HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 31 2002subLITTLE RGCK PLANNING CGMMISSIGN
SUBDIVISIGN HEARING
SUMMARY ANI3 MINUTE RECGRI3
GCTGBER 31,2002
4:OO P.M.
I.Roll Call end Finding of 8 Quorum
A Quorum w88 present being nine (9)In number.
II.Members Present:Judith Faust
Craig Berry
Robert Stebbins
Norm Floyd
Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
Gbrey Nunnley,Jr.
Fred Allen,Jr.
Members Absent Bob I owry
Mizzen
Rehrnan
City Attorney:Stephen Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the September 19,2002 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved es presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
OCTOBER 31,2002
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.LU02-18-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Single Family to Multi-family located northeast of the intersection of Nix
Road and Laurel Oaks Drive.
A.1 American Dream Builders Short-form PD-R (Z-7211),Located Northeast of
the intersection of Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive.
B.White Short-form PD-R (Z-7280),Located at 2812 South Ringo Street.
C.LU02-10-04 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
located in the 2700 Block of Walker Street changing from Single Family to
Multi-family.
C.1 Griffin Short-form PD-R (Z-7282),Located at 2701 —2723 Walker Street.
D.Threadgill Short-form PD-R (Z-7281-A),Located on the Northwest corner of
Arthur Lane and Atkins Road.
E.Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat (S-46-X),Located on Vantage Point
Drive.
F.Whitfield Restoration Plan,Located on the corner of Whitfield Street and Asher
Avenue.
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Villages of Wellington Phase 9 Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1042-T)-Located on
the Northeast corner of Wellington Village Road and Loyola Drive.
2.Boen Center Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1301-A)-Located on the Southeast
corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430.
3.Mabelvale Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1356)-Located on the
East side of North Chicot Road approximately 150 feet South of Mabelvale.
4.Malmstorm-White Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1357)—Located at
11621 Kanis Road.
Agenda,Page Two
II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.)
5.Mountain Side Preliminary Plat (S-1358)—Located on County Line Road just
West of Vimy Ridge.
6.There is not an item ¹6.
7.There is not an item ¹7.
8.Arkansas Baptist College Conditional Use Permit (Z-4028-C)-Located at
1621 Dr.Martin Luther King,Jr.Blvd.
9.Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Z-6178-F)—Located on the Northwest corner
of West Baseline Road and Stagecoach Road,
10.LU02-10-06 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District
from Office to Commercial located in the 2000 Block of South University Avenue
on the West side of South University Avenue.
10.1 Yelenich Long-form PCD (Z-4644-B)—Located in the 2000 Block of South
University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue.
11.Wal-Mart Site Plan Review (Z-5097-C)—Located on the Southeast corner of
Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway.
12.Maxmart Revised Short-form POD (Z-5770-C)—Located on the North side of
Cantrell Road just east of Rummell Road.
13.Forest Gardens Revised Long-form PD-R (Z-6948-A)—Located South of West
Baseline Road approximately 500 feet West of Stagecoach Road.
14.Family Dollar Short-form PCD (Z-7297)—Located at 8510 Asher Avenue.
15.Mountain Side Long-form PD-R (Z-7298)—Located on County Line Road just
West of Vimy Ridge Road.
16.U-Pull-It Long-form PID (Z-7299)—Located at 10312 West Baseline Road.
17.Ormsbee Short-form PD-0 (Z-7300)—Located at 16925 Cantrell Road.
18.Auto Zone Auto Parts Short-form PD-C (Z-7301)—Located on the Southeast
corner of Roosevelt Road and Commerce Street.
19.Appeal of a Notice of Violation of the Land Alteration Ordinance located at
13000 Chenal Parkway.
20.Street Right-of-Way Abandonment G-23-317;described as approximately 25 feet
of the portion of Wingate Drive that exists onto Markham Street
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain Planning District
Location:North of the intersection of Nix Road and Coleman Street.
~Re ueat:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Rebecca Chandler,American Dream Investments
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family to
Multi-Family.The Multi-Family category accommodates residential development of (10)
to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.This application results from the applicant's
wishes to build four duplexes.
Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the
area of review southward from the applicant's property toward Kanis Road to the
existing Low Density Residential.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately 0.64+acres in size.In the expanded area,zoned R-2,a house sits
immediately to the south of the applicant's property while the remainder of the
expanded area is vacant.The R-2 property to the north and east is vacant land zoned
R-2.The property to the south consists of houses on large lots zoned R-2.The
property to the west is developed with single-family houses and is zoned R-2 Single
Family.A church located on a lot to the southwest of the applicant's property is zoned
R-2 Single Family with a Conditional Use Permit for a church and is the subject of
another item on this agenda,
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 3,2001 changes were made from Low Density Residential,Neighborhood
Commercial,and Mixed Office Commercial in an area bounded by Bowman Road,
Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road,and Brodie Creek starting about /4 of a mile
southwest of the applicant's property.
On February 15,2000 a change was made form Single Family to Low Density
Residential at Westglen Drive and Gamble Road about /4 of a mile southeast of the
application area.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Transition,Neighborhood
Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed Office
Commercial to Single Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,Mixed Office
Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,Commercial,and Community
Shopping along Kanis Road within a 1 mile radius of the property in question.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
The applicant's property,as well as all of the rest of the expanded area,is shown as
Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.The properties to the west,north,and east
are shown as Single Family,while the property to the south is shown as Low Density
Residential.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Nix Road is a Residential Street with open drainage and is not built to standard.Laurel
Oaks Drive is a Residential Street built to standard.Half street improvements may be
required to upgrade Nix Road to a Residential Street through the installation of curb and
gutters.Two plaited undeveloped street right-of-ways are adjacent to the applicant's
property.Coleman Street and Farris streets are un-built residential streets.Both streets
will be subject to improvements unless the right-of-way for either,or both,streets is
abandoned.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be
affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's
property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed
to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this
amendment and surrounding areas.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood
Action Plan.The Residential Development goal listed an action statement of requiring
that city staff ensure both single-family and multi-family uses in newly developing areas,
while allowing the multi-family to act as a buffer between single family and office.The
Office and Commercial Development Goal contained an objective of encouraging the
adoption of a plan for Kanis Road.An action statement recommended the aggressive
use of Planned Zoning Districts to insure that new developments would be compatible
with the existing neighborhood.The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan is due for
an update study.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property lies in an area that is characterized by mostly vacant property
located between Nix and Gamble Road.A few houses are located on Nix Road.Most
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
of the developed property is located in the Parkway Place subdivision and is not
oriented towards Nix Road.
The current land use pattern in the area places the more intense land uses at the edge
of the neighborhood along Kanis Road,W.Markham Street,and Chenal Parkway.The
higher density residential areas serve as a buffer between the Single Family and non-
residential uses to the north.Most of the Multi-family area is built out to capacity at the
Shadow Lakes Apartments.In contrast,most of the land shown as Low-Density
Residential remains vacant.Extra land shown as Multi-family could allow for the
development of more housing at Multi-Family densities at the expense of land shown as
Single Family.This amendment would not effect the availability of exiting Low-Density
Residential land,nor would it increase the availability of land for housing that is not
Multi-Family or Single Family.However,even though this amendment would reduce the
amount of land shown as Single Family,there will still be land shown as Single Family
available for development north of the applicant's property and east of Gamble Road.
Approval of Multi-Family will place a small area,less than two-thirds of an acre,of Multi-
Family in a location that is surrounded by a large area shown as Single Family.
The applicant's property is also located in the area that was covered by the Kanis Road
Study.The current land uses along Kanis Road are the result of recommendations
made in that study.The current pattern of development places the more intense Multi-
Family and Low Density Residential uses at locations accessed by Collector and Minor
Arterial Streets.This application would introduce an area shown as Multi-Family
accessed solely from a Residential Street.Depending on the resolution of right-of-way
abandonment issues,this application could introduce an area shown as Multi-Family
accessed solely from one Residential Street.Regardless of the outcome of the
abandonment issues,all of the access to the property will be from Residential streets.
The issues concerning the construction,or abandonment,of Coleman and Farris
Streets could also effect not only the development of the applicant's property,but also
the future development of neighboring properties.If future development takes place on
property located between Nix and Gamble Roads,adequate access would need to be
provided to those properties.Coleman and Farris streets could provide access to future
developments,or else future streets will need to be developed to provide access to
potential developments.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt.
West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring Valley
Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received two comments from area
residents.None are in support,both were neutral.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes that the change to Multi-Family is not appropriate at this time.With an
impending review of a City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan,this change would
be premature.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 20,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 20,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the August 8,2002 Planning
Commission meeting.A motion to approve the consent agenda was made and
approved.The item was deferred with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent,and 1 open
position..
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 8,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day
notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.That motion to waive the
bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 7 ayes,2 noes,1 absent,and 1 open
position.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,and 1 open position.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the Commission.Donna James
made a presentation of item A.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for
item A.See item A.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned
Development -Residential.
Ms.Rebecca Chandler,applicant,made a presentation to the Commission concerning
census information about the area,prices of current homes in the market,projected
costs of the units she wishes to develop,availability of housing in the area,and
shortages of townhouse/condos in the area.She continued to state that she was trying
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01
to promote an alternate living ownership arrangement for less money than single family
detached housing.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he was uncomfortable with the abandonments on
both the Land Use Plan and the zoning.item.
A motion was made to defer both items 16 and 16.1 until the time in which the
abandonments are heard.The item was deferred with a vote of 10 ayes,1 no,and
0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda
and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:A.1 FILE NO.:Z-7211
NAME:American Dream Builder's Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:Northeast of the intersection of Laurel Oaks Drive and Nix Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
American Dream Builders,Inc.Carter Burgess
18 Misty Court 10809 Executive Center
Little Rock,AR Suite 204
Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:0.64 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R (6-units detached single-family housing)
PROPOSED USE:Detached Single-family housing (6.25 units per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Waiver of street improvements to Farris Street
and to Coleman Street.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to place six units of detached housing on this four lot
site.The applicant proposes the units to be two story units and each will have an
attached garage.The future sale of these units will be under a horizontal
property regime.Each of the units will contain between 1400 —1526 square feet
and be 3 bedroom,2.5 baths and a two car garage.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
The applicant is proposing 5-foot set backs between the buildings and the side
property lines and a 20-foot access and utility easement to serve the
development as a single access from Nix Road.
The applicant proposes to replat the four lots into one lot as a part of this
process.Also included in the application is the request for right-of-way
abandonment of the alley right-of-way between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 9 and 10.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with a slope falling to the south and west.
Nix Road is an unimproved narrow roadway with deep ditches.The site is
currently zoned R-2 as is the majority of the property around the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.The Parkway Place Property Owners Association and
the Gibralter/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations along with all
residents 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:
1.Nix Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Unless closure of the platted but undeveloped Coleman and Farris Streets
is accomplished,dedication of right-of-way and construction to Master
Street Plan standards will be required.
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section
29-186 (e).
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:Need a better copy of the plat showing cross streets.
Southwestern Bell:Easements on both sides of the drive are needed to provide
telephone access.Contact Southwestern Bell at 373-5112 for additional
details.
Water:A water main extension may be required to serve this property.An
acreage charge of $600 per acre currently applies to this property in addition
to normal charges in this area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438
for additional details.
~Fi C d I:Pl tl kyd t p d.q I ttk llttl ~FFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~tpl:N t d.
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~pl I qll:ykl q tl I tdl tk pill q tl Pl E
District.The Land Use Plan indicates Single Family for the site.The applicant
has applied for a Planned Residential Development to build six units to be sold
under a horizontal property regime.A Land Use Plan amendment for a change
to Multi Family is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-18-01).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential
Development goal is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density
development in the area.Action Statements include using multi-family housing
to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the density
and square footage of multi-family developments.
~Landsca e:The plan submitted does not aiiow for the required nine (9)foot
wide land use buffers to the north and east.A six (6)foot high opaque screen is
required to the north and east unless there are to be no windows or doors
(except those required by the city)on the north and east sides.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
BBildi BC d:N t i d.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had tried
unsuccessfully to close the roadways adjacent to the site and now wished to
pursue the item with only the closure of the alleyway between the lots.Staff
stated the applicant should contact the utility companies and Public Works to
obtain comments with regard to the alley closure.Staff stated they would work
with the applicant to resolve the technical issues prior to the Commission
meeting.
There being no further issues to discuss,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.The applicant has included a six (6)foot wooden fence on the
north and south property lines and has indicated a fence could be placed along
the undeveloped Farris Street if necessary.The applicant has indicated a five
(5)foot side yard setback along the north and south property lines.The typical
required land use buffer is nine (9)feet.Staff is not supportive of the requested
reduction in landscaped area.The development abuts single-family to the north
and the minimum typical buffer should be put in place.In addition,with the
dedication of right-of-way on the south side of the development (Coleman Street)
there will be a zero side yard setback.
The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage as a part of the
development.The applicant has also indicted the development will be
constructed in one phase.As stated in the proposal section the applicant
proposes the units to be for sale through a horizontal property regime and
ownership and maintenance of common areas will be handled through a property
owners association.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Coleman Street
and to Farris Street.The roadways have not developed in the area and the
applicant feels the construction of the streets is unjustified at this time.
Staff is not supportive of the development as proposed.The density of the
development is not consistent with the development pattern in the area.With the
placement of this number of units on these four 50-foot by 150-foot lots there is
not sufficient room for side yard setbacks.Should the applicant be unsuccessful
in the abandonment of the alleyway the development will not work.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
Similar densities have developed in the area but each of these were closer to
West Markham Street,shown for multi-family on the Future Land Use Plan and
were adjacent to existing multi-family developments.Staff feels the
neighborhood would be better served if the lots developed as single-family units.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed Planned Residential Development as
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Ms.Rebecca Chandler was present representing the application.There were no
objectors present.The land use plan amendment and the rezoning were discussed
simultaneously.Staff presented each item with a recommendation of denial for each.
Commissioner Berry questioned the number of units,which could be constructed on the
site today.Staff stated four (4)and increase of four (4)units since the proposal
included eight (8)units.Staff stated the applicant was requesting a waiver of right-of-
way dedication and street construction to Coleman Street and Farris Street.Staff stated
the applicant was also requesting the roadway be abandoned and the alleyway within
the development be abandoned.
Ms.Chandler stated her occupation was a real estate appraiser.She stated recently
she had determined there was a shortage of homes in the $85,000 to $95,000 range.
She stated this became an issue when looking for a home for her widowed mother.She
stated most of the homes in the area were $100,000+.Ms.Chandler gave the
Commission statistical data from the Census related to homeownership,occupancy,
ages and number of units in the area.She also gave the Commission a MSL listing of
data indicating the market and the pertinent data related to home sales.
Commissioner Berry questioned if the design was directly tied to the closure of the
streets.Ms.Chandler stated she had reduced the size of the development to comply
with the requirements of staff.Staff stated once the dedication of the right-of-way there
would be a zero side yard setback on Coleman Street.Commissioner Berry stated the
project was hinged on the closing of the street.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the street abandonment and the impact of
abandonment of streets in areas,which had not yet developed.
Staff stated the area was a very old plat and they had not heard from all the property
owners within the affected area.
Commissioner Berry made a motion to defer the item until the street issues could be
resolved.The motion carried by a vote'of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had not resolved the street issues.Staff stated they were requesting this item be
deferred to allow the applicant additional time to resolve the street and alleyway
abandonment.Staff stated the application would be deferred to the December 19,2002
Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-7280
NAME:White Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:2812 South Ringo Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Clifton R.White Marlar Engineering Co.,Inc.
5401 Dreher Lane 5318 John F.Kennedy Boulevard
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72209
AREA:0.32 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-4,Two-family District
ALLOWED USES:Residential —Duplex
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Fourplex
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the conversion of an exiting structure (a duplex)into a
fourplex.Two units currently exist on the top floor and the applicant proposes
the addition of two units on the lower level.The upper units will have access
from both the front and the rear the lower units will have access from the rear
only.
The applicant proposes the placement of four (4)parking spaces adjacent to the
south property line in the rear of the structure and to utilize the two (2)existing
single car parking pads adjacent to South Ringo Street on the north and south
property lines.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing duplex currently under rehabilitation.The structure
sits on two 50 by 100 foot lots in the area which was hard hit by the 1999
tornado.There is a duplex located on the southeast corner of West 28'"and
South Ringo Streets with the remainder of the area single-family in appearance.
Several of the units are vacant and boarded (two of the three units to the south
accessed by the alley and the units immediately to the north and south of the
site).There are two vacant lots pimmediately south of the site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Wright Avenue,the Downtown,the MLK and the Southend Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200-feet of the site and all residents,who
could be identified,within 300-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the area residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available aripd not adversely affected.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional water meters are needed
at 992-2438.
~Fi 0 d I:App d d tlt d.
~Ct Pt t:~t t d.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹2 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
F.ISSUESfTECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI Cttt:ydt q t I tdt td C t ICIPPI Igdtt
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development —Residential to convert an existing duplex
into a fourplex.Since there will be no change to the building footprint of the
structure a Land Use Plan amendment is not necessary.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the South End Area Improvement Plan.The Residential
Development goal is supported by an action statement,which recommends that
new multifamily housing design be compatible with existing patterns of massing
and setting backs characteristic of the neighborhood.
~Landsca e:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7-foot wide
perimeter buffer and landscape strips required along the southern and northern
perimeters required by both the Zoning and Landscape Ordinances.The existing
screening fences need to be secured in order to make them stable.
~BilCh C d:N t I d.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.White,the applicant,was present representing the application.Staff
presented the item to the Commission indicating the intent of the development
was the conversion of an exiting duplex into a fourplex.Staff stated there were
technical issues associated with the proposed development and requested the
applicant indicate on the site plan the proposed parking space dimensions.
