase I and 64 lots in Phase II.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 5800 linear feet of new public street
to serve the proposed subdivision.
The proposed development will require variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow subdivision to develop in the manner proposed. The request
will require the following variances:
1. A variance for the lot depth to width ratio requirement for Lots 17, 33, 59, 72
and 119.
2. A variance for the minimum lot depth requirement for Lots 61, 62 and 114.
3. A variance for the minimum lot area require for Lot 114.
4. A variance for the minimum lot width requirement for Lots 59, 73, 96 and 117.
The applicant is also proposing the placement of a common recreational facility
within the development. The lake area along with two tot lots and a
neighborhood center are proposed as a Conditional Use Permit and is a separate
item on this agenda (File No. Z-7473 Item No. 15).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a large lake located near the southern
boundary of the property. The applicant has indicated the existing lake will be
utilized in the proposed development as a recreational area and for detention.
There is a single-family subdivision located to the south of the site with new
homes being constructed on Sandy Lane. There are also single-family homes
located on David O Dodd Road south of the site. The area to the north of the site
is vacant tree covered as is the area to the east of the site. The area to the west
of the site if also vacant and tree covered with interstate I-430 located near the
site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200-feet of the proposed site along with the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. The minimum curve radius on Culzean View should be 150 foot.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1398
3
2. The subdivision entrance on David O'Dodd should be redesigned to provide a
straight, north south, alignment with the existing traffic lanes.
3. A grading permit in 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.
4. Assuming Mystery Lake is to provide detention, the outlet works for the pond
must be designed to meet storm water detention ordinance requirements. An
emergency spillway must also be provided that will safely pass the 100-year
storm without damage to down stream property.
5. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required
for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional
details.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of water main connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to
normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contac the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1398
4
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff noted the
request was a preliminary plat to subdivide 40 acres into 124 single-family lots
and an area set aside as a private recreational facility. Staff stated the applicant
has also filed an application for a conditional use permit to allow the private
recreational facility.
Staff stated there were some concerns with buildability of a few of the lots
proposed. Staff stated the lots should be reviewed and if variances were
required on building setbacks the applicant should request these variances.
Staff also stated Lots 71, 72 and 111 would require a variance for the Lot Depth
to Width Ratio requirement.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Culzean View did not
meet the minimum curve radius of the Master Street Plan. Staff stated the
minimum radius should be 150-foot. Staff also stated a grading permit would be
required prior to start of construction. Staff questioned if Mystery Lake would be
used to provide detention. Staff stated if this were the case, a emergency
spillway must be provided that would safely pass the 100-year storm without
damage to downstream property.
Staff noted the comments from the various other departments and agencies.
Staff suggested the applicant contact them individually to obtain additional
information.
The applicant was instructed to provide the requested additional information to
staff no later than Wednesday August 20, 2003. 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 issues raised at the
August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated
the minimum radius of Culzean View to be 150-feet as required by staff. The
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1398
5
applicant has also requested several variances from the Subdivision Ordinance
to allow the subdivision to develop in the manner proposed.
The applicant has requested a variance for the lot depth to width ratio
requirement for Lots 17, 33, 59, 72 and 119. The ordinance requires no lot be
more than three times the depth of the width. The lots proposed do not meet this
minimum requirement, therefore require a variance. Staff is supportive of the
requested variance. The applicant has also requested a variance for the
minimum lot depth requirement for Lots 61, 62 and 114, a variance for the
minimum lot area requirement for Lot 114 and a variance for the minimum lot
width requirement for Lots 59, 73, 96 and 117. The ordinance requires lots have
a minimum lot depth of 100-feet, a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet and a
minimum lot width of 60-feet. The proposed lots do not meet these minimum
requirements. Staff is supportive of the requested variances and feel if the lots
are developed as proposed the development should have minimal to no adverse
impact on the area.
The applicant has indicated a “Y” intersection with David O Dodd Road. Staff is
not supportive of this intersection configuration. Staff feels with the “Y”
intersection this will cause traffic conflicts and is not a good design for traffic
circulation and access management.
There are areas on the proposed preliminary plat which are unclear. The
applicant should clearly define the sidewalk location between lots 72 and 73 and
adjust the lot line accordingly. The applicant should also include the walkway
around the lake in Tract A and not on the backs of Lots 51, 52 53 and 69.
Staff also questions the buildability of Lots 82, 102 and 114. Staff requests the
applicant furnish a building footprint for each of these lots clearly defining the
setbacks on each of the lots.
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed addition 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.
• Staff recommends approval of the following variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance for Culzean Estates Preliminary Plat:
1. A variance for the lot depth to width ratio requirement for Lots 17, 33, 59,
72 and 119.
2. A variance for the minimum lot depth requirement for Lots 61, 62 and 114.
3. A variance for the minimum lot area require for Lot 114.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1398
6
4. A variance for the minimum lot width requirement for Lots 59, 73, 96 and
117.
• Staff recommends the applicant furnish the buildable area for Lots 82, 102
and 114.
• Staff recommends the applicant redesign the entrance from David O Dodd to
not intersect with a “Y” intersection.