Landscaping issues were addressed.Staff stated the applicant should secure
the wooden fence on the north and south property lines if the fence was to be
used as screening.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant has indicated the addition of four parking spaces to the rear of the
structure.The applicant notes the parking spaces will be a minimum of nine (9)
feet in width and 20.8 feet in length.The applicant has not requested a waiver of
the hard surface parking area,which is required by ordinance.The applicant will
utilize two (2)existing spaces located adjacent to Ringo Street for the upstairs
units.The parking proposed is sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
requirement for a multi-family development of this size (typical six (6)spaces
required).
There is an existing six (6)foot wooden fence along the north and south property
lines.The applicant proposes the fence to act as screening for the development.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed development.The site is located near the
1999 tornado area and the neighborhood is very fragile at best.The area is a
single-family neighborhood with a duplex located several homes away at the
southeast corner of 28'"and Ringo Streets,The existing single-family homes are
well kept homes but there are several boarded homes in the area.With the
conversion of this duplex into a fourplex,this could be the start of the conversion
of additional homes into multi-family units.Staff feels the current density of a
duplex is suitable to the neighborhood.The existing parking is sufficient to meet
the needs of the development with two (2)spaces adjacent to Ringo Street.With
the conversion to a fourplex,additional parking will be required,in the rear of the
structure,resulting in a hard surface parking area taking away the residential
character of the structure.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed Planned Development request to allow
a duplex to be converted into a fourplex.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had failed to notify property owners within 200-feet as required by the
Planning Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
deferred to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of
the request.
There was no further discussion.The Chairman 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:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Clifton White was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff stated the project was an enforcement case currently in Environmental
Court.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.Staff stated the
proposed density was to great for the area with the current area being primarily single-
family.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7280
Ms.Georgia Osier spoke in opposition to the proposed development.She stated Mr.
White did not maintain his property to city standard.Ms.Osier stated Mr.White had
installed a fence on the rear property line but the fence was not secure.
Mr.White spoke in support of this application.He stated he had purchased the property
in 1999 and bought the site as a fourplex.He stated the County Assessor had also
assessed the site as a fourplex structure.
Mr.White stated there were other structures in the area with similar type uses.He
questioned if these property owners were also in violation of their zoning.
Mr.White stated his proposed development would be an enhancement to the
neighborhood since he was the only property owner in the area which was expending
funds to rehabilitate his investment.He also stated this proposal did not include
changing the exterior of the structure or the building footprint which would allow the
structure to remain residential in character similar to other homes along the street.
There was a general discussion concerning the other properties in the area and if these
properties were in violation.
A motion was made to approve the proposed development as presented.The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes,7 ayes and 4 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District
Location:2701 -2723 Walker St.
~Re ueat:Single Family to Multi-Family
Source:Christopher Lee Griffin
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Single Family to
Multi-Family.Multi-Family accommodates residential development of ten (10)to thirty-
six (36)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop the property for an
eighteen-unit apartment complex.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately
.75+acres in size.All of the surrounding property is land zoned R-2 Single Family
developed with single-family housing.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On September 4,2001 a change was made from Park/Open Space to Multi-family at
24'"St.and Junior Deputy Rd.about 9/10 of a mile west of the area in question.This
change was made to allow for the expansion of a retirement community.
On March 6,2001 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 1911 John
Barrow Rd.about a /2 mile northwest of the applicant's property.This change was
made to allow the expansion of a proposed medical office development.
On September 19,2000 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 2109 John
Barrow Rd.about 1/3 of a mile northwest of the application area.This change was
made to allow the development of medical offices.
The applicant's property,as well as all of the surrounding property,is shown as Single
Family on the Future Land Use Plan.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Walker Street north of W.28'"Street is.a Residential Street with open drainage.Curbs
and gutters would need to be installed to bring Walker Street up to Standard Residential
Street standards.Both W.28'"Street and Walker Street south of W.28'"Street are
shown as collector streets.W.28'"Street is built to standard while Walker Street south
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
of 28'"is not.There area no Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be
affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
The applicant's property is located five block west of Boyle Park,which is shown in the
2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a large urban park of 243 acres
featuring multiple forms of active,and passive recreation facilities.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no City of Little Rock recognized historic districts that would be affected by
this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood
Area Plan.The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal of improving the overall
appearance and safety of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of
reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units,which is supported
by an action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be
compatible with existing architecture in the area.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in a established residential neighborhood.The
houses to the north and east are relatively new and built on streets with curb and gutter.
The remaining houses are older and built on streets needing improvements to conform
to Master Street Plan standards.All of the combined surrounding property firmly
establishes the residential character of the neighborhood.Although the applicant's
property is located on a street corner at the intersection of two Collector Streets,a
change to Multi-family would substantially increase the density of residential units of the
neighborhood and introduce a small area that would be incompatible with the
neighborhood.Land shown as Multi-family could increase the variety of housing types
available in the neighborhood and allow for the development of more housing units in
the neighborhood at higher densities but would do at the expense of land shown as
Single Family.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Leander Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04
Neighborhood Association,University Park Neighborhood Association,and Westwood
Neighborhood Association.Staff has not received any comments from area residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Multi-family would introduce
an isolated use that is incompatible with neighboring uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 31,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day
notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.That motion to waive the
bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.A motion
was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes,and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 19,2002
Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda
and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-7282
NAME:Griffin Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:2701 —2723 Walker Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Christopher L.Griffin Marvin T.Griffin
8212 Pine Summit Court 11324 Kanis Road
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:0.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Multi-family (24 units per acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the construction of 18 units of multi-family housing on
this 0.75 acre site.The site will be accessed by a single entry from Walker Street
with all the parking spaces heading into the buildings.There are 32 parking
spaces proposed as a part of the development.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant,flat,grass covered site and the few trees,which once
occupied the site have been removed.The area is primarily developed as single-
family in all directions around the site.There is a sidewalk along West 28'"Street
adjacent to the site and running west but not extending any further to the east.
West 28'"Street also has curb and gutter in place.Walker Street is an
unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from the
neighborhood concerning the development.The John Barrow,the Campus
Place,the Westbrook,the Kensington Place Neighborhood Association,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:
1.Walker Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master Street
Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at 28'"Street and
Walker Street.
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.(Street width on 28'"Street is
adequate.)
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Edge of
driveway on Walker must have minimum 25'pacing from property line.As
an alternative,take access from 28'"Street.
5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.
6.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.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance does not apply to this property.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Capacity Contribution Analysis is required.Contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for additional details.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding water service to
this development.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site
to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be
required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the
Developer's expense.
~Fi 0 d I:Pl I kyd t p d .d I ttk IIIII ~kFI
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
~CI Pl I:N I I d.
CATA:The site is no located on,a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI Bill:yk q tl I tdl tk Byl P kPI qdlt
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development —Residential for apartments (18 Units).A
Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-10-04).
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The housing and
neighborhood revitalization goal of improving the overall appearance and safety
of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of reviewing design
standards for new construction of residential units,which is supported by an
action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be
compatible with existing architecture in the area.
~Landsca e:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum nine (9)foot
wide land use buffer,or the minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the
northern perimeter of the site.A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen
plantings,is required along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the
site.
~Bildi d d:N t t d
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item to the Committee
indicating the intent of the development.Staff stated there were technical issues
associated with the proposed development and Staff would work with the
applicant to resolve these issues prior to the Commission meeting.
The Committee then determined there were no further issues for discussion.The
Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant has not submitted a revised plan to staff therefore,there are
several technical issues which still need to be resolved.The applicant has not
indicated the location of the dumpster.It is possible the dumpster could be
located at the end of the driveway in the parking area to the north.The applicant
will be required to fully screen the dumpster as required by the ordinance,three
sides at least two feet above the top of the dumpster.
The applicant also has not relocated the driveway.In Staff's opinion the
development and the neighborhood would be better served if the driveway were
moved to West 28th Street and access were not allowed from Walker Street.
There would be an estimated 150 to 200 trips per day generated from the
development.West 28'"Street,in some areas,has been constructed to Master
Street Plan Standard and is classified as a collector street while Walker Street is
an unimproved roadway adjacent to the site and is classified as a residential
street.(The portion of Walker Street south of the site,from West 28'"Street to
Asher Avenue is classified as a collector street and has been constructed.)Staff
feels the bulk of the traffic should be routed to the collector street.
The applicant has also not indicated screening and landscaping.The applicant
will be required to install a nine (9)foot wide buffer along the northern perimeter
of the site and a six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or dense
evergreen plantings,along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the
site.
Although,there are many technical questions left unanswered,Staff feels the
issues can be "flushed out"at the Public Hearing.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282
Staff is not supportive of the application,as filed.The proposed density of the
development is too intense for this site.The site is situated in the heart of a
single-family neighborhood and the area of the proposed development is much
too small to accommodate a development of this intensity.Furthermore,Walker
Street is an unimproved chip seal roadway with open ditches for drainage.Even
though the applicant would be required to install street improvements adjacent to
the site,the remainder of Walker Street would remain in its current conditions.
The area has "turned around"in the past few years with several new single-
family homes having been built.A development of this intensity could reverse
the trend of the neighborhood and cause the area to begin a decline or become
stagnant.Staff feels a development of this intensity would be better served by
locating nearer Asher Avenue,John Barrow Road or West 12'"Street.Staff does
not feel the placement of 18 multi-family units on this site is an appropriate
measure.Staff feels a development of 24-units per acre is much too intense for
this site but a development of lower density might be appropriate as in-fill.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested application for Griffin Short-form PD-R
as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Christopher Griffin was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the
October 31,2002 Public Hearing to allow Mr.Griffin time to work with the neighborhood
on issues associated with the proposed development,to review the proposed density
and possible reduce the density.Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the
By-Laws.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-Laws and place
the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing.
The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for Deferral and approved,as
recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant had submitted a request for the item to be deferred to the December 19,2002
Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of this request.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
NAME:Threadgill Short-form PD-R
LOCATION:12800 Arthur Lane
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Richard Threadgill Donald Brooks
2303 East Grand Avenue 20880 Arch Street
Hot Springs,AR 71901 Hensley,AR 72065
AREA:0.46 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:6 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential —Townhouse development (6 units total or 13 units
per acre)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 19,2002 Public Hearing of the Planning Commission,an application
for the placement of eight units of townhouse development was denied.The
Commission also voted to allow the applicant to resubmit a site plan at a lesser density
without paying a filing fee should the applicant resubmit a plan within a three-month
time period.The Commission also indicated the applicant would not be required to file
a Land Use Plan amendment if the proposal was a lesser density,
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes the placement of six (6)townhouse residential units on
these three lots.There are three (3)units proposed to be located on the south
property line (to back-up to Arthur Lane)and three (3)units to be located along
the north property line.There will be a single concrete drive access point to the
site from Atkins Road entering the center of the development.
Units 2 and 5 are proposed at 1440 square feet with a 240 square foot garage.
Units 1,3,4 and 6 are proposed at 1656 square feet with a 240 square foot
garage.The applicant has indicated all units will be two-story.The units will
consist of concrete block foundation,concrete slab on the first floor,wood
framing,drywall interiors,composition shingles and brick and vinyl siding
exteriors.
The applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wood fence along the north,south
and west property lines and a wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins
Road.The development will utilize city garbage pick-up with residents taking
their trash to the street side.
The applicant has stated the units are for resale as individual homes and a
Property Owners Association will be formed for maintenance and upkeep of the
common areas.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Arthur
Lane and Atkins Road.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains three lots one of which (the western-most lot)contains a single-
family residence facing Arthur Lane.The site is zoned R-2,single-family as is
the area surrounding the site and is shown as Single Family on the Future Land
Use Plan.The area to the east is a developed single-family subdivision (Point
West Subdivision)and the area to the north and west are developed with single-
family residences.The area to the south of the site from Atkins Road to Nix
Road is vacant (with the exception of a few homes located on Atkins Road)down
to Kanis Road.
Atkins Road is a two lane roadway with curb and gutter on the east side of the
road with no sidewalk.Arthur Lane is a narrow chip seal roadway with no curb,
gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Associations,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.Staff has received several phone calls and letters in opposition to
the proposed development.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Atkins Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
2.Arthur Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Atkins Road and
Arthur Lane.
4.Provide design of the streets conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).
Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with the planned development.Sidewalks must be continuous
across all street frontage with appropriate handicap ramps.
5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Curb radius of
driveway at Atkins needs to be 10'inimum.
6.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.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
details at 688-1414.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension,installed at the expense of the developer,will
be required to provide domestic service and adequate fire protection.The
Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether
additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the expense of the
developer.An acreage charge of $600.00 per acre and a development fee
based on the size of the connection currently applies in addition to normal
charges in the area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
~Fi C d t:Pl fl kyd t F d .C t ttk tttt ~FFl
Department at 319-3752 for additional details.
~dt Pl l:N t l d.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹5 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI l Clif
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land Use
Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Development —Residential to build a six (6)unit townhouse
development.The applicant previously filed a Land Use Plan Amendment with
his proposal which was heard at the September 19,2002 Public Hearing (LU02-
18-04)and was denied by the Commission.It was Staff's understanding the
applicant would not be required to file a Land Use Plan amendment if he
resubmitted his proposal at a lesser density,although the density proposed with
the current development plan results in 13 units per acre or multifamily density.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential
Development goal is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density
development in the area to act as a buffer between single family and more
intense non-residential uses.Action Statements include using multi-family
housing to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the
density and square footage of multi-family developments.
~Landsca e:The plan submitted falls short of the required nine (9)foot wide
land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters of the site.
Additionally,a portion of the landscape strip west of the proposed paved area
drops below the 6.7-foot minimum width requirement of the Landscape
Ordinance.
A water source within seventy-five (75)feet of all landscaped areas will be
required.The face side of the proposed wood fence must be directed outward.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
~ditd d d:N t t d
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.Staff presented
the item to the Committee noting additions,which were needed on the site plan
(Signage,height of the wrought iron fence).Staff noted the applicant had a
proposal before the Commission at their September 19,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the applicant had reduced the density and resubmitted his
development plan.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated street improvements
would be required to both Atkins Road and Arthur Lane.Staff also stated a 20-
foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the two roadways.
The applicant indicated he would construct /2 street improvements to both
streets.
Staff noted comments from the various utility companies noting a sewer main
extension and a water main extension would be required along with easements.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
patios to be attached to each structure within the side yard setback located two
(2)feet off the property line.A six (6)foot open-air wood fence will separate the
units and act as a screen.The applicant proposes a six (6)foot wooden fence
located along the north,south and west property lines with a six (6)foot wrought
iron fence along the street side of Atkins Road.
The landscaping along the north and south property lines is insufficient when the
patios are added.The landscaping strip along the northern and southern
perimeter should maintain a minimum of nine (9)feet in width and at no point fall
below 6.7-feet.The addition of the patio in this area leaves a minimal side yard
setback (2-feet).The applicant has indicated the area will be surrounded by a
six-foot wooden fence and even if a setback were in place and landscaping
installed the adjoining property owners would not see the area.(The reduction
is a land use buffer issue and the reduction maybe approved by the Planning
Commission.)Staff is supportive of the reduction of landscaped area since the
applicant has increased the street buffer area and has increased the buffer area
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A
adjoining the single-family to the west.The applicant has also increased the
number of trees proposed in this area to act as future screening from the second
floor of the units.
The applicant has narrowed the turnaround along the western driveway and
proposed the installation of flat landscaping stones and mondo grass between
the stones to allow for additional landscaping in the turn-around.Staff is
supportive of this request.The stones add a residential character to the
development and the addition of the grasses will break the hard surface areas.
Although,Staff was not supportive of the previous proposal Staff feels the current
density could be workable with the neighborhood.The proposed development
results in 13 units per acre on three (3)previously platted lots.The proposed
development includes six (6)units,which is double the number of units allowable
by right on the site.Staff feels comfortable with the proposed density on the
site.
The applicant is proposing two story buildings.The building height proposed is
not any higher than a two-story single-family home,which could be constructed
on the site.Staff feels window placement is important so as to not intrude on the
single-family residence located west and north of the site.The applicant has
indicated the second story will not have windows facing the western property line.
The applicant has also indicated the placement of trees along the western
perimeter to further screen the homes to the west.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Atkins
Road and to Arthur Lane.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Planned Residential Development
for Threadgill Short-form PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:S-46-X
NAME:Overlook Park Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Vantage Point Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Pfeifer Development Company White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 99 ¹24 Rahling Circle
N.Little Rock,AR 72115 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:3-West Little Rock
CENSUS TRACT:22.01
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:15-foot platted front building line.
Lot depth to width ratio for Lots 116A and 117.
A.PROPOSAL:
The area was preliminary platted in the mid-1960's with the majority of the lots
having been developed with the exception of a few dozen lots on the southern
portion of the plat.A revision to the preliminary plat was submitted in 1987,
which increased the number of lots by two in this area.
The applicant now proposes to replat two (2)previously approved lots into three
(3)single family lots.The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15-foot
platted building line on all three (3)lots and a variance from the lot depth to width
ratio for Lots 116A and 117.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The lots are extremely steep falling from the road with topography ranging in
elevation from 475-feet to 525-feet.Single-family homes have developed in the
area in similar conditions.The site is wooded with a ravine running along the
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-X
south and west.Foxcroft has'eveloped to the south of the site across the
ravine.Single-family homes are located north of the site abutting the river.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners abutting the site along with the Robinwood and Overlook
Property Owners Associations were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:No comment.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located on site.Show existing easement with
new lot configuration to assure service can be provided to all three new lots.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
FkiO I d I:Pl I kkd t F d .C I ttk I-ttl ~IFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~CI Pl I:N I I d.
CATA:The site is not located an a dedicated bus route and has no effect on the
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI I Rill:N
~Landaca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff introduced the item noting additions needed on the proposed
plat.Staff stated there was one if not two variances from the Subdivision
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-X
Ordinance.Staff stated two of the three lots would require a depth to width ratio
variance (Lots 116 and 117).Staff stated if the lots would have a 15-foot front
platted building line this would also require a variance.
Wastewater and the Fire Department comments were also noted.There being
no further issues to discuss the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff including the additional information
requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has requested
the appropriate variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the plat to
develop in the manner desired.The applicant has indicated a 15-foot front
platted building line and a variance for the depth to width ratio for Lots 116A and
117.The applicant has indicated the three (3)lots will be accessed by individual
driveways extending from Vantage Point Drive.
Staff is not supportive of the requested replat.The site is extremely steep
sloping downward into a ravine.The homes in this area have developed in
similar situations but are located on larger lots and the terrain does not appear to
be as steep.The average size of the existing lots ranges from 34,000 square
feet to 45,000 square feet.The proposed lots will range from approximately
21,240 square feet to 43,700 square feet.The proposed lot size is slightly
smaller than other lots in this general area.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance to allow the 15-foot front platted
building fine.The previously approved plat for the area was final platted with a
25-foot front building line and for the most part lots in the general area have
developed with a 25-foot building line.
Staff is not supportive of the requested variance for the Lot Depth to Width Ratio
Variance request for Lots 116A and 117.The remainder of the Subdivision has
developed without this variance.These lots were previously preliminary platted
without requesting any variances and these lots should develop a previously
pl oposed.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed replat of Lots 116 and 117 into three
single-family residential lots and the requested variances associated with the
proposed replat.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:S-46-X
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Joe White was present representing the application.There was one objector present.
Mr.White stated the objector had questions concerning the Bill of Assurance and
requested the item be deferred to the October 3,2002 Public Hearing.
Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the By-Laws.A motion was made to
waiver the By-Laws.The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for
Deferral to the October 3,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of
11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 3,2002)
Mr.Joe White was present representing the application.There were objectors present.
Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request to defer the item to the October 31,
2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the request would take a waiver of the By-Laws.
A motion was made to waiver the By-Laws with regard to the request for a deferral.The
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
A motion was made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the
October 31,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.Staff stated they were in support of the
request.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
withdrawal and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:S-1352
NAME:Whiffield Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Asher Avenue at Whiffield Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Al Hougland McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
1100 Brockington Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Sherwood,AR 72120 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:10.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3 and MF-12
PLANNING DISTRICT:10 —Boyle Park
CENSUS TRACT:24.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2002,Public Works received a complaint that a number of large trees had been
cut and fill had been placed at the subject property.Upon investigation,it was found
that JCI,the owner of the property,was conducting the clearing and filling activities.
Public Works'nvestigation further revealed that JCI was the general contractor for the
ongoing Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department project to improve and
widen Asher Avenue.According to JCI personnel,the company purchased the property
to store equipment and place excavated material from the project and planned to sell it
at completion of the project.JCI was given a notice for violating Section 29-186 (b)of
the Little Rock code for clearing or altering land without the required permits and
ordered to remove the fill material and discontinue work until development plans had
been submitted and approved.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
JCI requested a grading permit to continue operations and it was denied because no
apparent construction was imminent.JCI was also issued a citation and stop work
order.
The case was heard in Environmental Court on July 25,2002.JCI pled guilty and
agreed to submit a plan of development to the Commission no later than August 12,
2002 and appeal grading permit denial.The agreement further provided JCI would
begin cleanup activities at the site.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a restoration plan and preliminary plat as the
development plan.The applica'nt proposes to subdivide the site into a two lot
subdivision.One of the lots will contain 4.08 acres and is zoned C-3 and the
other lot will contain 6.09 acres and is zoned MF-12.The applicant has
indicated his restoration plan will include Bermuda grass sown over the entire
site with 43 water oak trees (2 —2.5 inch caliper,10 —12 feet tall planted around
the exterior of the property.The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain
along the southeastern part of the site.
The issues before the Planning Commission;whether JCI's plan (s)should be
approved and a grading permit issued based on the preliminary plat or should the
applicant also submit the proposed commercial and multi-family site plan or
should the applicant even be allowed a grading permit and should the preliminary
plat filed be approved for the subdivision of the site into two parcels.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently a vacant cleared site with a large amount of spoil from the
Asher Avenue widening project being dumped on the southern portion of the site.
Prior to the clearing of the site,the site once contained a grassed meadow with a
creek flowing north to south that was lined by mature hardwood trees.
The site gently slopes from north to south (40'"Street to Asher Avenue).There
are a few trees remaining on the northern portion of the site near West 40'"
Street.Whitfield Street is an unimproved roadway which dead ends prior to
reaching Asher Avenue.The City is currently widening West 40'"Street as a part
of a Community Development Block Grant Project.
Other uses in the area include single-family to the north and east,a vacant
MF-12 zoned site to the west bordering single-family further to the west and
various non-residential uses to the south along Asher Avenue.The Borden
Plant,now Oxford Printing is located adjacent to Asher on the western boundary
of the site and a Hometown Grocery Store is located adjacent to Whiffield Street
to the east.The Criminal Institute is located across Asher Avenue to the south.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing staff has received several phone calls from interested persons
stating objection to the proposed development.The John Barrow,the Westwood
and the Campus Place Neighborhood Associations and all property owners
within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Whiffield Street and 40'"Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master
Street Plan as a commercial streets.Dedicate right-of-way to
30 feet from centerline.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Whitfield and West 40'"and
Whitfield and Asher.
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).Construct one-
half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.Where Whitfield has not been constructed,pave to 2-lane width of
22'.
4.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.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Easements for proposed
stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.Property depth is not great enough to have two driveways and meet driveway
spacing requirement.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located on the site.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for additional details at 376-2903.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding water service to this
development.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to
determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be
required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the
Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for
additional details.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
~yi C d I:Pl I dyd I P d .C I ttd Cltl ~IFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C ttPI I d:~I I d
CATA:Site is located on bus route 414 and has not effect on bus radius,turnout
and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI I Pill:N
~Landaca e:No comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present
representing the application.Staff presented the item and stated they needed
guidance from the Committee.Staff stated the applicant was currently under
enforcement for clearing a site without a land alteration permit.Staff stated the
ordinance requires the applicant to submit a development plan but does not
outline what a development plan is to contain.Staff stated the ordinance
indicates two ways of appeal;one a grading permit and the second an appeal of
the grading permit being denied.
Staff stated the applicant had filed three applications.One was for a preliminary
plat to subdivide the site into two lots and the other two consisted of a site plan
review for Lot 1 a commercially zoned site,and a site plan review for Lot 2,a
multi-family zoned site.Staff questioned if the two site plan reviews were
necessary.
After a discussion,the Committee determined the proposed plat did meet the
intent of a development plan and the other two applications were not required
unless the applicant did have intentions of developing the site,as submitted.Mr.
McGetrick stated he would contact the owner and see if he wanted to proceed
with the site plan review applications.
Staff stated the additional information required for each item had been provided.
Staff stated if there were any questions,to please contact staff for specific
guidance.
There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item
to the full Commission for final action.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
H.ANALYSIS:
Preliminary Plat:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated the
proposed source of the water supplier,the means of wastewater disposal and the
names of recorded subdivisions abutting the plat.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed preliminary
plat conforms to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.The
platting along the zoning lines make logical sense for a future development
pattern for the site.Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge there are no outstanding
issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.The proposed plat should
have no adverse impact on the area,if platted as proposed.
Land Alteration Restoration Plan:
JCI submitted plans for an apartment complex on the northern half of the
property and an unidentified commercial development on the southern half.At
the subdivision subcommittee meeting,the applicant's engineer advised that
construction of neither project would likely be forthcoming.He was advised to
submit a restoration plan instead.
The submitted restoration plan shows bermuda grass sowed over the entire site
with 43 water oak trees (2-2.5 in caliper,10-12 ft tall)planted around the exterior
of the property.The plan also shows that 4 feet of fill will remain along the
southeastern part of the site.
Public Works has consistently taken the position that the site should be restored
as required by the ordinance.
The issue before the Planning Commission is whether JCI's plan(s)should be
approved and a grading permit issued.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends denial of the restoration plan.
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
applicant.The applicant was also present.There were numerous objectors present.
Staff introduced the item and stated there were several issues before the Commission.
Staff stated a preliminary plat had been filed as a restoration plan.Staff questioned if
the plat would suffice as a restoration plan.Another issue was should JCI be issued a
grading permit based on the preliminary plat and the two (2)site plans submitted,which
the applicant had not intentions of constructing.Staff stated they felt the restoration
plan should include landscaping.
Commissioner Faust stated the subdivision Committee members had reviewed the
issues and felt that a restoration plan was more in order than an inventive development
plan.
Dottie Funk spoke in opposition of the development.She stated the land alteration task
force was appointed four (4)years ago and two (2)years ago the ordinances were put
in place.Ms.Funk stated her request Has for the Commission to honor the ordinances.
She stated as far as the litigation,since the site was cleared,instead of punishment a
compromise would be more trees or more landscaping on the site.She stated the
applicant should give 50%more than was required by the ordinance.
Ms.Carolyn Hitman spoke in opposition of the proposals.She stated she was the
secretary of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Association had met
with the developer.She stated the clearing of the site had resulted in the loss of a bird
sanctuary and a buffer.She stated a majority of the trees were located on the south
side of the property near the Borden Dairy property.She stated the neighborhood
would like the application deferred until the developer could work with the neighborhood
to develop a restoration plan.
Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the development.He stated he would like to see
the site restored as required by the ordinance.
Mr.Pat McGetrick spoke on behalf of the applicant.He stated the restoration plan
would include leveling the site,adding 2 inches of top soil and place 45 to 50 trees of
2 inch caliper or greater on the site.He stated the applicant would work with the
neighborhood and staff with regard to placement on the site of the trees.
Commissioner Rector questioned what the ordinance required.
Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the restoration was to be
made as practicable as possible.He stated staff did not recommend approval of the
invented development plans.
6
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:S-1352
Commissioner Allen questioned 50 trees.He stated if the 50 trees were not enough
then what.
Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Commission was to determine what
was enough.
Mr.Lawson stated at some point in the future the site would develop.He stated it was
important to not place the trees in areas,which would once again be removed.
Commissioner Faust asked if anyone knew how many trees were on the site prior to the
removal.Mr.McGetrick stated the exact number of trees was unknown.
Commissioner Faust stated the application before the Commission was not a
restoration plan.She stated the applicant should bring back a true restoration plan and
not a plat for the site,which was not reflective of the restoration plan.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the restoration plan and what the plan
should include and the punishment the applicant should received for the violation of the
ordinance.
Mr.Lawson stated the Planning Commission should see a plan on paper prior to a vote.
Commissioner Lowery stated he strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the City
Beautiful Commission and seek their participation.
There was a motion to withdraw the building site plans and the plat and submit a
restoration plan in their place.The restoration plan would be heard at the October 31,
2002 Public Hearing.
The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick was present representing the
application.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a restoration plan,which was
agreeable to the neighborhood and to Staff.Staff stated the applicant had agreed to
install 3 to 4 inch caliper trees ranging from 15 to 18 feet tall.Staff stated the trees
would be placed in areas that were less likely to be disturbed when the site develops in
the future.Staff stated presented a positive recommendation of the proposed
restoration plan.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda and
approved as presented by Staff by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and 2 absent.
7
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1042-T
NAME:Villages of Wellington Phase 9 Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:On the Northeast corner of Wellington Village Road and Loyola Drive
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Winrock Development Company White-Daters and Associates
2222 Cottondale Lane ¹24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:47.5acres NUMBEROF LOTS:124 FT.NEWSTREET:6600
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:19 —Chenal
CENSUS TRACT:42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A 20-foot platted front building line on Lots 14-36 of Block 13 and Lots 1 —20 of
Block 14.(Approved Ordinance No.18,736 —Dated September 3,2002.)
2.Creation of a Pipe Stem Lot (Lot 21).(Approved Ordinance No.18,736 —Dated
September 3,2002.)
3.A five (5)foot platted side yard setback on Lots 6 —35 of Block 13 and Lots 1 —20 of
Block 14.(Approved Ordinance No.18,736 —Dated September 3,2002.)
4.A 10/o grade at street intersections.(Previously approved by the Planning
Commission.)
5.Reduced platted building line (15-foot)Lots 59 and 60 Block 15 and Lots 23 —34
Block 15.(Previously proposed with hillside development standards.)
6.Reduced platted building line (25-foot)on Lot 1 Block 13,Lots 32 —35 Block 14,
Lots 1-9,44-50 Block 15,Lots 4 —8 Block 18.
7.Reduced street width (24-feet)on Wellington Plantation Court (a portion)and
Wellington Parish Cove (24-feet).
October 31,20UZ
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1042-T
BACKGROUND:
The applicant presented at the August 8,2002 Public Hearing this site,which the
applicant proposed to subdivide this 47.5 acre site into 115 single family residential lots.
The lots were to be accessed by an internal connection of residential streets both 24
and 26 feet wide.A portion of the development was proposed to be rear loading,Block
13 and Block 14,with 18-foot alleyways connecting to the rear.The applicant
proposed a 10-foot restrictive access easement on the street side of Lots 14 —36 of
Block 13 and Lots 1 —20 of Block 14.
The applicant proposed a 20-foot building line to be located on several of the lots;in
Block 13,Lots 14 —36 and Lots 1 —20 in Block 14.The applicant also proposed all lots
in Block 13 and 14 to be smaller lots and developed as garden style patio homes with a
side yard setback of five (5)feet.The average lot size in this area is 60 foot by 120 foot
or 7200 square feet.Block 15 is proposed for large lot sizes.The average lot size in
the area is 80-foot by 150-foot or 12,000 square feet.
Due to the topography of the site,the applicant proposed 10%grades at street
intersections.The applicant also indicated hillside development standards apply to this
site.The average slope of the site is 10%with ranges from 7%to 18%near the
northern boundary of the site.The applicant indicated Hillside development standards
would be used to develop Lots 23 —34 and Lots 59 and 60 of Block 15.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved preliminary plat.The
request is to subdivide this 47.5 acres site into 124 single-family lots with the street
network remaining the same.The first four variances listed above were previously
requested and approved by the Board of Directors at their September 3,2002
meeting.The applicant is now requesting a reduced platted building line on a
portion of the lots fronting onto Wellington Village Court and Wellington Plantation
Drive.
The applicant proposes the development to be final platted in four phases.Phase I
will include Lots 1 —35 Block 13 and Lots 1 —20 Block 13 (55 lots).Phase II will
include Lots 1 —9,44 —61 Block 15 and 1 —5 Block 18 (35 lots).Phase III includes
Lots 10 —12 and 29 -43 Block 15 (18 lots)and the Phase IV 13 —28 Block 15 (16
lots).
B,EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site with several grade changes.Immediately
south of the site is the Property Owners Association Community Park,the Park at
Wellington,complete with swimming pool and playground equipment.The
proposed subdivision abuts the single family subdivisions of St.Charles and
Villages of Wellington.The area to the north is vacant R-2 zoned property as is
the area to the west.The are'a to the east remains undeveloped R-2 zoned
property.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1042-T
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from the area residents.The
St.Charles Neighborhood Association along with all abutting property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.The standard conditions shown on the plans as "Public Works Notes"apply
to the project.
2.Collector streets should be built to a standard collector width of 36-feet.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for project.
AP &L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Water main extension will be required to serve this property including
off site improvements,A water main extension may be required in order to
service this property.A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the
meter connection (s)will apply to this project.In addition normal charges
apply to all meter connections,except residential sprinkler meters.
~NC d t:Pl fl dfd t P d.C t ttd Cttl ~FFl
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Ct Pl t:N t l d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~Pt t Ct t t:~
~Landaca e:No comment.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1042-T
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White Daters and Associates and Mr.Doug McNeil of Winrock
Development Company were present representing the application.Staff
presented the item indicating additional items which were needed on the plat.
Staff stated Wellington Village Court and Wellington Plantation Drive were
classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets.Staff stated these would
require a 30-foot platted building line or a variance request was needed.Staff
also stated roadways were to be constructed at 36-feet and not the 31-feet as
shown.
Mr.White stated,Wellington Plantation Drive was a short street with Rahling
Road only "l~mile away.He stated the narrow roads would act as traffic calming
devices to slow thru traffic within the neighborhood.He stated the road should
be 36-feet at Rahling Road to allow for three lanes of traffic.
Staff and the Committee questioned why the applicant had not indicated any
trails to connect the neighborhood to the park facilities.Staff stated the residents
in the eastern portion of the development would be required to travel through the
neighborhoods on narrowed roadways crossing streets to reach the park
facilities.Mr.White stated he and his client would look into connecting the area
through trails.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated a
walking trail extending from Wellington Plantation Court to Wellington Colony
Court allowing the residents access to the Property Owners Association Park
without having to travel street side the entire way.The applicant has also
indicated the lots adjoining Wellington Village Court and Wellington Plantation
Drive to have a 25-foot platted building line;30-foot required adjacent to a
collector street.The applicant has requested a variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow the reduced front platted building line.
The applicant is proposing variances to platted building lines in portions of Block
13 and Block 14.The reduced front platted building line (20-feet)was approved
by the Board of Directors on September 3,2002 with Ordinance No.18,736.The
creation of a pipe stem lot was approved by the same ordinance and five (5)foot
platted side yard setbacks were also approved.The requested variances
previously approved will not require the passage of a modified ordinance since
4
October 31,
200'UBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1042-T
the lot and block number remained the same with the revision to the preliminary
plat.
The applicant has indicated a Phasing Plan with the subdivision to develop in
four phases.There are 124 lots proposed within the subdivision with the majority
of the lots being developed in Phase I (55 lots)and Phase II (35 lots).The
remainder of the lots will be developed in Phases III and IV with both phases
having lots which will utilize the hillside development standards;reduced platted
building line to 15-feet when average slopes exceed 18%.