• The walkway around the lake is to be included in Tract A and not on any of
the proposed lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated the applicant had requested additional time to work with Public
Works with regard to the “Y” intersection at David O Dodd. Staff stated they were
supportive of the request however, the request would take a waiver by the Commission
of the By-Laws since the request was not made as required by the Commission’s
By-Laws.
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to the time frame for the deferral
request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to defer the request to the September 18, 2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-7473
NAME: Culzean Estates Recreational Facility – Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION: North of David O Dodd and Shadybrook, east of I-430
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mystery Properties, Inc./Patrick McGetrick
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a
private recreational facility associated with a proposed
new single family residential subdivision (See S-1398,
Culzean Estates Preliminary Plat.)
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located north of David O Dodd and Shadybrook, east of I-430.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The overall area is somewhat rural in nature but is changing with the
recent approvals and development of new residential subdivisions.
Surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and are either undeveloped or
occupied by a variety of residential structures. This proposed recreation
area will be located within a proposed new residential subdivision and
should be compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of property located within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet
who could be identified and the Stagecoach-Dodd and SWLR United for
Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The applicant proposes a 42 space parking lot accessed via a single
driveway off of proposed Culzean View. The number of parking spaces
will likely be reduced once required landscaping areas are provided. This
is a private recreational area serving only the residents of Culzean
Estates. The parking provided should be more than adequate to serve the
needs of the development.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required.
The plan submitted does not allow for the twenty (20) foot average buffer
width required along Culzean View Street. At no point should this buffer
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7473
2
drop below a width of ten (10) feet. Additionally, the plan fails to provide
the interior landscaping (1,555 square feet) required by the Landscape
Ordinance. Additionally, there is no provision for building landscaping.
A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required along
the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to provide
approved landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered
Landscape Architect.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: (From S-1398)
1. The minimum curve radius on Culzean View should be 150 feet.
2. The subdivision entrance on David O Dodd should be redesigned to
provide a straight, north south, alignment with the existing traffic lanes.
3. A grading permit in 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.
4. Assuming Mystery Lake is to provide detention, the outlet works for the
pond must be designed to meet storm water detention ordinance
requirements. An emergency spillway must also be provided that will
safely pass the 100 year storm without damage to down stream
property.
5. Easements are required for all storm water drainage areas.
6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the
right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield).
7. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as
required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic
Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information
regarding street light requirements.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for project.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7473
3
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of
request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be
required in order to provide service to this property. A Capital
Investment Charge based on the size of water main connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development
will have minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed
water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire
protection.
Fire Department: Place a fire hydrant for club house.
County Planning: No Comments received.
CATA: No Comments received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 14, 2003)
This item was discussed partly in conjunction with Culzean Estates preliminary
plat, S-1398. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was
needed on the proposed clubhouse and pavilion; days and hours of operation;
site lighting; dumpster location; fencing and the tot lots. Staff asked if the
clubhouse/proshop would contain other facilities such as a restaurant or bar.
Public Works and landscape comments were discussed. It was noted that a
variance of the screening requirement on the north and west perimeters would be
appropriate since those perimeters abutted the rest of the Culzean Estates
development. Utility comments were noted.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues no later than Wednesday,
August 20, 2003. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has proposed the development of a new, single family residential
subdivision on 40± acres located north of David O Dodd, east of I-430 (see
Culzean Estates Preliminary Plat, S-1398). The subdivision consists of 124
residential lots located around a 7.62± acre recreation area. The private
recreation area contains a 6-acre lake with two fishing piers, paddle boats, a
miniature golf course, 2 pavilions, 2 tot lots (playgrounds), a club house, parking
lot and a walkway around the perimeter of the lake. The clubhouse will have a
kitchen facility but not a restaurant or bar. Sidewalks throughout the subdivision
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7473
4
will provide access to the tot lots, lake, walkway and other recreation facility
amenities. The facility’s hours of operation are proposed as 7 days a week, from
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. The area of the clubhouse, pavilions and golf course will
be lighted with a combination of low-level, pole-mounted lights and ground-level
lights. The tot lots will be fenced with decorative materials and a 7-foot tall wood
fence will be located along the south perimeter of the site. A single ground-
mounted sign will be located in front of the clubhouse, near the street. On
August 20, 2003, the applicant submitted responses to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee and noted in the preceding analysis.
Staff is supportive of the requested conditional use permit to allow the proposed
private recreation facility. The recreation area comprises 19% of the overall plat
and provides recreation facilities over and above those found in a typical
residential subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the approved site plan.
2. Compliance with the staff comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4,
5 and 6 of the staff report.
3. The private recreational use is to be operated only for the mutual
recreation of residents of the subdivision and their guests and not as a
business for profit.
4. Signage is to be limited to a single ground-mounted sign not to exceed 6
feet in height and 32 square feet in area.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a 7-foot tall wood privacy fence
along the south perimeter of the site subject to the fence being constructed with
the finished side facing outward.
Staff recommends approval of a waiver of the screening requirement on the
northern and western perimeters of the recreational area since it is abutting lots
within the Culzean Estates Subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Patrick McGetrick was present representing the application. Staff informed the
Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral to allow time to address
unresolved issues related to the proposed access point onto David O Dodd.
There was no further discussion.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7473
5
A motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the late request for deferral.