The applicant proposes Wellington Plantation Drive and Wellington Village Road
to be 36-foot of pavement in a 60-foot right-of-way.This is standard street width
for collector street construction.The applicant has proposed,and was previously
approved,a reduced standard for the residential streets;Wellington Colony Court
and Wellington Colony Drive.The applicant is proposing Wellington Paris Cove
and Wellington Plantation Court (a portion)to be a reduced standard (24-feet of
pavement with 50-foot of right-of-way).Wellington Plantation Lane,Wellington
Plantation Court (a portion)and Wellington Valley Court will be constructed to
residential street standards (26-foot of pavement width).Staff supports the
requested reduced street standard.
Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat as filed.The design of the
subdivision is similar to western development standards.The average size of the
proposed lots is 60 x 120 and 80 x 150,somewhat similar to the lot standards for
neighboring subdivisions.The applicant proposes reduced platted building lines
on a portion of the lots and reduced street widths within the development to
enhance the village feel of the development.The applicant has also indicated
trails on the plat to encourage connectivity through the neighborhood to the
amenities of the subdivision.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:"
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff also recommends approval of the request to allow a reduced platted
building line (25-foot)on Lot 1 Block 13,Lots 32 —35 Block 14,Lots 1-9,44-50
Block 15,Lots 4 —8 Block 18.Reduced platted building line (15-foot)Lots 59
and 60 Block 15 and Lots 23 —34 Block 15.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated,to their knowledge,there were no
5
October 31,200~
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1042-T
outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated they
recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and the requested variances
associated with the proposed preliminary plat subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1301-A
NAME:Boen Center Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:On the Southeast corner of Colonel Glenn Road and I-430
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Boen Enterprises LLC McGetrick 8 McGetrick
10600 Colonel Glenn Road 319 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:72 45 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:18 FT.NEW STREET:1400
CURRENT ZONING:C-3 and 0-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:12 —65'"Street West
CENSUS TRACT:24.05
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Length of Cul-de-sac —Vista View Drive.
BACKGROUND:
On January 25,2001 the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat to subdivide
59.46 acres into 15 non-residential lots located at the southeast corner of Colonel Glenn
Road and l-430.The property was..zoned R-2 however,the Board of Directors
approved a rezoning for the site on January 16,2001 zoning the site to the current
classifications of C-3 and 0-3.
The proposed plat included easements for shared driveways for the proposed
commercial lots and a new street (Vista View Drive 880 linear feet of street)to serve the
office lots within the southern portion of the property.The applicant indicated the lots
would be final platted one at a time based on market demand.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved preliminary plat to
include additional acreage and increase the number of lots.The applicant has
October 31,200~
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1301-A
added acreage to the west of the 0-3 zoned property,increased the size of Lot 7
and added three lots,Lots 12,13 and 14.
The site is currently zoned C-3 (21.9 acres)and 0-3 (46.48 acres).The
applicant proposes to construct 1400 linear feet of street in the form of a cul-de-
sac with a 60-foot right-of-way (previously approved at 880 linear feet).The
applicant also proposes to construct one-half street improvements to Talley
Road.
Lots 1 —6 will access Colonel Glenn Road and Lots 6,7,8 and 18 will access
Talley Road.All other lots will be accessed from the private cul-de-sac,Vista
View Drive.The applicant proposes shared driveways for the commercial lots;
as was previously approved.The applicant also proposes the placement of a
35-foot restrictive access easement along the southern leg of Talley Road (Lots
14 —18)to allow no vehicular access to these lots.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow Vista View Drive to be
approximately 1400 feet in length.The applicant proposes the lots to be Final
Platted one at a time,based on market demand.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has been leveled and graded with basic infrastructure currently being
put in place.The site is currently zoned C-3 and 0-3 and adjoins l-430 to the
west and Talley Road to the south and east.Colonel Glenn Road is the northern
boundary.
Other uses in the area include the Clear Channel Metroplex to the north and a
mixed development of commercial and industrial uses to the northeast.
Scattered single-family homes exist along the east side of Talley Road in a very
rural setting.
Talley Road is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage.Colonel
Glenn Road is a two lane roadway with road improvements having been made
adjacent to the Clear Channel site.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The
John Barrow Neighborhood Association and all abusing property owners were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.Sidewalks conforming to Section 31-175 and the Master Street Plan are
required.
2
October 31,200M
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1301-A
2.The double 60"stormdrains that cross the property are to remain privately
maintained unless a satisfactory demonstration is made as to the adequacy
of the installation.Label stormdrains on the final plat as "privately
maintained".
3.All storm drain pipe under Talley Road is to be RCP.
4.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.
5.All previous comments on the plat apply.
6.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 Philpot)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.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Water main extension is required to serve some lots.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 private fire systems.
~Fi C d t:Pl fl ddd t F d .C t ttd tttl ~FFl
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~dt Pl t:N t l d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:...
~dt l Clif:N
~Landsca e:No comment.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1301-A
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering Company was
present representing the application.Staff presented the item indicating
additional information required on the plat.Staff stated there should to be a
restrictive access easement along Talley Road on the southern boundary of the
plat (running east and west).
Public Works comments were addressed.Mr.McGetrick stated the road
improvements to Talley and to Colonel Glenn Roads would be started in the next
few weeks.He also stated the applicant would work with Public Works
concerning the drainage inlet.
Staff noted water and wastewater comments.There being no further issues to
discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated a
35-foot restrictive access easement and open space buffer along the southern
lots (Lots 14 —18).Driveways will be common access easements along lot lines.
Lots 2 and 3 will share access and Lots 4 and 5 will share access from Colonel
Glenn Road.This access will connect to a 60-foot access easement along the
northern boundary of Lot 6 connecting to Lot 1.A 40-foot access easement is
proposed along the lot lines of Lots 6 and 7,which will connect to a 60-foot
access easement along the lot lines of Lots 11 and 12 and connect to Vista View
Drive.The applicant has done a good job of providing cross access within the
development and limiting the number of curb cuts.
The applicant has indicated the "lots will be final platted one at a time based on
market demand.Staff feels this would be an appropriate means of final platting
since the lots adjacent to Colonel Glenn Road will more than likely be developed
first and the office lots will come later.
Staff is supportive of the request.The proposed preliminary plat is somewhat
similar to the previously approved plat with the exception of the addition of the
acreage and lots in the southwestern portion of the site.The site is zoned C-3
and 0-3 with the lots conforming to the minimum lots sizes and building setbacks
for each zoning classification.
4
October 31,20uz
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1301-A
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of the Staff
report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:3 F I LE NO.:S-1356
NAME:Mabelvale Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:On the east side of North Chicot approximately 150-feet south of
Mabelvale Pike
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mabelvale Apartments LP RLK Engineering
1818 Cedar Dale Road 111 Main Street
Lancaster,TX 75134 Allen,TX 75013
AREA:10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:MF-18
PLANNING DISTRICT:15 —Geyer Springs West
CENSUS TRACT:21.02
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to constiuct 132-units of multi-family housing on this MF-
18 zoned property.There will be a total of nine buildings of housing and an
office/clubhouse on the site.The applicant proposes the buildings'xterior to be
constructed of brick and Hardi-siding.(Hardi siding is a cement treated fiber
siding material.)The apartment buildings are proposed to be a maximum of two-
stories in height and one apartment building and the lease office will be one
story.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
The applicant proposes the placement of a play ground area and swimming pool
on the site.There is a six-foot fence with 7-foot columns proposed around the
perimeter of the site.The fencing along North Chicot is proposed at 6-foot with
7-foot columns but will be placed within the 30-foot required building line.
The applicant proposes to place a development sign on the site,near the
northern driveway entrance.The sign is proposed to be five foot tall and nine
foot six inches wide.The sign will be constructed of brick and wood.
The applicant is also proposing a plat to remove a portion of the site,which is
located within the floodplain from the total site area.The applicant has indicated
this area will be incorporated into the single-family plat to the north and rezoned
in the future to open space or single-family.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is heavily wooded.There are a variety of uses in the area ranging from
single-family homes on acreage to typical single-family subdivision development.
The Village Green Apartments are located immediately south of the site and Old
Oaks Apartments are located adjacent to Mabelvale Pike just south of the site.
On the Interstate 30 frontage road is a mini-warehouse development (west of
North Chicot Road)and an area used for trailer storage (East of North Chicot
Road).
The site is adjacent to North Chicot Road,which is a very narrow unimproved
roadway with deep ditches for drainage.Just north of the site,North Chicot
intersects with Mabelvale Pike (making a sharp turn to the east)and North Chicot
continues to the north at a slight off-set.This intersection is dangerous due to
the narrowness of the roadway and the deep ditches used for drainage.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received numerous phone calls stating opposition to the
proposed development.The South Brookwood/Ponderosa Neighborhood
Association,the Town and Country Neighborhood Association,Southwest Little
Rock United for Progress and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.North Chicot is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
Dedicate right-of-way to 30-feet from the centerline.
2.Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalks with
the planned development.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
4.All driveway shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to
the start of work.
6.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.
7.Provide the direction of flow and all stormwater flows (Q)entering and
leaving the property.
8.Provide existing topographic information at maximum five (5)foot contour
interval and the 100-year base flood elevation.
9.A grading permit for Special Flood Hazard Area will be required per Section
8-283.
10.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 Philpot)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available on the site.Capacity Contribution Analysis will be
required,contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional details at 688-1414.
AP 8 L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:The facility on-site will be private.When meters are planned off private
lines,private facilities shall be installed with Central Arkansas Water'
material and construction specifications and an engineer,licensed to practice
in the State of Arkansas,will inspect the installation.Execution of Customer
Owned Line Agreement is required.The Little Rock Fire Department needs
to evaluate this site to determine whether fire hydrants are adequate.A
Capital Investment Charge,based on the size of the meter connection(s)will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.This fee will apply to all
meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire
system.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details.
~Fi C d I:Pl t hyd I P d .C t tth klttl ~IFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~IPI i:N t I d.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17 and ¹17A and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
~PI i Oiii:N
~Landsca e:The proposed area widths of land use buffers to remain
undisturbed do not meet with ordinance requirements.A total of seventy (70)
percent of the required land use buffer area must remain in its natural state.
Therefore,the required average width of undisturbed area along the northern
perimeter is thirty-one (31)feet.The required average width of undisturbed
buffer along the eastern perimeter is thirty-five (35)feet.The proposed plan only
allows for a undisturbed buffer width of nine (9)feet along both the northern and
eastern perimeters.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings is required along the
northern and eastern perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to submit an approved
Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on this tree-covered site.Extra credit can be given toward fulfilling
Landscape Ordinance requirements when properly preserving trees of six (6)
inch caliper or larger.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff introduced the item to the Committee indicating
the items,which were not shown on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the parking
proposed was insufficient to meet the minimum typical parking requirements.Staff
also stated the applicant had failed to provide a scale of the drawing so several of
the issues could not be considered.
Staff stated they would contact the applicant and try to resolve any issues prior to
the Commission meeting.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
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 200
parking spaces as a part of the development.This is sufficient to meet the
typical minimum parking requirement of 198 spaces.
The applicant has also proposed a six (6)foot wood fence around the
development with seven foot four inch (7'")brick columns.This is an
acceptable fence height since the applicant has indicated the fence along the
street frontage will be behind the 30-foot platted building line.
The applicant has indicated the development will contain two dumpsters.Each is
located near the rear of the development adjacent to the parking area.The
dumpsters will have proper screening in place,at least two feet above the
finished level of the dumpster,which conforms to the ordinance requirement.
The applicant has indicated landscaped areas and undisturbed areas on the site
plan.The areas to be left undisturbed average a width of 31-feet along the
northern and 35-feet along the eastern perimeter.The applicant has indicated
on-site detention near the northwestern boundary of the site.
The applicant has indicated there will be a single ground mounted monument
sign located near the driveway.The sign is proposed at 5'"tall and 9'"wide.
This sign area is larger than allowable under signage allowed in multi-family
zones,which is not to exceed 24 square feet in area.Staff is not supportive of
allowing the increased sign area.
The applicant has indicated a portion of the site will be split from the
development through the platting process.The portion requested to be removed
from the site is located within the floodplain and the lender will not fund a project
if any portion lies within the floodplain.The area to be removed is adjacent to the
detention area and adjoining the single-family to the north.The applicant has
indicated a rezoning request will be made in the future to rezone the property and
incorporate the area into the single-family plat to the north.Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff recommends approval of the overall site plan for the development and
denial of the proposed signage..Staff feels the applicant should revise the site
plan to indicated proper signage,area and height,as allowed in multi-family
zones.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with the proposed development plan.
5
October 31,20M
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1356
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision site plan review subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this
report.
Staff recommends denial of the proposed signage but recommends approval of
signage not to exceed signage allowed in multifamily zones (one identification
sign not to exceed twenty-four (24)square feet in area).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were objectors present.Staff stated the
applicant failed to notify adjoining property owners as required by the Planning
Commission By-Laws.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to
the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of the
request.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:S-1357
NAME:Malmstorm-White Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION:11621 Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Malmstrom-White Company Development Consultants,Inc.
11610 Kanis Road 2200 N.Rodney Parham Road
Little Rock,AR 72211 Suite 220
Little Rock,AR 72212
AREA:2.907 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:11 —l-430
CENSUS TRACT:24.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.Waiver of the Land Use Buffer requirement along the eastern boundary.
2.In-lieu contribution for street improvements.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to construct a third building (6100 square feei)on this
site which is currently zoned C-3.The northern building was last occupied by
Terminix (4135 square feet)and the southern building is currently occupied by an
office uses (1808 square feet).The applicant proposes the placement of the
third building adjacent to the west property line south of the Terminix building.
The applicant is proposing 37 parking spaces to serve the development.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1357
The applicant is requesting a waiver of the required Land Use Buffer for the
eastern perimeter.The applicant has requested the in-lieu contribution payment
for street improvements that were made by the prior owner to continue.The
applicant has indicated the owner will provide a current estimate to validate the
amount on deposit.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently zoned C-3 and contains three non-residential structures.
The building closest to Kanis Road was the former home to Terminix and the
structure in the rear (a converted single-family horne)serves as an office to a
construction contractor.The third building is located on the west property line
just south of the Terrninix building.The building is a small portable building used
by Sea,Inc.,a hazardous chemical recovery firm.
Kanis Road has not been improved in this area.The roadway is a two lane road
with open ditches for drainage.Other uses in the area include a mixture of
residential and non-residential uses.Immediately east of the site are three
converted single-family homes now serving as office uses.Immediately west of
the site is a single-family home with a large non-residential building,used by an
upholstery shop,behind the residence.A single-family home is located south of
the upholstery shop.North of the site are single-family homes and office uses.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one informational phone call from an adjoining
property owner.The John Barrow,the Gibralter Heights/Point West and the
Parkway Place Neighborhood Associations and all property owners within 200-feet
of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works:
1.The proposed right-of-way dedication is acceptable.
2.Provide an updated estimate of the cost to construct boundary street
improvements to this road frontage.Re-new and update the in-lieu
contribution currently held by Little Rock Finance Department.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d)
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer is available and not adversely affected.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1357
AP tt L:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 if additional or larger
water meters are needed.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate
this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)
will be required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.
~Fi C R t'.Pl fl .Iyd t P d .C t ttk Cltl ~FFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~IPI I:~t I d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius turnout or route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI I Ct I I:~
~Landsca e:A landscaping upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape
Ordinance equal to the building expansion proposed will be required.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings is required along the
eastern perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system or water source within seventy-five (75)feet of landscaped
areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to submit an approved
Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Eric Petty was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
and indicated the site plan did contain most of the required information.Staff stated
the existing building setback dimensions were needed on the site plan.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1357
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the site would require
storm water detention.Staff stated they would be receptive to an in-lieu fee as
opposed to detention.
Landscaping comments were discussed.Staff stated the applicant would be
required to upgrade landscaping,based on the building permit valuation.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated the
current cost estimate for construction of the boundary street would be
$14,377.00.The current balance of the in-lieu account is $17,159.92.The
applicant is proposing to re-new and update the in-lieu contribution held by the
Little Rock Finance Department as opposed to constructing half street
improvements.Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has requested a waiver of the Land Use Buffer requirements along
the eastern boundary of the site:Although not zoned as non-residential the uses
to the east are non-residential uses and Staff is supportive of this request.The
applicant proposes to place an opaque screen along the western perimeter of the
to screen the residentially zoned property even though one of the uses is non-
residential.
Staff has limited concerns with the potential site development and the number of
parking spaces.The site is zoned C-3 which if the site were to develop with
three buildings of commercial uses the typical minimum parking required would
be 40 spaces.The current proposal only includes 37 parking spaces and the site
is primarily office uses.With the current development the proposed parking is
sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking demand.Since the site is zoned
commercial Staff recommends the Commission place a condition on the
development that no use,which generates a parking demand greater than 1 to
300 be considered,uses for the site.
Staff is supportive of the requested site plan review.The proposal has met most
of the ordinance requirements.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed development.Staff
recommends approval of the request.
4
October 31,20u~
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1357
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E,F and H of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Robert Brown of DCI Consultants was present representing the application.There
were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and stated,to their knowledge,
there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed site plan review.Staff
presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed subdivision site plan review
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1358
NAME:Mountain Side Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:On County Line Road just west of Vimy Ridge Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
BAC Lending The Mehlburger Firm
1308 South Bowman Road P.O.Box 3837
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:20 FT.NEW STREET:1245
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT:16 —Otter Creek
CENSUS TRACT:41.04
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Reduced front building line for Lots 4 —6,8—
11 and 15-18.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.0-acre site into 20 residential lots.The
proposal includes the development of these lots into duplex and sixplex residential
housing through a Planned Development (Item 0 15 File No.Z-7298).The applicant
has indicated there will be 1245 linear feet of internal street,which will be maintained
as private streets as a part of the development.The proposal includes a gated
driveway with a two car stacking capacity and a turn-around for rnotorists to exit
when they are unable to access the site.
The applicant is requesting a reduced front platted building line on Lots 4 —6,8 —11
and 15 —18.The applicant proposes the front building line to be 20 foot on these
lots.
OctGber 31,2002
SU'BDIVI SIO'N
ITEM NO.:5 Cent.FILE NO.:S-1358
The pl'GpGSecl prellmin8ry pl8t Is tlecl d,llectly tG the requested pl8nnecl devBIGpm6nt
in th8t the IGt sizes prGpGsecl 8re such tG 8ccemmGcl8te the prGpGsed duplex 8nd
slxplex buildings being CGnsiclel'ed fGf CGnstructed.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is 8 wGGdecl site,slcping slightly frGm nGrth tG sGuth.CGunty I ine RG8d
Is 8 n8rrGw twG l8ne rG8d%8y with Gpen dItches fGf'lr8In8ge.There 8f'6 new
single-f8mily subdivisIGns develGping tG the sGuth in S8line Ccunty;CerringtGn
Pl8ce 8nd sGuth-FGrk.On the PUI8ski cGunty side there 8re single-f8mily hGmes
clevelGpecl Gn 8CII68ge ln 8 f'Ul'8I settIing 8ncl sIngle-f8mlly sul3dlvIslGns lGC8ted
nGfth Gf the site,8ccessed by Vimy Ridge RG8cl.At the nGrlhwest 8nd nGrthe8st
intersectiGns ()f Vimy Riclge RG8d encl CGunty Line RG8cl there is 8 DGll8r
GeneI'8l StGfe 8ncl 8 CGnGCG QU/ck StGp
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As Gf this writing,St8ff h8s receivecl numereus phGne c8lls in GppGsitiGn tG the
pfepGsecl clevelGpment.SGuthwest Little Reck Unitecl fGr Prcgress,the QU8il,Run
NeighbGrhGGcl AssGci8tiGn,the Alex8ndef Peed NeighbGrhGGd Asseci8tiGn encl the
Meyer I 8ne NieighbGrhGGd AssGci8tiGn,8ll pfepefty Gwners within 200 feet Gf the
site 8nd 8ll residents,whG cGUld be iclentified,within 300 feet Gf the site were nctified
Gf the public he8ring.
The Engineer 8lsG met with,the neighbGrhGGd 8t 8 well 8ttenclecl neighbGrhGGcl
meeting II50+residentsII.The 8ttenclees were ffGm the Alex8nder Reed
NiiBIght)GthGGd AssGcfetiGn,the QU8II Run NelghbGrhGGd,'AssGCI8tlen,the C8rnngtGn
PI8ce neighbGrhGGd,the SGuthfcrk neighbGrhGGd 8nd the City Gf Sh8nncn Hills
presidents 8nd the M8yGf,PGlice Chief 8ncl PI8nning CGmmissiGners).
l3.ENGINEERING COMMENTS;
Public AGrks:
CGunty Line Reed is cl8ssifiecl under the Meeter Street PI8n 8s 8 IGcel
street.Since the 88line CGunty line fGrms the sGuthern tight-Gf-w8y line cf
iCGUinty LIne RG8cl 8 mInImum 50-fGGt right-Gl'-w8y decllic8tIGn 8s m68sUI'Bd
f(Gm the cGunty line will be requirecl.
2 PrGvlde clesIgn G'f street CGnfGrml'ng 'tG the M8ster Street Pl8n CGnstruct
Gne-h8lf street imprGvements tG the street inclu(iling 5-fGGt sidew8lk with
pl8nnecl clevelGpment,
3.ApprGprI8te hi8nclic8p f'8mps wIII l36 requirecl per current ADA st8ndi8rcl.
4 All clrivew8ys sh8ll be cGncrete 8pfens per City ordin8nee
5.PI8ns cf 8ll wGrk in right-Gf-w8y sh8ll be submitted fGr 8ppfev8l prier tG st8ft
2
OctGber 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 CGnt..FILE N,O.:S-1358
Gf WGrk,
6,Obt8in permits prier tG dGIng 8ny street cuts Gr curb cuts.Obt8in berrlc8de
permit pAGI'G dGIng 8Ay WGrk ln the right-Gf-w8y.CGAt8ct Tl'8fflc
Engineering 8t (501)379-1817 (Derick Bergfield)for mere infGrm8tiGA.
7.StGI ITIW8ter deteAtlGAt GrdIA8nce 8pplltes tG this property,
8.ShGW B8semeAts fGI'II rn8jGI'rGpGsed s'tGITA df'8IA8ge 8nd detentlGA
f'8cilities.
9,A Greding Pelmit will be required per SectiGA 29-186 (c)5 (d].
10.Prep8re 8 letter Gf pending develGpment 8ddressing streetlights 8s required
by SectiGn 31-406 Gf the Little Reck Cede.Ccnt8ct Tr8ffic Engineeri~ng 8t
(501)379-1813 (Steve PhilpGt)fGr mere inform8tiGA reg8rcling street light
requll BITlle AtS.
11,lf this ls to l3e 8 g8ted cGrnrnunity,prGvide 8 prGpGsed entr8nce g8te cleslgA
th8t prevides 8 three c8r stecking depth 8A(l turn-cut exit for vehicles thet
BAter the dll Ivew8y but dG Aot BAtel"the site.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMPENT/COUNTY PLANNING;
A8stew8ter:Sewel'8IA exteAslGA required,with B8semeAts,if service Is
requ~ired fGr the project,CGnt8ct Little Reck A8stew8ter 8t 688-1414 fcr
8dditiGA8I det8ils.
AP 8 L:NG cGmment received.
ARKLA:NG cGrnmeAt received.
Southvvesterrl Bell:Nc corrlrtrlent received.
Aeter;W8ter m8in extensiGA will be required,CGnt8ct Centr8I Ark8ns8s Aeter
8t 992-2438 fGI"8ddl'tlGA8I det8IIs.
~ti D ~t:Pl*lt tttd t P *t.I'ttt I.III II ttl
Dep8rtrnent 8t 918-3752 fGr 8ddltIGA8I det8ils.
I~t.Pl I:II t I P.
CATA;Site Is AGt IGC8ted GA 8 dedlc8ted l3us rGUte 8nd h8s AGt effect GA bus
r8dlus tUI'Aout Gl'Gute.
F,ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
PI8nnin Division:NG cGmrnent.
~tt *:~
3
OztGber 31,2002
SUBDiViSION
iTEM NO.:5 Cent.PiLE NO.:8-1358
G,SUBDivisioN COMMiWEE COMMENT:(OGtGber 1i 0,2002I
Mr.Prenk Riggins Gf the Mehllburger Firm was present representing the appiicdtiGA.
Steff presentecll the deveiGpment pl8A indic8ting the dppiicBtiGA w8s twG part;8
preilimindry piet tG subdivicle the acreage intG 20 icts end 8 pienned clevelcpment tG
GGnstruct dupiex 8nd slxpiex units.
Mr,Riggins st@ted County Line Reel was entirely Gn the appiicant's prcpefty and
questiGllled wh8t stl'Bet ImpIGvernBAts wGuicl t)8 f'Bqull'ed,St8ff st8tecll ~/2 stl'68't
lmproverneAts WGuid be required l3Ut,the entire dediG8tiGA Gf right-Gf-W8y wGUlci
ais()be required (50-feet)Staff aisG stated,the /~street imprGVBments woulcl be
fll Gm the GB'A tel iine Gf the Bxistilng p8vement 8Acl AGt the centel liAB Gf the fight Gf"
W3,y,
St3fl'Gtecl GGfAmeAts frGm the W8tel 8nd wBstew8ter depaftmeAts.St8ff st8ted
the 8ppiicBnt shGulid GGnt3ct 88ch dep8ftment II'Gr 8dditlGndi inferm8tiGA.
18ndsc8plng cofnmBAIIs wef'8 cilscussecl with reg8rd,tG the I ezGAIAg f'Bqllest
The pf'GpGseci f'ezGAIng w8s alsG ciiscussed.St8ff AGtecl Bcl'ditlGABI informatiGA,
which weulcl t)B requirecl Gn the site plan.Staff stated if the community was to be
gated,8 turn-erGUnd wc Uid 48 requifeci.Stdff stdted it WGuld be pGssible tG ailGW
st8cking GA CGUAty LIAB RG8d,St8ff 8isG reqLlested t)uildiing eiev3tlGns 8nd
pfepGsecl building meteriais.Stan%questiGned the prGpGsecl ownership Gf the
cievelGprnent encl requested 8 detdited Bill Gf AssLIrance,which wouid gGvern the
site with reg8rd tG m8Inten8nce.
There being AG furthel Issues fGf'iscussiGA,the CGrArnlttee theA fGMarded the
item tG the fulfil CGmmissiGA fGr finai actiGn.
H.ANALYSiS:
The 3ppiicGnt sUbrnlttecl 8 revised piet tG St8ff addressing mGst of the IssUBs
reisecl by Staff encl the Suk)divisiGA CGmmittee.The appiicent h~as indicated
flGGdpieinlfloGdwey lnfGrmatiGAi Gn the plat.The eppleant has elsG prGvlcleci the
n8mes Gf pf'Gpefty GwABI's of Unpi8tted tr8Gts 8l3utting the prGposecl subdlivisiGA,
The 8pplicBnt has indic8ted the deveiGpment wlii t8ke pi8~In twG phases.Lots
I,2,13 —20 tG be fin@I pietted first with~the remainder Gf the iGts tG be findl
piatteci efter the units ere cGnstlucted:Gn these llGts.
Staff is nGt suppGrtive cf th~8 prepGsed request.The preliminary plat is directly
tied'G the planned deveiGpment encl Staff fs AGt suppGrtlve Gf the Pienned
DeveiGpment request.It is very unlikeiy that shGutld the pienned deveiGpment
October 31,20UZ
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1358
not be approved the applicant would proceed with the final platting of these lots
in this configuration.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed preliminary plat.The preliminary plat
and the Planned Development are a component of each and Staff is
recommending denial of the proposed rezoning request therefore,Staff is also
recommending denial of the preliminary plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Mr.Riggins stated he was under the impression the applicant would be allow a
deferral if fewer than nine (9)Commissioners were present.Mr.Riggins stated several
interested persons were told the item would be deferred to the November 14,2002
Public Hearing.Staff agreed they had also reported to area residents the item would
not be heard by the Commission until the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
Chairman Faust stated nine (9)Commissioners were present.Staff stated it was
possible when the item would be heard that fewer than nine (9)Commissioners would
be present.Chairman Faust questioned those who had signed cards in opposition of
the project if they were in agreement to allow the item to be heard at a later date.They
two objectors agreed.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and 2
absent.
5
October 3'I,2002
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:
There is not an item 46.
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:
There is not an item ¹7.
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-4028-C
NAME:Arkansas Baptist College —Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1621 Dr.Martin Luther King,Jr.Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Arkansas Baptist College/
Thomas J.Scott,Vice President
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to allow for
conversion of the former,college president's house,
located on the R-4 zoned property at 1621 Dr.Martin
Luther King,Jr.Drive,into the college president's
executive office suite.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The property is located at the northeast corner of West 17'"Street and Dr.
Martin Luther King,Jr.Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located in an area of mixed uses and zoning.The college
campus occupies 2+blocks of R-4 zoned properties across MLK,to the
west.The C-3 zoned properties adjacent to the north contain two
duplexes,a vacant commercial building and a restaurant.The
surrounding neighborhood is primarily zoned R-3 and R-4 and contains a
variety of residential uses,from single family to duplexes and multifamily.
No changes are proposed to this property.It will continue to appear as a
single family residence and,as such,should 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 Central High,Downtown
and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations were notified of this
request.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site contains a circular driveway,from West 17'"Street to M.L.King.
Utilizing the driveway and the two parking spaces at the garage,there is
room on the site for 4-5 vehicles.This 2,500'quare foot office use
requires 6 on-site parking spaces.The College President,a secretary and
two additional staff members will utilize the office.Meetings or events of 8
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4028-C
or more persons will be held on the main campus,across the street.In an
effort to maintain the residential character of the site,staff supports a
parking variance so no additional paving of the site will be required.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comments received.
Reliant:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comments received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding requirements for water
service.
Fire Department:No Comments received.
~Ct Pt t:N C
CATA:Site is on bus route 411 and has no effect on a bus radius,turnout
and route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item and noted that
information was needed regarding days and hours of use and signage.Staff
noted that there was little outstanding since no changes were proposed to the
site.
The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to
the full Commission.Staff stated they would meet with the applicant to obtain the
needed information.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4028-C
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-4 zoned property located at 1621 Dr.Martin Luther King,Jr.Drive is
occupied by a one-story,brick and frame,single family residence.The property
has been owned by Arkansas Baptist College for over 30 years and has,until
recently,been used as the college president's residence.The college campus
occupies 2+blocks located directly west of the site.The college proposes to
utilize this residential structure as the president's executive office suite.No "site
plan"changes,exterior changes or alterations to the building or landscaping will
be made.The building will be used as office space for the president,a secretary
and two additional staff members.Meetings or events of 8 or more persons will
routinely be held on the main campus.Typical days and hours of operation are
expected to be Monday-Friday,8:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,with occasional meetings
and activities after hours and on weekends.Signage will consist of a single,
ground-mounted sign identifying the site.The sign will be limited to office and
institutional standards;6 feet in height and 64 square feet in area.
A 2,500 square foot office typically requires 6 on-site parking spaces.The site
will accommodate 4-5 vehicles.In an effort to maintain the structure's residential
character and to limit the need for any additional paving on the site,staff
supports a variance to allow reduced on-site parking.The main campus is
located directly across the street and adequate parking is available on or near
the campus.
Staff did speak with the applicant subsequent to the Subdivision Committee
meeting and received responses to the issues raised at the meeting and
reflected in the analysis above.To staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding
issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance
with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the approved site plan.
2.Signage is to consist solely of one ground-mounted sign not to exceed 6 feet
in height and 64 square feet in area.
3.Any new site lighting is to be low-level and directional,aimed into the site.
Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a reduction in required on-site
parking.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4028-C
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.There was no further
dlscusslon.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
NAME:Stagecoach Village Revised PCD
LOCATION:On the Southwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and
Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Finley &Company Hurricane Valley Engineers
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118
Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807
AREA:1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PCD
ALLOWED USES:Selected Office and Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD
PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3 Uses
VARIANCESiWAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On September 5,2000,the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,342
establishing Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)Short-form PCD.The applicant proposed to
construct a 3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial
building and 54 parking spaces.At the time of approval,the applicant proposed to
convert the bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses)if a bank tenant could
not be secured.The site plan was later revised (June 26,2001)at a Staff level to
remove the bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
was increased to 10,800 square feet.The applicant proposed the building to be used
as 80%commercial (C-2 uses)and 20%office (general and professional).
The previous proposal included two driveway locations onto the site.The site has
developed with only one driveway location.
The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday.
A.P ROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial
Development to add the following listed uses as alternative uses for the site and to
market the site for 100%commercial uses.
The requested uses include:Amusement (commercial,inside),Animal clinic
(enclosed),Antique shop,with repair,Appliance repair,Bakery or confectionery
shop,Bank or savings and loan office,Barber and beauty shop,Cabinet and
woodwork shop,Camera shop,Catering,commercial,Church,Clinic (medical,
dental or optical),Clothing store,Custom sewing and millinery,Day nursery and
day care center,Day Care center,adult,Drugstore or pharmacy,Duplication shop,
Eating place without drive-in service,Establishment for the care of alcoholic,
narcotic or psychiatric patients,Establishment of a religious,charitable or
philanthropic organization,Feed store,Florist shop,Food store,Furniture store,
Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork,Hardware or sporting goods store,
Health studio or spa,Hobby shop,Jewelry store,Key shop,Laboratory,Laundry
pickup station,Laundry,domestic cleaning,Lawn and garden center,enclosed,
Library,art gallery,museum or similar public use,Lodge or fraternal organization,
Medical appliance fittings and sales,Office (general or professional),Office
showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed),Office equipment sales
and service,Optical shop,Paint and wallpaper store,Pet shop,Photography
studio,Private school,kindergarten or institution for special education,Retail uses
not listed (enclosed),School (business),School (commercial,trade or craft),
School (public or denominational),Secondhand store (used furniture or rummage
shop),Shoe repair,Studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance or other artistic
endeavors),Studio broadcasting and recording,Tailor,Taxidermist,Tool and
equipment rental (inside display only),Travel bureau.
The applicant is not proposing a change to the hours of operation or any site plan
modifications as a part of this request.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed as a strip retail center.There are seven bays with four
being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners,Subway,
beauty supply,gift shop).Other uses in the area include an office located on the
northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road.A Planned
Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and
is beginning to develop.
The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building.Access to the
site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received one phone call from an area resident.The Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all
property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comments.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Enfercnt:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~ki C d t:Pl fl kfd t P d.C t ttk I-litt R RFt
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~Ct Pl t:N I t d
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI i Oiii:~
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is located in an area
covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The
OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the
aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood-
friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial
Development Goal.The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting
commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and
between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.The plan also contains a
statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb
cuts and allow for attractive landscaping.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
~Bildi C d:N ~
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant was requesting
additional C-3 uses to be considered as alternative uses on the site.Staff stated
they had contacted the applicant and were working to resolve concerns
associated with a few of the requested uses.Staff stated they would continue to
work with the applicant to resolve as many concerns as possible prior to the
Public Hearing.
There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised list to Staff indicating uses,which the applicant
and Staff agreed were acceptable,non-obtrusive uses to the neighborhood.The
applicant has agreed there will be no outdoor display or sale of merchandise on
the site.The hours of operation will remain as previously approved (8:00 am to
10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday).
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
The applicant has also requested the center be allowed to be marketed to 100%
commercial uses.Based on Shopping Center parking ratio (1 space per 225 square
feet)the typical minimum parking requirement for the site would be 48 spaces.The
site has developed with 54 spaces,adequate to meet the typical minimum parking.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow the site to be marketed as 100%
commercial.