The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to defer the item to the September 18, 2003 meeting. The
motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: S-1399
NAME: Wimbledon Greens Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: on the southeast corner of Baseline Road and Wimbledon Loop
DEVELOPER:
Otter Creek Land Company
#2 Otter Creek Court
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
McGetrick & McGetrick
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 6.337 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF-24, Multi-family 24 units per acre
PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 – Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT: 42.08
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance to allow an increased fence height along the north and west property
lines.
2. A waiver of the land use buffer requirement.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of 96 units of multi-family housing (15.16
units per acre) on this MF-24 zoned site. The applicant is proposing the
placement of thirteen buildings on the site, one of which is to serve as an
office/club house area. The unit mix proposed is one and two bedroom units with
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
2
32 one-bedroom units and 64 two bedroom units. Of the two bedroom units, five
will be fully accessible. The maximum building height proposed is 26-feet and all
the buildings proposed will be two story.
The applicant proposes the placement of a 2560 square foot clubhouse and a
pool on the site. The applicant is also proposing the placement of a playground
area near the pool site.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 182 parking spaces within the
development.
The applicant has indicated the development will be enclosed with a six-foot brick
and iron fence along the street sides, (the north and west) and a six-foot wood
fence on the remaining sides. The fence along the street sides will require a
variance to allow the desired location and height since the fence will be placed
within the building setback.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the land use buffer requirement. The
ordinance requires at least seventy percent of the land use buffer to remain in its
natural state. The applicant has indicated the significant trees will be retained
but the undergrowth will be removed to ensure security for the development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with road frontage on Baseline Road and
Wimbledon Loop. The road has been widened adjacent to the site along
Baseline Road. There is not a sidewalk in place. Wimbledon Loop has a median
and midway of the site there is a gate, the back entrance to Otter Creek.
There is a large apartment complex located to the north of this site, Eagle Hill
Apartments and the area to the west is vacant and tree covered. East of the site
is a single-family home located on a large tract of land. There is a newly
developing subdivision located further east. There are single-family homes
located south of the site in the Otter Creek Subdivision.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received several informational phone calls from
area residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the proposed
site along with the Otter Creek Home Owners Association and Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. West Baseline is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required as
indicated on the plans.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
3
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Baseline with Wimbledon Loop.
3. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
6. A grading permit in 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.
7. Provide the direction of flow and all storm water flows (Q) entering and
leaving the property.
8. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Facilities
should protect the down-stream pond.
9. In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located
within a triangular area 50' back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or
intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the intersection of
Baseline with Wimbledon Loop.
10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is
required for project. Capacity Contribution analysis required. Contact the Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: Additional easements will be required for the interior of property for
underground electrical distribution. The exact location cannot be determined at
this time. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional details.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: Approved as submitted.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s)
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
4
and/or on site fire protection will be 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: Place fire hydrants per code. Increase the driveway off
Wimbledon Loop to 20-feet. 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: 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 approved
landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this tree-covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff briefly described
the proposed development indicating the request was for a multiple building site
plan review. Staff noted there were additional items needed on the proposed site
plan to complete the review. Staff requested all building dimensions be shown
on the site plan and the applicant provide the height of the proposed fencing.
Staff noted if the proposed fence located in the building setback was above four
feet, the applicant would need to request a variance. Staff also requested details
concerning the proposed signage.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated all work in the right-of-way
would be required to be submitted for approval prior to construction. Staff
requested additional information concerning storm water flows enter and leaving
the property. Staff stated the stormwater detention ordinance applied to the
property and the applicant should locate the detention facilities on the site plan.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
5
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff noted at least seventy percent of
the buffer area should remain in its natural state. Mr. McGetrick stated this was
not acceptable. He noted the applicant had indicated a desire to leave all the
mature trees in the buffer area but to remove any and all underbrush. He stated
this made for a more secure facility. In apartment developments security was a
concern. Staff stated he would need to request a variance to be allowed to clear
the underbrush in the buffer area.
There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then forwarded
the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the proposed signage will be a maximum of six feet in height and
twenty-four square feet in area. The applicant has also dimensioned all building
setbacks from property lines. The applicant has requested a variance to allow
the six-foot brick and iron fence along West Baseline Road and Wimbledon Loop.
The fence will be placed within the twenty-five foot building setback and is
proposed as six feet in height. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of four
feet in height within the building setback. The applicant has indicated the fence
will not be placed in the required fifty foot triangle area of the intersecting streets.
Staff is supportive of the fence placement and the requested fence height
variance.
The applicant has indicated the land use buffer will not be preserved. The zoning
ordinance requires at least seventy percent of the land use buffer remain in its
natural state. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to remove the
underbrush in this area. The applicant has stated all significant trees will remain
in the land use buffer area. The applicant has indicated security is a concern and
with the underbrush growth the development will not be able to police the site to
ensure the safety of their residents. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver.
The applicant has indicated a six foot wood fence will be placed along the
property line to screen the adjoining single-family zoned properties.
The applicant has indicated the maximum building height to be twenty-six feet.
The maximum building height allowed for MF-24 zoned property is thirty-five feet.
The applicant has also indicated the buildings will be placed at a minimum of
thirty feet from the property lines. The ordinance requires the building setback to
be equal to the building heights and not less than twenty-five feet.