The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as Mixed.The is to be a planned
development if the use is entirely office or commercial.The applicant has met
this criteria by filing for a PCD.The site is also a single lot of a larger PCD with
has developed as office,commercial and residential.Staff feels the request to
market the site as 100%commercial is an acceptable request due to the overall
development pattern in the originally approved PCD.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request to revise the previously approved planned development to
allow the uses listed in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to revised the previously approved
planned development to allow the listed uses in Paragraph A as alternative uses for
the site and to market the site to 100%commercial uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Olan Asbury was present representing the application.There was one objector
present.Staff presented the item with'a recommendation of approval of the request to
revise the previously approved planned development to allow the listed uses in
Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site and to market the site as 100%commercial
uses.
Mr.Asbury stated the site was a developed site.He stated the overall development
consisted of 20+acres and was shown as Mixed on the Future Land Use Plan.He
stated the commercial building was approved with a mix of commercial and office uses.
Mr.Asbury stated with the proposed mix the development would not be allowed to
develop to full potential.He stated with the entire area under ownership developing as
a mix the need to hold the commercial site to a mixed use development was not as
critical.
Mr.David Henning spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated his
disagreement was in principal.He stated the original PCD was approved with a ground
mounted sign and the development had erected a pole mounted sign with back lighting.
5
October 31,20U2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:9 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F
He stated the original approval also included the removal of the driveway for Lot 2 off of
Stagecoach Road and onto Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Henning stated this had not
happened and with the current street design it appeared the driveway was not going to
be removed.
Mr.Asbury stated the driveway was to be removed at the time Lot 2 was Final Platted.
He stated a driveway to Lot 2 was in place on Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Asbury
stated the driveway from Stagecoach Road was being used by truck traffic to develop
the residential development to the west of the site.He stated when the applicant was
ready to develop Lot 2 then the driveway would be removed from Stagecoach Road and
access would be from the driveway that had been put in place from Stagecoach Village
Drive.
There was a lengthy discussion concerning the existing sign and the approved signage.
Staff stated the previous PCD approved a single ground-mounted monument sign.Staff
stated the request before the Commission did not include the sign issue.
Mr.Asbury requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing to
allow himself and Staff sufficient time to research the issue of signage with respect to
the previously approved PCD.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and
4 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Boyle Park Planning District
Location:South University just south of Boyle Park Road
~Reoeet:Office to Commercial
Source:Mare Yelenich
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Office to
Commercial.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale
sales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on the areas that they serve.
The applicant wishes to develop the property for self-storage and retail strip
development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 10
+acres in size.Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the
property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating
establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial.The land to the east across University
Avenue is wooded land north of the Cooperative Extension Service building which is
zoned R-2.The land to the south and west consists of property zoned R-2 and
developed with single-family houses.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On July 17,2001 a change was made from Singe Family to Park/Open Space at W.14'"
Street and Pierce Street about a /2 mile northeast of the application area to recognize
Oak Forest Park.
On October 17,2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi-
Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and
Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question to recognize existing
conditions.
The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.The area to
the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University Avenue.
The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional.The remainder of the
land to the south and west is shown as Single Family.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
MASTER STREET PLAN:
University Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built
to a four-lane width.Half street improvements would be needed to improve this section
of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards.There are no Bikeways
shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment.
PARKS:
There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that
are located within an eight-block distance of the applicant's property.
Boyle Park,located at W.36'"Street and Boyle Park Road,is shown as a 50+acre
Large Urban Park located west of the applicant's property.University Park,located at
W.12'"Street and Leisure Lane,is shown as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest
of the study area.Boyle Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational
opportunities,while University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis
Center.Oak Forest Park,located at W.14'"Street and Pierce Street,is shown as a
mini-Park under 5 acres northeast of the property in question and is designed
specifically to serve the needs of the Oak Forest neighborhood,which surrounds the
park.Curran-Conway Park,located at W.24'"Street and Monroe Street,is shown as a
as a 20-50 acre Community Park located east of the UALR campus and is located the
furthest distance from the amendment area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock
recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the
neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern.The only practical access
to the property in question is from University Avenue.The neighboring houses are
oriented in such a way that the back yards face the applicant's property.The
Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue.
The wooded lot is accessed from University Avenue.The street pattern of the area
isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential areas.
The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues:traffic,topography,scale,
and massing.Commercial development on this property could increase traffic on a
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
portion of University Avenue that is not built to Principal Arterial design standards.
Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on which this
property is located.Development on this property would also need a sufficient buffer
between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-family residences to
compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on the property.Without
sufficient buffers,the neighboring properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on
the applicant's property.Although there is a change in topographical elevation between
the site and the surrounding neighborhood,this application would allow development
that could result in a non-residential intrusion into the neighborhood.The massing,
scale,visual impacts,and noise generation of any development on this site should be
minimized to isolate the affects of any non-residential development on the neighboring
sing le-family development.
Most of the land shown as Commercial located along the west side of University
Avenue is on average about 150'+deep.This application would allow the development
of Commercial uses on a piece of property that is about 605'+deep.This increase in
depth could change the character of the neighborhood and allow the development of a
large area shown as Commercial on University Avenue that is located about half way
between the intersections of the arterials at W.12'"Street and Asher Avenue.The thin
strip of land shown as Commercial north of the applicant's property separates the
houses to the west from the traffic on University Avenue while no such barrier is
provided for the houses to the south.Most of the businesses to the north are small
neighborhood businesses.Any turnover in the businesses to the north would
accommodate room for another small neighborhood oriented business to move in.The
application area is large enough to accommodate a larger Commercial use that would
draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the
neighborhood.
Currently,this portion of University Avenue acts as a buffer between the University to
the east and the residential area to the west.Commercial uses at this location would
erode that buffer.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor
Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College
Terrace Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association,
University Park Neighborhood Association,Westwood Neighborhood Association,
Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association.
Staff has not received comments from area residents at the time of this report.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10 Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Commercial would extend the
strip of Commercial development to the south and intrude into the residential area to the
west.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission were
present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.
A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the November 14,2002
Planning Commission meeting.The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes,and 4 absent.
4
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:10.1 FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
NAME:Yelenich Long-form PCD
LOCATION:2000 Block of South University Avenue;on the West side
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Mare Yelenich ETC Engineers
110 South Shore Drive 1510 S.Broadway
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72202
AREA:10+Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3,with conditions,
for this site.The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping center
at this location.The applicant later withdrew the request and the property remained
zoned R-2,Single-family.
The Planning Commission later reviewed an application for the placement of non-
traditional multi-family housing on this site on February 14,2002.The proposed
development included dormitory style housing,four bedrooms sharing a common
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
kitchen and living area.The proposal included seven rows of structures,each separate
buildings,all three stories in height,all having a six car garage on the first level and two
levels of living area above.There were to be 43 buildings total.A building included
eight bedroom facilities,four on the second level and four on the third level.The levels
each had four bedrooms and a separate bath,which could be secured,and were to
share a common open area and kitchen facility.The applicant proposed,in addition to
the garage parking spaces,an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the
perimeter of the property.
The applicant withdrew the proposal after receiving an abundance of neighborhood
opposition to the development.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision as a part of the application.On Lot
1,the applicant proposes the placement of 90,000 square feet of self-storage,
mini-warehouse.The facility will be buffered by an undisturbed and terraced
area,with ground cover between retaining walls.The applicant is proposing a 2-
story 2,400 square foot resident manager's office as a part of the development.
The units will be ground level single story units.Approximately 25%of the units
will be climate controlled units.The applicant is proposing a sign located at the
entrance adjacent to South University Avenue.The sign is proposed to be a
monument style sign and be approximately 5-foot by 10-foot or 50-square feet in
area and have a time and temperature LED reader board.The applicant
proposes to operate a truck rental leasing service from the mini-warehouse office
building.
Lot 2 will consist of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3 uses being
requested.There will be approximately 10 individual business bays within the
development,however,the interior walls will be moveable to accommodate
various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants.The
applicant is requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot as well.
The sign will be located near the driveway at be approximately 10-feet by 15-feet
or 150 square feet in area.The applicant is proposing a LED reader board as
part of the signage.The applicant has indicated the building facade will have
sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant tree covered site,which has been previously graded and
somewhat leveled.The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree covered
with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension Service
Center.Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as check
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
cashing,liquor store and restaurants.Uses to the south and west of the site are
single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O'oods neighborhoods.
South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this
location.Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the north
at Boyle Park Road.Currently there are plans to widen South University Avenue.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received several phone calls both in support and
opposition of the proposal.The applicant has met with the Neighborhood
Associations and the area residents prior to submission of his application.
All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site and the Broadmoore,the University Park,the Oak Forest,
the Point O'oods,the Curran Conway and the 25 residents who signed in at an
information meeting held September 23,2002 were notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.University Avenue 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.
2.Provide design of street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct one-
half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.This requirement will be waived if the bids have been opened
for the planned University widening project prior to approval of the building
permit.No new median cuts are allowed on University.
3.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.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property as indicated on the
plans.
5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required.
6.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).Hillside cuts
must comply with the land alteration ordinance including but not limited to a
15-foot maximum cut between benches (the plan shows 17').Cuts over 10-
feet vertical must be faced with architectural stone.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:A 10-foot utility easement along the north,west and south
property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be required.
Water:No objection.
~yi 0 d t:Pl I kyd t P d.R I ttk Ittl ~IFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~dk Pl I:N I I d.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17,¹17A and ¹21 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for
a Planned Commercial Development to allow a mini-storage development and
retail shopping.
A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on
this agenda.(Item ¹10 File No.LU02-10-06)
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:The proposed land use buffer along the northern and
southern perirneters are required to have an undisturbed average width of
twenty-one (21)feet.This takes into consideration the transfer allowed for the
wide buffer proposed along the western perimeter.The full undisturbed width
required without this transfer credit is twenty-eight (28)feet.The proposed
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
undisturbed buffer width along the southern perimeter is ten (10)feet.
A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the
northern,southern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide copies of
an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
~BilCh ~C d:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Mark Yelenich was present representing the application.Staff presented the
proposed development indicating additional information needed on the site plan.
Staff questioned if there was to be any outdoor storage,boats,campers,etc.
Staff also requested details of the proposed signage.Staff requested the days
and hours of operation and the estimated number of bays for the retail center.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to pay improvement cost for the
widening of South University Avenue if a building permit were obtained prior to
the letting of the bid on the publicly financed widening project.Staff stated there
would not be any additional median cuts allowed on South University Avenue.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated at least 70%of the buffer
was to remain undisturbed.Staff stated the southern land use buffer should
maintain an average width of 21 feet.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
there will be no outdoor storage on the site (no boats,campers,etc.)and has
indicated the dumpster location with the proper screening.The applicant has
also indicated the project will be built in three phases.Phase I will consist of
construction of the resident managers/office building and the construction of the
two mini-storage buildings,which run east and west.Phases II and III will
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
consist of the construction of the two additional mini-warehouse buildings and the
construction of the retail building.The applicant has indicated he will not
construct the retail center until he is 50%pre-leased.He has indicated he will
not construct the additional mini-warehouse buildings until Phase I of the mini-
warehouse is 70%leased.
The applicant has requested a 2-foot by 10-foot sign located adjacent to the mini-
warehouse development.He is requesting the sign be allowed LED time and
temperature display within the sign area.The signage for the commercial center
is proposed as a monument sign 3-feet by 10-feet sign area with a LED reader
board.The applicant also proposes to park a 16-foot moving van with an
advertising logo on the side adjacent to the street.The van will be made
available to persons renting the mini-warehouse units.Staff is not supportive of
the placement of the moving van on the site near the street.Staff feels (although
not an actual sign)it will have the appearance of a billboard.
The applicant proposes the self-storage hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday and
closed on Sunday.The gate hours are proposed to be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm
7 days per week.For an additional fee the applicant has indicated tenants would
have 24-hour access to the site.The intent is not to collect an additional income
but to limit the number of tenants entering after normal gate hours.The applicant
has stated the retail building will have approximately 10 different businesses and
their hours of operation may vary.Staff is not supportive of not limiting the hours
of operation on this site and leaving the possibility of 24-hour operations open to
a potential user.
The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental/leasing office (Penske Truck
Rental)from the site as well.The applicant has requested two spaces be
designated as truck parking.He has stated the site would not have more than
two truck on the site at a time but there were times when there would not be any
trucks on the site.Staff is not supportive of this request.
The applicant proposes a resident manager on-site for the mini-warehouse
development.The development will consist of a two (2)story 30x40-foot
structure to act as both the office/retail sales area/break-room with the living
quarters upstairs.
The applicant proposes the office/residence to have either standing seam metal
or asphalt shingle roofing material with a 20-foot eave height;the roof will be
constructed on a 6 on 12 pitch'.The self storage buildings are proposed with
standing seam galvanized metal roof with an eve height of 10.5 feet;the roof will
have a /4 on 12 pitch and will not be colored.Staff recommends the roofs be
6
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
constructed of non-reflective materials to lessen the heat vapors and to avoid any
potential impacts to surrounding neighbors.The applicant proposes the retail
center to be either a standing seam or screw down metal roof with a front eave
height of 21-feet.There will be a parapet on the front of the building,which
would add an additional 9-feet to the finished building height.The maximum
building height in C-3 zoning district is 35-feet,consistent with the applicant's
proposal.
The applicant has indicated undisturbed areas to the north,south and west
property lines consistent with the land use buffer requirements.The applicant
has also indicated a cut and two (2)benches in 10-foot intervals along the
western boundary to eliminate concerns of the Land Alteration Ordinance.The
applicant is proposing riprap along these benches,which from an engineering
standpoint is a workable alternative.From a design standpoint it is not a
workable alternative.Staff is not supportive of the request to place riprap along
the entire area.Staff feels the applicant should install a split faced block wall
along the top terrace,which will be visible from the street and the riprap
treatment along the lower terrace.
Although Staff has some concerns with the proposed development,the
workability of retail on South University Avenue without a median break,Staff is
inclined to support the proposed development.The addition of mini-warehouse
to this site,Staff feels is a viable development approach.Typically mini-
warehouse development is a low traffic generator,destination bound
development and the hours of operation are not typically intrusive to the
neighbors.Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to do too much on the site.
Staff cannot support the unlimited hours of operation for the retail or the mini-
warehouse center.Staff feels the development should be limited to hours of
operation consistent with development in the area.
Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the applicant's truck to be parked
adjacent to South University Avenue and act as additional signage.Staff also
does not support allowing the applicant to operate a truck rental business from
the site.Once again Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to conduct to many
activities on this site.
Staff cannot support the proposed treatment of the slope on the rear (western
boundary)of the site.Staff would recommend the applicant install an
architectural wall on the top portion of the sloped area and then the riprap along
the lower tier.Even though motorists are traveling at a somewhat higher rate of
7
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:10.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B
speed through the area,the rock will be visible from the street and the parking
lot.Staff feels the addition of the block wall will enhance the development adding
to the design theme the applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue.
Staff is in support of the concept to the proposed development.Staff feels
should the applicant revise his application to include the recommendations
included above and limit the number of uses proposed on the site after which
Staff could possible support the proposed development.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the
applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were
present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present.
Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved
by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent.
8
October 31,2 2
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
NAME:Wal-Mart Site Plan Review
LOCATION:Southeast Corner of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.Garison Consulting Engineers
2001 S.E.10'"Street 7731 Highway 70,Suite 210
Bentonville,AR 72716-0550 Bartlett,TN 38133
AREA:28.4 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
(7.84 acres subject to site plan review)
CURRENT ZONING:C-3
ALLOWED USES:General Commercial
PROPOSED ZONING:C-3
PROPOSED USE:C-3,General Retail —Wal-Mart Supercenter
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On December 20,1988,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.15,603,which
rezoned several tracts of land as a part of the Deltic Master Plan from Residential
zoning to various multi-family,office and commercial zoning districts.That action
rezoned 7.860 acres located at the southeast corner of Highway 10 and Chenal
October 31,2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
Parkway from R-2 to C-3.The approval of the C-3 zoning was conditioned upon a site
plan review,by the Planning Commission,prior to development and a provision of a 40-
foot landscaped setback adjacent to Highway 10 and the Chenal Parkway.
Ordinance No.16,459 rezoned additional properties contained within the proposed Wal-
Mart site.The Ordinance was approved by the Board of Directors on July 20,1993,and
rezoned 8.7051 acres from R-2 to C-3,General Commercial.
Ordinance No.18,628,adopted by the Board of Directors on January 2,2002,rezoned
an additional 10.92 acres from R-2 to C-3,General Commercial.This area was to the
south of the C-3 zoned property and adjacent to Chenal Parkway.At the time of
rezoning the applicant also requested and was approved rezoning further south.The
zoning approved was 0-2 on 10+acres adjacent to the Parkway and 10+acres of OS
zoning nearer the single-family neighborhood to the east.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
As a condition of the 1988 zoning,approximately six (6)acres of this site is
subject to site plan review.The applicant intends to develop the 28.4 acres as a
210,396 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter,associated parking and service
areas.The parking lot consists of 988 parking spaces,including 24 handicap
accessible parking spaces.
Two driveways will provide access to the proposed project from Cantrell Road
and two driveways from Chenal Parkway.The southernmost driveway on
Chenal Parkway will be aligned opposite the existing Northfield Drive and is
proposed to be signalized.This drive will be a shared drive with the currently
undeveloped property to the south (zoned 0-2),thus helping to limit future
access points on the Parkway.Improvements will be provided on Chenal
Parkway and Cantrell Road as coordinated with the City of Little Rock.
The development will be buffered from surrounding developments by the
required landscape buffer areas and internal landscaping.Additionally,the
stormwater detention area is proposed to be located to the east of the building
within the existing Entergy easement.The addition of Iow height landscaping
within this presently clear-cut area will provide a visual enhancement to the
Highway 10 Corridor.The placement of this landscaping will provide a significant
buffer to those properties lying to the east of the development.Additionally,the
OS zoned area to the south of the property will provide a substantial buffer
immediately south of the proposed Wal-Mart building.By orienting the building to
face Chenal Parkway,the building has been located at the furthest possible
distance from those properties to the west and southwest of the development.