The applicant has indicated the development will be constructed in phases with a
request for Certificate of Occupancies based on the completion of groups of
buildings. The applicant has indicated the requested Certificate of Occupancies
will be phased based on the completion of buildings which will not endanger the
safety of residents of the development.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
6
The ordinance requires the development allow 2,400 square feet of lot area per
family. The applicant is proposing the placement of ninety-six units on the site
which would require 3.96 acres. The development contains 6.337 acres; more
than adequate to meet the minimum lot area requirement.
The applicant is proposing the placement of 182 parking spaces within the
development. The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of
this size would be 144 parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit. The proposed
parking is adequate the meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The applicant has indicated underground detention will be used to pipe water
along the east side of the development to centralized detention for Otter Creek if
detention is necessary.
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed development 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.
Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the land use buffer
requirement to allow the clearing of the underbrush.
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance along the
north and west property lines.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There was one objector
present. Staff presented the item with a positive recommendation subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report.
Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested waiver of the land
use buffer requirement to allow the clearing of the underbrush along the south and east
perimeters and the requested fence height variance along the north and west property
lines.
Mr. Kevin Wright addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He
stated his home backed up to the proposed development and he was not in favor of the
site developing with multi-family housing. He stated with the addition of the 96 units on
the site Wimbledon Loop would be taxed and traffic back-ups in the mornings would be
even more sever.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1399
7
The Commission stated the proposed request was for a multiple building site plan
review. It was stated the site was zoned for multi-family and it was not a decision as to
if the site would be developed with multi-family units only if the proposed development
met the criteria under the Subdivision Ordinance for multiple buildings. Staff stated the
applicant was requesting a waiver of the land use buffer requirements. Staff questioned
Mr. Wright as to if he had issues with the request to clear the buffer area. Mr. Wright
stated he was not sure because he was not sure what this involved.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated he had
met with the Otter Creek Homeowners Association and they were in support of the
request. Commissioner Floyd questioned Mr. McGetrick if their support was not tied to
the proposed gate being closed on Wimbledon Loop. He stated he was not aware of
that requirement. Commissioner Floyd questioned if the main entrance and exit should
not be placed on Baseline Road. Mr. McGetrick stated the developer felt the location on
Wimbledon Loop a better location.
A motion was made to approve the proposed request as filed included the requested
waivers and variances. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes and 3 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: S-1400
NAME: Watershed Project Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Springer Boulevard, south of I-440
DEVELOPER:
Watershed
3701 Springer Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
McGetrick & McGetrick
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 9.67 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 – Sweet Home
CENSUS TRACT: 40.01
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Fence height variance adjacent to Springer
Boulevard.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes the construction of 52 units of multi-family housing on the
site. The development will be geared toward low income renters. The applicant
proposes the placement of two and three bedroom units on the site. There are
26 two bedroom units and 26 three bedroom units on the site; two of each
bedroom mix is proposed as fully accessible.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400
2
The applicant is proposing the maximum building height of 33.5 feet. The
applicant has also indicated a single development sign located near the northern
driveway. The applicant has indicated the sign will be consistent with signage
allowed in multi-family zones.
The applicant proposes the placement of 121 parking spaces on site to serve the
development. The applicant has indicated the parking ratio as 2.24 spaces per
unit.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a brick and steel fence around the
development. The fence is proposed at six feet in height. The applicant is
requesting a variance to allow an increased fence height in the building setback.
The site is located in the 100 year floodplain and the limits of the floodway extend
through the project area. The applicant is currently working with FEMA to re-map
the area and remove the area from the designated floodway.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with trees located around the perimeter of the site.
There is a small strip retail center located on the southeastern portion of the site.
The southern boundary of the site is a Union Pacific Railroad line.
Watershed is located east of the site across Springer Boulevard. The area to the
west of the site is vacant and is the Fourche Creek floodway.
There are three bill boards located on the site.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200-feet of the proposed site along with the
Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1. All of this land lies within the mapped floodway of Fourche Creek. Staff does
not believe it is appropriate to approve the proposed project until a conditional
letter of flood map revision is obtained from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. If the letter is obtained, the entire site will have to be
raised above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
2. Springer / Confederate Boulevard is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline
will be required.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400
3
3. With the planned development, provide design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street
including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.
4. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Section
8-283 prior to any filling, grading, land clearing or construction.
5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
6. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
7. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The criteria for an arterial is 300
feet center to center and 150 feet from property line. The width of driveway
must not exceed 36 feet.
8. Alteration of the water course and wetlands clearance will require approval
from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start
of work.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, Capacity Contribution Analysis required. Contact the
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details.
Entergy: Additional interior easements will be required for electrical distribution
(underground). The exact location cannot be determined at this time. Contact
Entergy at 954-5158 for additional details.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) and/or on
site fire protection may be required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size
of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This 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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400
4
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: At least two additional landscape islands are required within the
interior of the proposed long parking lot to help break up the sea of asphalt.
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
adjacent residential properties.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide approved
landscape plans stamped with seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff briefly described
the proposed development indicating the area was located in a designated
floodway. Staff stated customarily the city did not approve developments located
in the floodway and stated staff’s recommendation would be that the
development not be reviewed until the floodway issue had been resolved.
Staff stated should the floodway issues be resolved, there were additional items
needed on the proposed site plan to complete the review. Staff requested the
applicant provide the rear building setback dimension. Staff also questioned if
one dumpster facility was sufficient to meet the needs of the development. Staff
stated the details of the proposed signage should be included on the proposed
site plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated if the area was
successfully removed from the designated floodway the entire area would be
required to be raised to above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Staff also
stated the proposed driveways did not meet the minimum criteria for driveway
spacing. Staff noted there were several agencies, which would require approval
of the proposed development prior to construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the interior islands did not
appear to meet the minimum ordinance requirement. Staff stated at least two
additional islands would be required within the interior of the proposed parking lot
to help break up the sea of asphalt. Staff also stated a six foot high opaque
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400
5
screen, either a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings would be required
along the sides which abut residentially zoned properties.
Staff instructed the applicant submit a revised plan to staff addressing the
comments which could be addressed at this time. Staff also stated their
recommendation would be that the Commission not review the proposed
development until after the applicant had secured a conditional approval from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. There was no further discussion.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff on August 20, 2003 addressing
most of the issues raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee
Meeting. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height of 33.5 feet
and the applicant has noted the rear building setback dimension from the
proposed fence. The site is a large tract extending to the west. The proposed
building setbacks are more than adequate to meet the minimum building setback
requirement.
The applicant has indicated the development will be surrounded in a brick and
iron fence. The site is a cleared site and has no natural screening in place. The
applicant is requesting a waiver of the required land use buffer required
screening. The applicant has indicated the site is located adjacent to a one
hundred foot railroad right-of-way on the south and a floodway on the north and
west. The applicant has also indicated security as a concern and the screening
would not allow for policing of the site. Staff feels this request is reasonable and
recommends approval of the requested waiver of the screening requirement.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an increased fence height
adjacent to Springer Boulevard. The fence proposed is six-feet and the
maximum fence height allowed within the setback is four feet. Staff is supportive
of the proposed request. The proposed fencing is for uniformity around the
development. The proposed fence is a see through fence, which will allow for
the passage of light and air into the development. The applicant has not
indicated the development will be gated.
The applicant has indicated a single ground mounted sign near the northern
driveway. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage will comply with
signage allowed in multi-family zones or six feet in height and twenty-four square
feet in sign area. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage.
The applicant is requesting a variance for the driveway locations. Typically the
ordinance requires drives to be placed at least 150-feet from the property line
and 300-feet center to center. The applicant has indicated the southern drive will
be placed 55-feet from the property line which is located adjacent to a 100-foot
railroad right-of-way. The northern drive is located 170-feet from the northern
property line. The applicant has indicated the 300-foot center to center
requirement. Staff is not supportive of the proposed driveway configuration.
Staff feels the applicant should maintain the northern driveway and allow the
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1400
6
southern drive to be an emergency access only into the site. Staff has safety
concerns by allowing the drive to be located within 55-feet of the proposed
intersection of the railroad and Springer Boulevard.
The site is zoned C-3 which allows multi-family development at a density of R-5.
This typically requires a lot area per family of 1,200 square feet per dwelling unit.
The proposed development is more than adequate to meet the requirement.
The proposed development is located within a designated floodway. The
applicant is working with FEMA to resolve the floodway issue and have the area
“re-mapped” to remove the floodway designation from this site. Staff feels the
proposed development should not be reviewed until the applicant has resolved
the floodway issues. The city is not allowed to issue permits for projects located
in the floodway and staff feels the development should not be given approval for
development with the site being located in a designated as a floodway.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the proposed development not be reviewed at this time. Staff
recommends the applicant resolve the issue of the floodway with FEMA prior to
receiving approval from the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were objectors present. Chairman Nunnley stated
the Commission’s policy had been to allow the applicant a deferral when fewer than
nine Commissioners were present. He stated eight Commissioners were remaining and
questioned if the applicant desire a deferral.
Mr. Pat McGetrick requested the deferral to the September 18, 2003 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made and approved to defer
the item to the September 18, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-6149-F
NAME: Fellowship Bible Church Zoning Site Plan Review
LOCATION: south side of Hinson Road, east of 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 applicant proposes the placement of a 246 car parking lot on this O-2 zoned
site. The parking will serve the Fellowship Bible Church facilities in the area.
The site currently contains an 8820 square foot office building, which will remain
on the site. The parking facility will expand a parking lot located to the west
owned by the applicant. The applicant has requested the two existing driveway
located along Hinson Road remain in tact. The applicant has indicated one of
the drives also serves a nursing home located to the south.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-F
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is contains an office building recently purchased by the Church with
parking located in the rear. The area along Hinson Road is currently grass
covered with a scattering of trees. Church facilities are located in the area with
the Terry Library located to the southwest of the site and Fellowship Bible
Facilities are located west of the site across Napa Valley. The area east of the
site contains an office building.
Other uses in the area include single-family homes and the Pleasant Valley
Country Club across Hinson Road to the north and multi-family housing located
east of the site along Hinson Road. There is a retirement center located south of
the proposed parking facility.