2
October31,2,.2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant,heavily wooded site.Chenal Parkway,in this area,is a two
lane road and Cantrell Road is a four lane road with a center turn lane at the
intersection of Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Road.
Other uses in the area include a Quick Stop Service Station on the northwest
corner and mini-warehouses on the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and
Cantrell Road.The southwest corner is zoned C-3,General Commercial and is
currently undeveloped.There is an Entergy easement along the east property
line with a church located further to the east of the site.Vacant 0-2 zoned
property is located to the south of the site with OS zoned property located
between the office zoning and the single-family residential located further south
and east of the proposed development.South and west of the proposed
development are also single-family residences adjoining vacant 0-2 and C-2
zoned property.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writings Staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.Staff has also received several phone calls in support of
the proposed development.The Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association,the
Bayonne Place Property Owners Association,the Aberdeen Court Property
Owners Association and the DuQuesne Place Property Owners Association,all
property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be
identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway are classified on the Master Street Plan as
principal arterials.A minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55-feet from
centerline will be required.
2.Provide design of the streets conforming to Master Street pan.Construct one-
half street improvements to these streets,including 5-foot sidewalk,with planned
development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.Plans of all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work.
3
October 31,~.2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required Section 29-186(e).Also
provide critical cross sections through the site that demonstrate compliance with
the cut and fill requirements of the land alteration ordinance.
7.Grading permits are required prior to construction.
8.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Provide easements for
detention.
9.An NPDES permit will be required for this project.Contact the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality for approval prior to the start of work.
10.Provide the direction of flow and all stormwater flows (Q)entering and leaving
the site.
11.0n site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,Traffic
Engineering for approval with the site development package.
12.Street improvement plans shall include signage and striping.Traffic Engineering
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
13.Obtain permits (barricade/street cut)for improvements within proposed or
existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in the right-of-
way.
14.Obtain permits for improvements within the State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD,District Vl.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:It is recommended that water service be taken off the 16-inch water
main on the east side of Chenal Parkway.Contact Central Arkansas Water at
992-2438 to discuss this option.
PdiO t ~t:Add d d tlt d.
~Ct Pt t:~t t d.
CATA:At this time the site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.However,CATA would like to have
bus access on this site similar to the Wal-Mart on Bowman Road.
4
October 31,2 2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI i Oiii:N
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The site is located in an area that
is not currently covered by a Neighborhood Action Plan.
Landsca e Issues:The width of the proposed perimeter landscape strip north of
the proposed drive-way,which leads to Chenal Parkway,drops below the
twenty-five (25)feet required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District and
the nine (9)feet required by the Landscape Ordinance.Additionally,the
width of the proposed northwestern perimeter landscape strip drops below the
twenty-five (25)feet required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
The proposed northeastern parking lot needs additional interior landscaping.
Interior landscape islands must be at least three hundred (300)square feet in
area.
Interior islands adjacent to the area marked "future development area"need
to be increased to at least three hundred (300)square feet in area and be
designated for interior landscaping in order to help distribute interior trees
throughout the parking area.
The fifty (50)foot wide existing Entergy easement must be legally abandoned
in order to count toward fulfilling land use buffer requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plants are required along the
eastern perimeter on the site.Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be
given for existing trees and vegetation that satisfies this year-around
screening requirement.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is required.
Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as
feasible on this tree-covered site.Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance and Highway 10 Design Overlay requirements can be given when
properly preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
5
October 31,2~2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
~Bdd dd:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Dean Garison and Mr.Joseph Parsley of Garison Consulting Engineers were
present representing the application.Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,
presented the parameters of the site plan review.He stated 7 acres were
previously subject to site plan review.He stated 2 acres of the 7 were not a part
of the Wal-Mart development.He stated the review was a technical review and if
the applicant met the requirements of the ordinance,the development should be
approved.
Staff then presented the site plan to the Committee and requested additional
information be shown on the site plan.Staff stated the parking was more than
adequate to meet the typical minimum parking requirement.Staff requested the
applicant indicate a cross access easement to Lot 1 of Chenal Valley Phase II
Commercial Subdivision.
Public Works requested cross sections and grading plans.Staff stated the site
was a rather large site and cross sections would be necessary to determine the
need for variances from the Land Alteration Ordinance.
Staff questioned the detention location.Staff stated they would require in writing
approval from Entergy for placement of the detention under the power lines.
Staff stated this was not a common practice and verification would ease any
future concerns.Additional landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated
the applicant must follow through with the formal abandonment (or have a long
term binding agreement)of the portion of the easement desired to serve as the
land use buffer and allow the easement to serve as the required buffering.
There was discussion concerning the traffic light at Highway 10 and Chenal
Parkway.Staff stated the traffic light would be paid for by the developers.Staff
stated Deltic would contribute 50'/0 of the cost,Northwest Territory would pay
20'/0 and Wal-Mart would pay the remaining 30/0.
There was a question as to if the Bowman store would be closed as a result of
the development.Mr.Garison stated it would not.He stated the new store was
a supercenter where the Bowman store was only a retail center.
Staff questioned if there would be any outside storage.The applicant indicated
there would not.He stated the Chenal Design Review Committee had indicated
there was to be no outdoor storage,display or sales of merchandise and the
store would have an expanded stock room and garden center to accommodate
the seasonal items.
6
October 31,2,.2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANA LYSI S:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has provided a copy
of the lease agreement between Entergy and the applicant indicating the use of
the eastern fifty feet of the Entergy right-of-way.The agreement states
vegetation growth may not exceed 12-feet in height and that Entergy and its
successors will not cut any trees,plants or natural vegetative growth within the
Green Belt Buffer if such would result in the buffer not being in compliance with
the applicable buffer ordinance of the City of Little Rock.
The applicant has also indicated interior islands of the parking area will conform
to the three hundred (300)square feet area requirement.The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25)foot landscape strip along the area north of the
proposed driveway (from Chenal Parkway).
The applicant has also indicated access will be provided to the previously platted
lot (Lot 1 Chenal Valley Phase II Commercial Subdivision).Due to the terrain in
the area the exact access location has not been determined but as requested by
Staff the applicant has agreed this access will be provided when a suitable
location is determined and agreed to by Staff and both property owners.
The applicant is proposing two ground-mounted signs.One is to be located at
the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Northfield Drive the second near the
primary drive from Cantrell Road.The sign proposed for Northfield Drive is
proposed at forty (40)square feet in area,well within the Chenal Overlay District
requirements for signage (maximum of eight (8)feet in height and one hundred
(100)square feet in area).The sign proposed along Cantrell Road is proposed
at six (6)feet in height and seventy-two (72)square feet in area;complying with
the highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements.
Site lighting has been addressed.The applicant has indicated site lighting will be
provided by 1000 watt metal halide fixtures on 40-foot black steel poles.The
applicant states fixtures shall contain all horizontal bulbs with flat lenses to
control glare and over spill of lighting.The site plan states lights will be directed
away from adjoining properties and no floodlights will be used.
The applicant has indicated 988 parking spaces as part of the development.The
typical minimum parking required would be 701 spaces.The proposed parking is
7
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
more than sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant has indicated all comments provided by Public Works will be
adhered to.The applicant has contracted with a traffic engineer to determine
what road improvements will be required as a part of the development.This
information is not available at this time and will be forthcoming to the
Commission at the October 31"Public Hearing.
The applicant and the property owner of Lot 1 Chenal Valley Phase II
Commercial Subdivision have agreed to allow the internal driveway to act as an
internal street to route motorists to the traffic light at Chenal Parkway and
Northfield Drive.This will remove the need for a median break (previously
approved Ordinance No,17,870)allowing left turns onto Chenal Parkway.
Previous preliminary plat approvals have secured the funding for a portion of the
traffic signal at Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Road.Deltic has agreed to pay
50%of the cost (S-867-NNN -Chenal Valley Phase II Commercial Subdivision
Preliminary Plat —November 1998)and Pfeifer Development Company will fund
20%of the cost (S-200-D -Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat -October 1997).
The applicant has agreed to contribute the remaining 30%of the cost as a part of
this development.
The landscaping,building setbacks and signage conform to all provisions of the
Chenal Overlay District and the Highway 10 Overlay District.Otherwise,to
Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed
site plan review.Staff is supportive of the proposed site plan and feels the
applicant has met the intent of the ordinance with regard to setbacks,buffer
requirements,landscaping requirements,parking ratios and all other technical
aspects of the ordinance.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan review subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Dean Garison and Mr.Ernie Peters were present representing the application.
There were objectors present.Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,detailed the
Commission's role in the site plan review.Staff presented the proposed development
along with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the development was to be an
entirely closed development with on outside sales of seasonal items or storage
container for excess inventory.
8
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
Mr.Dean Garison of Garison Consulting Engineers detailed the project to the
Commission.He stated the development would be required to appear before the
Chenal Valley Design Review Committee prior to construction.He stated detailed
building elevations were not available since Wal-Mart and the DRC had not reached an
agreement with regard to building materials.
Mr.Ernie Peters presented the traffic study to the Commission indicating the level of
service at the primary intersections during peek hours would not be reduced but would
in fact be enhanced.Mr.Peters stated there were basic assumptions made when the
traffic model was presented.One of which was that 40 percent of the traffic would be
from the east,20 percent would be from the west,5 percent from the north,2 percent
from Northfield and 33 percent from the south.He stated the infrastructure would be in
place prior to the opening of the store.
Mr.Garison stated Wal-Mart was agreeable to the request of Central Arkansas Transit.
He stated the store would install a bus shelter and the required curb radius as
requested.
Mr.Mark Wright spoke on behalf of the property owners of Lot 1.He stated the
property owners of Lot 1 had been working with Wal-Mart to ensure clear access to the
separate lot and not allow the traffic from Lot 1 and Wal-Mart to be conflicting.He
requested prior to a building permit being issued that an agreement between the two (2)
property owners be executed and duly filed.
Mr.Chris Palmer spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated the
current proposal allowed for seven (7)lanes of traffic to be dumped into a two (2)lane
roadway.He also stated with the proposed lighting there would be a tremendous
overspill of lighting to neighboring properties.He requested the developer install 30-foot
poles as opposed to 40-foot poles and reduce the wattage of bulbs to 400 watts.Mr.
Palmer requested the Commission not approve the site plan until a building design had
been presented.
Mr.Sharp Malak spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated he had
concerns with the environmental impacts of the proposed development.He stated 6000
cars per day was not as likely to cause health problems as 20,000 to 30,000 cars per
day.
Mr.Malak stated he had stood at the entrance to the Aberdeen Subdivision on Saturday
and within one and one-half hours had received the signatures of twenty-five percent of
the homeowners in opposition of the proposed development.
Ms.Alicia Finch,President of Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association,spoke in
opposition of the proposed development.She stated traffic on Highway 10 was
severely congested and the addition of a Supercenter would only add to the traffic
9
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:11 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5097-C
congestion.She stated the site was a part of the watershed for Pinnacle Mountain.
She questioned the use of a utility easement as a detention basin was an acceptable
practice.
Ms.Finch stated the development would be approved.She stated the concern of the
residents was the non-involvement.She stated the residents should be allowed to be
involved in the design process to ensure a compatible architectural style.
Mr.Brent Sawrie spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated his
opposition was to the increased traffic flow into a Supercenter store.He stated the
traffic projections indicated 20 percent of the traffic from the west.He questioned this
assumptions stating Perry County was the least populated county in the state.
Mr.Tom Draper spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He presented the
Commission with a petition from the property owners opposed to the development.He
presented a history of the rezoning of the property to the south of the site indicating
Staff had stated there was sufficient commercially zoned property in the area only to
change their recommendation six weeks later when the applicant increased the acreage
of the proposed rezoning and added office and open space zoning classifications to the
request.He questioned when Chenal Parkway would be expanded to a four (4)lane
roadway.
Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,spoke of the proposed development citing
scale as the reason for opposition.She stated proposed development was a regional
development and would impact the region not just the neighborhoods around the site.
She stated the proposed parking was 100+spaces more than was required by the
typical minimum parking requirements and questioned if the applicant would consider
reducing the number of spaces.She stated the proposed development did not appear
to be something that would fit but was just a big development.
Mr.Kevin Sebrowski spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated he
was not opposed to commercial development but to the proposed project.He stated
the proposed development did not fit into the neighborhood.He stated the Wal-Mart
store on Bowman was not in close proximity to a residential neighborhood like the
proposed development on Chenal and Highway 10.
Mr.Chris Stuart spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated he and
his wife purchase their home to escape the urban sprawl of Little Rock.He quoted from
the Chenal brochures stating this type development was not a part of their Master Plan
as presented to homeowners.He stated with the development of a Wal-Mart on the site
property values would be severely impacted and residents would be trying to escape.
10
October 31,2GUa
SUBDIVISION
ITEMNO.:11 Cont,PILE NO.:Z-5697-0
Staff addressed the topic of detention.Staff stated the use ot easements for detention
was a common practice In the city.Staff stated the city dKI not have criteria lln place fol
the location of detention under power lines and the applicant had indicated all city
ordinances would be adhere to and met.
Staff stated Chenal Parkway would be widened to a four (4)lane roadway at the point
when the traffic counts reached 12,GGG cars per day.Staff stated the counts were very
close currently and the proposed development would more than likely trigger the street
imprcvements,Staff stated the proposed design was not new but was In f'act the
Meeter Street Plan requirements which had been put in place many years ago.
The(8 was a general discussion concerning access points,stf'eet improvements and site
lighting.The applicant agreed to amend the application to include 3G-foot poles with
4GG watt bulbs.
A motion was made to approve the proposed development as filed to include all,Staff
recommendations and comments.The rnotlon carried by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and 2
absent,
11
lo/io/02 ~L5:28 FM @O02
~s Fst.69/i8/2662 A(II:23:25 -xrQrss to -561 4cl6 4746 ts3Ã5
6R]".BE]'..7 &FF .ST CTIA
&&
f gag
Fm',s]],@
N rW]ssIFF CMIt],
KNCI%'LI.MEN ]3'f'It'HESE PRESENTS:
RH]'RPAS,]rntcfgy Afkarlsaz,,inc,("Kntcfgy")]sas a Fige-Qf-way ovcf.Upon.arid acfcss thcfv]I('Isis'Usg fca]pfopcsty owned by Dc]t'IC Tjfnbcf Cofpofativn,(Dc]tsc ),to-%]1,."
A fll+t OI &ay 289 feet ssrjde Gt foiis I]M %sA NE 1 J'4 vf Scctlcn 22 Gxlicl thc ]ST:;l/4 of Scc]lcn 15,c]]ln TQwnshlp 2 North.Rassgic 14 RcÃt PU]nskl t Qusf(V,Afkassszs,said fight Qf'vay eatcrsdjfsg 149 feet on each side of't]sc c~~w Ijne of thepfopQscd,Fl @t Qf %ssy~said ciefst cf ]ln 8 being Fnc fe p afts cu]ef ly descf shed 88,D]stqlNN]NO at a pciflt on t]sic Scuth ]jnc Qf~qjd gf g ~I /4 l49 feet fncfc or ]ess0/cst c f'the SF.cosTsef thefcof;thence X~4 ljcgfccs 33 ~ute'tefe QF less %'cs42f79feet„n'sofa of less,fo Ass arsg]c po~"„&estccNofkh 4 dcgfecs 30 ~utes %csf,ll 323 feet rnvl"c ot'cR!s to Bln Bng]c posnt'„,fhencc North 3 degfc88 00 Tnlnv]es fnQPC ofless%cA 5'70 feet Kniofc Ql'css to afl ang]c polrlt'hence s]vFIls 3 Ngfees 35 ~utes%cI(t 1,I 69 fl.*ct,rncs'c of lese,tc a pojfst Qf'Tention on the 5 QM linc of said ]s 'i%'~'-'ls ],./'4 140 kcil,West Qf the Ki]l ccfnef the ccl",su]s]cct to exjvtsng tfans~ssjcs)Ilflc Fs~of &"ay
("Rig]stw&f-Way'"',I.