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. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with
Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. A grading permit in 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. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. If existing adjacent
facilities are used, modifications may be required.
6. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The criteria for an arterial is 300
feet center to center and 150 feet from property line, or the lots must share a
single driveway access centered on the property line. The width of driveway
must not exceed 36 feet.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-F
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer not required for this project. No comment.
Entergy: Easement proposed is sufficient for underground utilities. A 30-foot
easement will be required for three-phase overhead. Contact Entergy at 954-5158
for additional details.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: In order to receive credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
interior requirements, interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet
in area.
The width of the proposed perimeter-landscaping strip along the eastern
perimeter falls short of the six (6) foot and nine (9) inch width minimum allowed.
The full width requirement without transfers being nine (9) feet. Additionally, the
plan submitted does not allow for the required minimum six (6) foot nine (9) inch
wide landscape strip required along the southern perimeter unless located within
an access easement.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
Prior to obtaining a construction permit, approved landscape plans stamped with
the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible on this heavily wooded site. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-F
4
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was an expansion of the Fellowship Bible Church parking facilities. Staff stated
the site contained an existing office building with parking located in the rear.
Staff stated the proposed parking would be located in front of the building
adjacent to Hinson Road.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right-of-
way 45-feet from the center line would be required along the property frontage.
Staff also stated sidewalks would be required per the Master Street Plan. Staff
noted the driveway location did not comply with current ordinances. Staff noted
the minimum criteria for an arterial was 300 feet center to center and 150 feet
from the property line or a shared driveway between properties was required.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated landscape islands were
required to be a minimum of 300 square feet in area and the minimum width of
the perimeter-landscaping strip would be nine feet. Staff stated the proposed site
plan did not indicate areas sufficient to meet the minimum ordinance
requirements.
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 August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated additional interior landscape islands to meet the minimum 300
square feet in area as required by ordinance. The applicant has also indicated a
nine-foot landscape strip along the east property line. The applicant has
indicated there is an existing access easement along the eastern and southern
perimeter, which by ordinance negates the landscaping strip requirement.
The applicant has indicated a dedication of right-of-way along Hinson Road at
45-feet from the centerline as required by the Master Street Plan. The applicant
has requested both driveways remain on the site. The applicant has indicated
both driveways are existing and the applicant is requesting both drives remain.
The applicant has stated the applicant recently closed one drive onto Hinson
Road with a previous review of a parking facility (June 12, 2003). According to
the applicant, both drives are needed to maintain circulation within the proposed
development area. The eastern-most driveway serves the nursing facility located
to the south of the site and the western drive allows access to Hinson Road to a
parking facility located adjacent to the proposed facility to the west. Staff is
supportive of the request to allow both drives to remain in place.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6149-F
5
To staff’s knowledge there are no other outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request. Staff feels the proposed parking facility 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: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed requested. Staff presented the item with 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 for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-7472
NAME: Upshaw Short-form POD
LOCATION: 11523 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:
Ted Upshaw
11523 Kanis Road
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick & McGetrick
319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 0.47 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: General and Professional Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to POD to
allow the site to redevelop with a single 4800 square foot single story building
and 16 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to place office uses on the site;
general and professional office uses.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7472
2
The applicant proposes the placement of a single dumpster on the site which is
to be located at the south property line. The applicant is also proposing the
placement of a single ground mounted sign in the front yard setback of Kanis
Road. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage will comply with
signage allowed in office zones.
The applicant proposes the placement of a single driveway into the development
from Kanis Road. The driveway will be located near the western property line in
the area identified as a access easement. The site services property located to
the south with a 20-foot access easement. This access easement is in place
through a deed restriction.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing structure currently being used as an office use.
There are other office uses in the area. The area to the south is developed with
a light industrial type user. The R-2 zoned area to the east contains also an
office use. The area to the west is developed with a multiple building office
development. A Planned Development for a phased office development was
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Commission at their July 24,
2003 Public Hearing for the northwest corner of Autumn Road and Kanis Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Birchwood Neighborhood Association and the John Barrow 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.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required as shown on
the plans.
2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the
planned development.
3. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7472
3
5. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade
permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering
at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information.
6. A grading permit in 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.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. Additional fire hydrant(s) and/or on
site fire protection may be required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size
of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
This 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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a
Planned Office Development for a one-story office building.
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.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7472
4
Landscape: The plan submitted does not allow for the required nine (9) foot
wide land use buffers and screening required along the eastern and southern
perimeters of the site. This is required because these adjacent properties are
zoned residential. These requirements may be deemed unnecessary because,
even though zoned residential, the uses are commercial.
The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum six (6) foot nine (9) inch wide
landscape strip along the southern perimeter of the site.
Eight percent (636 square feet) of the interior of the proposed vehicular use area
must be landscaped with interior islands of at least 150 square feet in area and 7
½ feet in width.
No provision has been made for building landscaping. There is considerable
flexibility with this requirement.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 14, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. Staff stated the request
was in an area along Kanis Road, which had developed primarily with non-
residential uses. Staff questioned if there was any possibility of consolidation of
ownerships in the area. Mr. McGetrick stated that was not an alternative at this
time. Staff stated there were some concerns with the proposed development
related to the placement of the driveway to serve the lot. Mr. McGetrick stated
the location was in place by a deed restriction and could not be relocated without
consent from the owner to the south. Staff suggested Mr. McGetrick contact the
property owner to the west to review the possibility of a shared driveway for the
two sites.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the interior landscaping
did not meet ordinance requirements. Staff stated a minimum buffer of nine feet
was required adjacent to residentially zoned properties. Staff noted the
requirement may be deemed unnecessary since although the adjacent properties
were zoned residentially they were functioning as commercial uses. Staff noted
the Landscape Ordinance required a six foot nine inch strip along the southern
perimeter of the site.
Staff also stated the applicant would be required to provide building landscaping
and eight percent or 636 square feet of the interior of the proposed vehicular use
area must be landscaped with interior islands of at least 150 square feet in area
and seven and one-half feet in width.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7472
5
The applicant was instructed to provide staff with a revised site plan to include
the additional comments no later than August 20, 2003. The Committee then
forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff on August 20, 2003 addressing
most of the issues raised at the August 14, 2003 Subdivision Committee
meeting. The applicant has increased the landscape area along the southern
perimeter to seven feet to meet the minimum six feet nine inch minimum
requirement. The applicant has indicated the dumpster will be located adjacent
to the seven foot strip and be screened per ordinance requirement (at least two
feet above the finished height of the dumpster on three sides).
The applicant has indicated a six foot landscape strip along the eastern
perimeter. The ordinance would typically require a land use buffer in this area of
nine feet although the Commission may deem this unnecessary if adjacent to a
similar use. The area to the east is zoned R-2, Single-family but is currently a
non-residential use. Staff feels the six feet proposed is sufficient landscaping
and screening in this area is not warranted. The area is not likely to develop as a
residential use in the future.
The applicant is proposing the placement of a 4,800 square foot office building
on the site with 16 parking spaces. The typical minimum parking required for an
office development of this size would be 12 parking spaces. The proposed
parking is more than adequate to meet the typical minimum parking demand.
The applicant has indicated the hours of operation will be 7:00 am to 6:00 pm
Monday through Saturday. Staff is supportive of the requested hours of
operation. The hours proposed are consistent with other hours of operation in
the immediate area.
The applicant has indicated the users of the proposed development will be
general and professional office users. This is also consistent with development
in the immediate area and should have minimal to no adverse impact on
adjoining properties.
The applicant has indicated a single sign location on the proposed site plan. The
applicant has indicated the sign will be a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-
four square feet in sign area. Staff is supportive of the requested signage.
The applicant has indicated the driveway will be located near the western
property line. Staff is not supportive of the proposed driveway. The proposed
driveway is off set from Autumn Road and will possible cause traffic conflicts if
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7472
6
developed in this location. Staff would recommend the applicant work with the
property owner to the west to develop a shared driveway which would line up
with Autumn Road or to relocate the driveway on the site to the east away from
the intersection.
The applicant has indicted there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the
proposed site. Staff feels with the driveway issue not being resolved they cannot
support the development as proposed. Should the applicant secure a shared
driveway location with the property owner to the west staff would look more
favorable on the proposed request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning request as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the request. There were no objectors
present. Staff stated to their knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed requested. Staff stated the applicant had worked to secure a shared
driveway location with the property owner to the west and the new intersection would
align with Autumn Road when widened. Staff presented the item with 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 for inclusion on
the consent agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the item as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
September 4, 2003
ITEM NO.: 20
Name: Wimbledon Loop Gate
Location: Wimbledon Loop Road near its intersection
with Baseline Road on the north side of Otter
Creek subdivision.
Owner/Applicant: Otter Creek Homeowner’s Association
Request: To amend existing franchise ordinance
(#16,968) to allow installation of a self-closing
gate with a keypad to limit access to the area.
STAFF REVIEW:
1. History and Request
The Otter Creek Homeowner’s Association requested and was granted a franchise
by the Board of Directors in September 1995 to install a manual gate across
Wimbledon Loop near its intersection with Baseline Road to limit traffic during
designated nighttime hours. The request essentially emanated from a concern for
safety in the neighborhood. Other stipulations in the original franchise allowed
closing the gate from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., availability of a security guard during the
time the gate is closed, and provision of 24 hour, 7 days per week video monitoring
of the area.
The current request, in the form of an ordinance amendment, provides for replacing
the existing manual gate with a keypad-operated gate. A representative of the Otter
Creek Homeowner’s Association has stated the intent is to have the gate closed all
the time, operable only by those with access to the code for the keypad.
The original ordinance #16,968 that is proposed for amendment had a term of
five (5) years and was apparently never renewed.
2. Master Street Plan
Wimbledon Loop is designated as a collector. Baseline Road is a principal
arterial. Future plans for Wimbledon Loop are for it to continue, in a loop, west
and north to a new intersection with Baseline Road.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.)
2
3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets
(Not applicable.)
4. Development Potential
Currently, there are 401 existing houses in the Otter Creek neighborhood north of
the creek.
Proposed future residential units in the area include:
¾ a preliminary plat south and west of Ben Hogan Court that has a proposed
103 single family houses
¾ another 96 apartment units at the southeast corner of Wimbledon and
Baseline to appear before the planning Commission on 9-4-03
¾ an additional 7.85 acres of MF24 zoned property with a max of 188 units.
This indicates a potential for 788 residential dwelling units to be developed in the
area. Assuming traffic generation rates of 10 trips per day for single family
homes, and seven trips per day for apartment units, future traffic using the two
entrances to Otter Creek would be 7000 trips per day. This would exceed the
desirable service level volume of 5000 trips per day for collector streets as per
the Design Specifications of the Master Street Plan.
5. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect
On the Future Land Use Plan, the north side of Baseline at Wimbledon is shown
as Low Density Residential from Col. Carl Miller eastwards to almost Stagecoach
Road. The land is zoned MF6. There is a node for multifamily on Wimbledon at
both the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection with Baseline to
recognize the existing MF24 zoning. The surrounding area comprising the Otter
Creek residential area is shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan and is
zoned R2.
6. Neighborhood Position
The property owners association made this request. No other comments have
been received from neighborhood groups as of this writing.
7. Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Fire Department – No objection if provided with a Knox-box brand access box at
the gate for fire access.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.)
3
Police Department – Has no objection to the gate provided that emergency
vehicles have the ability to freely enter the gates. All emergency agencies
should be provided a special access code.
8. Reversionary Rights
(Not applicable.)
9. Public Welfare and Safety Issues
Installation of the key pad gate is being proposed to increase security and reduce
crime. Presumably, only the present and future occupants and property owners
(788) will have access codes to the gate along with family members, service
workers, and emergency personnel.
Closure of the Baseline entrance to Otter Creek can be expected to increase
traffic on Otter Creek Boulevard.
Closure of this street with a keypad access gate can be expected to cause at
least some level of delay in gaining emergency access to the neighborhood for
police, fire and ambulance service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
There has been some question in the past from the City Attorney’s office whether it
would be legal or appropriate to gate a public street. Staff believes closure would set an
undesirable precedent for the traveling public. In effect it will present an aspect of a
“gated private community” on a public right-of-way.
Wimbledon Loop is a designated collector, intended to serve a large traffic volume in
the area. A gate would cause emergency service and traffic delays for the current and
planned development in the area. Two points of open access is desirable to meet
demands. Staff does not support the request.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE August 14, 2003
Mike Hood presented the item to committee and gave a brief history of the gate and
described the current request. There was some discussion of the legality of the request
given the position the City Attorney took on a previous street closure request.
September 4, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.)
4
Update:
Current Traffic Counts for Wimbledon Loop and Otter Creek Boulevard are as
follows:
Wimbledon Loop at Baseline
Southbound (in) 1415 vehicle per day
Northbound (out) 1734 vpd
Total 3149 vpd
Otter Creek at Stagecoach
Westbound (in) 2891 vehicle per day
Eastbound (out) 2716 vpd
Total 5607 vpd
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff stated the
applicant had requested a deferral to the October 16, 2003 Public Hearing. Staff stated
the applicant was still trying to resolve issues with the Public Works Department. Staff
stated they were in favor of the deferral request.
Staff also stated the applicant did not request the deferral until one day prior to the
Public Hearing. Staff noted the By-Laws stated all request should be made in writing at
least five day prior to the Commission meeting. Staff stated this too would require a
waiver of the By-Laws.
A motion was made to waive the By-Laws with regard to the time frame for the deferral
request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes. 0 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to defer the request to the October 16, 2003 Public Hearing. There
was no further discussion of the item. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
ITEM NO.: 21
SUBJECT: Amending Chapter 36, zoning code, making transient housing a conditional
use
REQUEST: To modify the zoning ordinance to require that transient housing be made a
conditional use in Little Rock.
STAFF REPORT:
A recent change in use raised concerns of several adjacent property owners and
businesses. A structure, which had been a corporate office building, was purchased to
use for office administration, training and transient housing for homeless individuals.
This is a by-right use in Office Zoning and thus a by-right use in Urban Use.
There is no public in put or formal review for “residential treatment” or “temporary
housing” uses. Since these uses can have potential negative impacts on neighboring
uses, some type of review would seem appropriate. Having these uses as “conditional”
would provide the opportunity for citizen, neighboring property owners, staff and the
Planning Commission to express concerns and attempt to address them.
A draft amendment to the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance will be provided for your review.
It does two things. First, it adds a definition for ‘Homeless Shelter’. Second, it modifies
the Conditional Use Review section of the Zoning Ordinance in sections 36-104 and 36-
107 to clarify the ‘standards and review guidelines’.
This amendment would not require any existing or approved transient housing uses to
move. It would “grandfather” such uses but would require any new uses of this type to
be approval under the conditional use process. Such uses would still be legal within
Urban Use subject to review by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 4, 2003)
Dana Carney, Planning Staff, reviewed the draft ordinance with the Commission.
Commissioner Rector suggested a minor wording change to ‘Section 3’ to clarify that
the review criteria is not limited to those listed. Commissioner Floyd asked about
whether Nursing Homes would be included. After some discussion, it was clarified that
no other ‘defined’ uses (such as Nursing Homes) would be required to follow this
process.
Commissioner Rector made a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes
discussed. By a vote of 8 for 0 against and 3 absent, the Commission approved the
draft.