]Of the pufpOSC ict CFCCLulg lfe tfssGBBISSSSOn hrl&8fld f8VS]SkSCS OA Said Rl+t-O]-%ay and the s'sght IO keepSaidRight-of-Way c]elf Of QIsStFUCtjcn8 W]uC]S fnay OF fnj~hc a haZafd tO Said,ilnCS;,
IIIir]']'ERE~„E)c]tjcdc8]AN ].QF Entcfgy to Festfsct and dedicate thc uee Qt thc csssteffs flfll y I 59 ]feet of thc Lrfsght-of'-way as a gfcen bc]t bu5'CF sn Qfdcf to enhance the posslbslsty of't]se devc]cpfnent c]lca]pf'opcrty o&Tse(iI Isy Dc]tsc,
NO%V.THEREFORE,lof and irI coflmd~ti cn Qf Tm Do]]afs ($]0,09]in hand paid hy Dc]tl c.the pfcnsls"4,FnuitualI covenants and agfccfrsents cc~sfted kefcfn end Qthcf gccd and va]uablcconsidlcfatjon„thc receipt and sufficiency og which js hcfcby acknow]edge(L Enter gy hcfeby agreels gs)O]]OV S:
c]ectflcsiI ]sn~~Entefgy]scfcby Femme msgr',dcdscatc~t]sc sssc Qfthe cwmcfs&~&59)fccf of t]M RsvJN-
Reft Qf'ection 15,T 2"lsii,R ],4 %,Pu]asks IC oufsty,AS~SB,fnofe paftscu]ssf]ydess.llhed AR:
Bcg~lfsg at the sntcfscctscn QI'hc South fl+t-of-way ]nm c f kansas Smc Hsssy.~
is'i~~wlrslÃiw i~sAer~twps I
FhI!ll 'ffls~sst eAs plf'clssÃd b
j''.':I(IFspf,ELDr(CDGI'.(:J AIV;2II(III PlrSI C aelrrlertSIsLI 8tsliMIIIg
A IN ÃeS I CvlsimI
L«(Ic I(net,Arksrsss 7229 I-3493
)~mes f:.('Imk.Sr,
ss8/l8f02 789 i3.28 ]n~BX sled Stqe]
10/LQ/02 ~I 3.5:29 FM ~Oioi3lent09/3.92'2662 et.23:48 -fs.Qm tO -503,490 4746 P4/5
16 mid thc M4'ine Qf tice N%II ~4 SF 1/0 Qf seid SectiQB l5;thence 861&52'l 9"WCIQngsSldFecalone~88263 A.„"tlMAcc N'gge34 62 %,5666 5:.",thence N61Q52 19elQngzHne56.66 A.,Meet Qf end pel"filet with Smd,Eeet Line Qt the NW'1/0 SE1/0,885.51 N.tQ e peint QB the seid SQUtll tlat-Qf wzy line QEAr~S~Hwy.0 16:thmCC N73 &68'5l"'E RQBg Seid.SQUth tt~-Qf'-w~y line„6.86A.",thence 884Q 1 3'56 "8
cQAtiBUmg alQBg saM'QUtll xigizt-Qf-mey linc 49,.36 5.tQ tlute PQint Qf bcgi~g,CQn&ining 1.6146 Ceres Blel c Qr less
("Glccn Belt BUS'el"),
9 9 s 6MCB Belt BASIC U pQB %'ill c4 Dell lc,its sUQceesefs end assigns,At@y„mtits sQle discf@LQB,impFQve4yplenllng,st the)ir Cele exp',tÃCCS,plsn'Ls,Ql'tJlef'cget34ve gt'Qw&Beccs~(Q bA'ng tbc 'Cil'ecnBeltWA'cil"lnl Q cemP ilute %')tll thc CPP4Q@bll!Q bUfI'el Qtidlnsnces ot the iC.lty Qf l lttl e RQ~~~~5@8.
2.Q 1.cllUseQ '3.-0 -VtIC .Thcde44ce4QBSBdgfentingeftltis~en EIclt8LLQcrde%BQl r'~Act ~eeeess Qf Entefgy„its svcccs8~QI ass)~,tQ tile 4TCCB Belt 8UAel'6t t4e PUtPQseQfmmintcnencc,l epeiix Qt l'cp4~cnt Qf its Qvel head elcelrie@l tt@nsmissiQA lines.
RUE&".l.~48lll cxceeB tw el VC (i 2)feel in heist.
4 Re've Ve etstlve (Othct"then BllUBtelmng the vcgelLstlve +Qw&st 8helotAQttQexceedtwelve(],2)feet,intel gy,its successQm QB8 msl~s,wlii BQt QUt sny tl cm,pl'sntsQlQleeJ'~x'31 veldt tve ~~&lith'In t4e VTccQ Iaelt BUS@7 lf
shack
'wQ'Uil9 resUit ill tbc Otecn BeltHUSerBQtbc~iA CQABpiisnce mitih thc @ppiicsbie ibu@er Qmdim~m Qf'tile City Qf l ittie Reek
ll~,The FestFJctlQBs cQntelned Rel'cln sbeW,be pcwp~s]tQ IL4C e)itent p~ltte8 hy llawillshellltlnwiththet'eel pt'Qp~'esi'.Ti by'll ltel'ein.
EXECUTED lhi»~&'day af ,2662.
ENTERG'Y ~KANYpM,I'iiIC.
BV.'ltic:
$556 .
A MA%I.F.'DiA
N'l ATE GP ~.mSA8
"4mwiI79AAeetea~~~u 2
09/3.9/02 ~t3.28 l7XPRX .'iIV 5L49)
@994j,9/l9/92 ~25:39 FAXieHtQe/J.9/2002 et '':2l."L3.—XX"ON,tG —501 480 4740 y5/5
ccrc&"lv DF p(Z.MKl
PCII'SOA8jlg RPPCBXCd 4Cf'OIIC fBC~ILhC lQQJCF$IIgACd 8Ut4OIOtg LA 89d tOI'8KI CO'MI'tP 89Id ~tO,'IIII4O 8CkBOWICdgCd 148'5 AKntCrgyA)885 TIIIIC 4e u 8V&enZCd tO CIIyX 89'e4VCX'd MS 8O Ztgged ~dCEV~d thefOFCgO'II9g ~IIQCKI'L OQ thC de 8XLd /CD 'thCTCXA Metl@OI9Cd 88 thC 8Ot 89d dCCd Of ~d O~T'81lOQ,
61VCA 46dCf m//~CI,8fjd OKO'l8(~]OfII t4llb ERIC /~~A WP Of ~57~48'002
Mf CO~MOO
EXPlllrCS.'~-7-
~u&s
lfgyyy
yoT+q""„~
&&-'j.%n
~&ce
I;&Il.ma&+l@me~e sexrw %p4 3
99/3,9/93 TM'l X3,;2'8 tTX/RX XG 5149]
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:12 F ILE NO.:Z-5770-C
NAME:Maxmart Revised POD
LOCATION:On the North side of Cantrell Road just east of Rummell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Starmax Properties,LP White-Daters and Associates
P.O.Box 241967 424 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72221 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:2.8 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-0
ALLOWED USES:General /Professional Office (0-3 uses)
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-0
PROPOSED USE:Bank and General /Professional Office (0-3 uses)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:(Plat Variance —Lots without public street
frontage.)
BACKGROUND:
On February 1,1994,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.16,586 which
rezoned this property from R-2 to PD-0 for a two-building office development.On
October 4,1994,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.16,754,which amended
the previously approved PD-0 site plan still maintaining two (2)office buildings.On
December 2,1997,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.17,622 which re-
established the PD-0 for three (3)years.On September 14,2000 the Planning
Commission granted a three (3)year time extension of the approved PD-O.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5770-C
The approved site plan included two (2)office buildings.Each building was proposed to
be two-story in height,with a basement.Building I was proposed to be placed 110 feet
north of Cantrell Road.The building was to contain a total of 22,800 square feet
(10,000 square feet on each floor and 2,800 square feet in the basement).Building II
was to be located within the northern portion of the property.It was to contain a total of
20,300 square feet (8,750 square feet on each floor and 2,800 square feet in the
basement).The site plan provided parking for 98 vehicles,with a single access point
from Cantrell Road.
On September 3,2002 the Board of Directors approved a revision to the previously
approved PD-0 to create a two (2)lot plat and allow the construction of a bank with a
four (4)window drive-through facility on the front lot,adjacent to Cantrell Road,and the
development of an office building on the rear lot.The applicant proposed the office
building to be a single story office building containing approximately 10,800 square feet.
There were 51 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.Sixteen spaces
were proposed with the bank facility and 35 spaces were proposed with the office
building.
Two monument style signs were approved for the site.One was to be located on the
east side of the driveway and one on the west side of the driveway.The eastern sign
was to be a maximum of five (5)feet in height and fifty (50)square feet in area and the
sign on the western side of the driveway was to be a maximum of six (6)feet in height
and sixty (64)square feet in area.The applicant proposed 0-3 zoning district uses as
approved alternative uses for the site.The applicant proposed a single access point to
the site from Cantrell Road.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise a previously approved PD-0 to allow the rear
lot to be split.The rear lots will each contain approximately 12,000 square feet and
are proposed as Lots 2 and 3.(Lot 1 has been final platted for Regions Bank.)The
applicant proposes two office buildings,one on each lot,and the square footages to
be 4300 (Lot 2)and 2800 (Lot 3)square feet with a shared parking and common
drive access easement extending from Cantrell Road through Lot 1 to serve Lots 2
and 3.The proposal includes signage previously approved adjacent to Highway 10
on the eastern side of the driveway and contained on Lot 1.The sign area is to be a
maximum of five (5)feet in height and fifty (50)square feet in area.The signage for
Lot 1 is located on the western side of the driveway.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow Lots
2 and 3 to not have public street frontage.The common access drive/utility
easement will be final platted to provide access to these lots.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5770-C
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is vacant and heavily wooded with a single family home located mid-way
back on the tract.The topography of the proposed site rises in elevation from
south to north,with the north boundary of the site being approximately 28 feet
higher than the southern boundary along Cantrell Road.
Uses in the area include a mix of office uses and single family residential uses.
The Westchester Subdivision is south of the site,across Cantrell Road,and
single family homes are located to the east of the site.Adjacent to the site to the
west are three previously approved Planned Developments.Only one of which
has developed.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site,the Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners
Association and the Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood Association were
notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.The standard conditions shown on the plan as "Public Works Notes"apply
to the project.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:A water main extension and additional fire protection will be required.A
minimum 15-foot wide utility easement will be needed in order to allow for a
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5770-C
water main extension to each rear lot.A Capital Investment Charge based on
the size of connections(s)will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges.
~Fi C ~t:Pl tl kdd t p d.C t ttk Cltl ~IFI
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
C~IPI I:N t I d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin 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 of an existing Planned Office Development for an
additional office building and an additional lot for a total of three (3)office
buildings on three (3)lots.The use requested is consistent with the Land Use
Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The
Infrastructure Goal encourages the placement of sidewalks on all neighborhood
streets,which is supported by an Action Statement calling for the construction of
sidewalks on the north side of Cantrell Road from Rodney Parham Road to State
Highway 300.The Sustainable Natural Environment Goal lists an objective
recommending the preservation and maintenance of existing greenways and
open spaces supported by an Action Statement that recommends the
preservation of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
Landsca e Issues:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
Highway 10 Design Overlay District and Landscape Ordinance requirements.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to a building permit being issue it will be necessary to provide copies of an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5770-C
The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible.Additional credit maybe given toward fulfilling Highway 10 Design
Overlay District and Landscape Ordinance requirements when properly
preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger.
~BilCh C d:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
application.Staff presented the item indicating additional information needed on
the site plan.Staff stated the applicant should provide the days and hours of
operation for the two lots to ensure conformance with the previously approved
hours of operation.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the previously approved
comments apply to this plat as well.Water comments were addressed indicating
the Water Department had agreed to allow water access through the cross
access driveway location.Staff stated the drive should be shown was a utility
easement as well as a cross access easement.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed areas set
aside for landscaping and buffering met with the minimum ordinance
requirements.Staff also stated City Beautiful Commission recommended
preserving as many trees as feasible during the development of the site.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted to Staff the revised site plan indicating the additional
information requested.The applicant has indicated the days and hours of
operation to be 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday;consistent with
office uses located in the area and the hours of operation previously approved.
The applicant has indicated 0-3 uses for the proposed tenant of Lot 2 and a
dental office for Lot 3 with 0-3 uses as alternative uses for the site.The
applicant has indicated the project will be constructed in three phases or one
building per phase with the bank building being the first phase.The proposed
site plan indicates the proposed building height will not exceed 45-feet,the
maximum building height in the 0-3 zoning district.
5
October 31,20ud
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:12 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-5770-C
The parking shown on the site plan is sufficient to meet the demands of the
proposed development.The typical parking requirement for a development of
this type would be 7 spaces for Lot 1,10 spaces for Lot 2 and 12 spaces for Lot
3.The applicant is proposing 17 spaces as a part of Lot 3,20 spaces as a part
of Lot 2 and 20 spaces,not including the drive-through lanes,for Lot 1.
The applicant has indicated on the proposed plat two of the three lots will not
have public street frontage.A cross access/utility easement has been provided
to allow access to these lots extending from Cantrell Road through Lot 1.
Staff is supportive of the request to revise the previously approved planned
development to create a third lot on this 2.8 acre site.Staff is supportive of the
requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance (a lot without public street
frontage)for the creation of this lot.A variance to allow Lot 2 to be a lot without
public street frontage was approved by the Board of Directors September 3,
2002,which will require a revision to the previous ordinance since the legal
description has changed.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed rezoning request.The proposed development is similar to
development pattern in the area and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of the Staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a lot without public
street frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and stated to their
knowledge there were no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request to
revise the previously approved PD-0 to create a third lot on the site.Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of the proposed request subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff stated the proposal included a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a lot
without public street frontage.Staff stated they were also in support of the requested
variance to allow a lot without public street frontage.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
NAME:Forest Gardens Revised PD-R
LOCATION:South of West Baseline Road approximately 500 feet West of
Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Randy Ripley Hurricane Valley Inc.
9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118
Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807
AREA:5.01Acres NUMBEROF LOTS:26 FT.NEWSTREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:PD-R
ALLOWED USES:Residential (Horizontal property regime.)
PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Residential (Plat to create individual lots.)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:(Plat Variances)
1.Lots with out public street frontage.
2.Lot width to depth ratio for Lots 10,11,12,13,25 and 26.
3.Reduced minimum lot width.
4.Reduced front platted building lines and reduced side yard setbacks.
5.Reduced street width (24-feet).
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,412 on January 16,2001
establishing Forest Gardens Long-form PD-R.The applicant proposed a total of 19
buildings and 26 units (one lot),which would be developed under a horizontal property
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
regime.The applicant proposed the maximum height of the structures not exceed to 32
feet and that all units would have attached garages and/or carports and a total of 45
parking spaces.
The applicant requested a two lot plat as a part of the development.Lot 1 was adjacent
to Stagecoach Road and Lot 2 was the site currently being considered for the revision
to the Planned Residential Development.Lot 2 was created as a non-conforming lot
and the Board of Directors approved the lot configuration,a lot without public street
frontage,at their January 16,2001 meeting.The applicant requested and was granted
a five (5)year deferral of sidewalk placement along Stagecoach Road for Lot 1 by
Ordinance No.18,414 dated January 16,2001.
The previous site design was based on an attempt to retain the center portion of the
heavily wooded site as a common green space,with the larger mature hardwood trees
to remain as the main marketing amenity.To achieve this goal the applicant proposed
a perimeter access drive,which would serve the rear of each unit.The applicant noted
the driveway design was to be constructed to accommodate city garbage trucks and fire
trucks,and that the garbage collection would be coordinated with public works.
Several conditions were placed on the previous approval including no building permit
would be issued until a final plat was recorded for Lot 2.Furthermore,Staff would not
sign the Final Plat for Lot 2 until legal access to the lot was established.Staff also
stated any signage pertaining to the development must conform to the zoning ordinance
standard for condominium development (ground mounted sign not to exceed 24 square
feet in area and 6 feet in height).
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant now proposes to revise the previously approved PD-R to allow
individual lots to be created.The proposed site development remains unchanged
with regard to building placement and layout but the units will no longer be sold
through a horizontal property regime.
The request includes five variances from the Subdivision Ordinance or the Master
Street Plan.The applicant is requesting a variance to allow lots without public street
frontage,a variance from the lotwidth to depth ratio for Lots 10,11,12,13,25 and
26,a variance from the minimum lot width requirement for all the lots and a reduced
platted building line on the front and side yard setbacks.The applicant proposes the
street to be constructed as a private street built to minor residential street standard
or 24-feet of pavement.The development will be developed in two (2)phases.
As previously proposed the applicant will establish a property owners association to
maintain the common areas and driveway.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The 5.01 acre property is undeveloped and wooded.The Stagecoach Village LLC
development (the old golf driving range)is located to the south.The property
immediately south and west is zoned PRD and was approved for a condo/single-
family development which has began development with the streets being installed
and water and wastewater under construction.There are single-family residences to
the north with a commercial development to the northeast.There is undeveloped C-
3 zoned property to the east,across Stagecoach Road.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.All
property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be identified,
within 300 feet of the site,the Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the
Otter Creek Homeowners Association were notified of the Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.The original approved,single tract development has changed to the
subdivision of the land into 26 lots.Private ingress and egress easements
are still proposed.
2.Streets must be a minimum of 24-feet wide if Little Rock Garbage collection
is to be provided.Waste collection will be made on the loop street,
however,no collection will be provided on the stub street for lack of a place
to turn around.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
~Fi C t t:Pl fl ktd t F d C t ttk Cltl ~k Fl
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~CI Pl l:~t l d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a revision of an existing Planned Development -Residential to add lot
lines.
The use requested is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property is located
in the area covered by the Otter Creek /Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action
Plan.The Residential Development Goal of the Neighborhood Action Plan
contains two Action Statements relative to this application.The first Action
Statement calls for the encouragement and facilitating development of owner
occupied properties in the planning area.The second statement concerning
residential development calls for the installation of streetlights in all future
developments as streets are built.The Neighborhood Action Plan also contains
a Natural Environment Goal supported by an Action Statement that calls for the
preservation and maintenance of existing greenways and open spaces in the
neighborhood.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
Ndidi N dC dd:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Randy Ripley and Mr.Charles Best were present representing the application.
Staff presented the item stating the request was a revision to a previously approved
PD-R to allow the addition of lot tines.Staff stated when the development was
proposed,the units were to be sold under a horizontal property regime,Staff stated
since application was made,the applicant had determined individual lots,with a
mechanism in place for maintenance of common areas,would be a more viable
development.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
Staff requested the applicant plat buildable areas to establish setbacks.Staff
stated without the buildable areas being platted,the applicant would be required
to meet minimum building setbacks which would limit his ability to develop the
site as he proposed.
Public Works stated the comments from the previous approval still applied to this
development.Staff stated the reduced driveway width was previously approved
and would still be an acceptable pavement width.The applicant indicated the
roadways were to remain private.
There being no other issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plat to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated
there will be 5-foot platted building lines along the front and rear of the lots and a
three (3)foot on the lots with detached units;zero on the attached unit lot lines.
The applicant has also identified common areas in tracts and phasing lines on
the plat.
The applicant proposes private streets to be 24-feet in width,an acceptable
street width for a minor residential street.This width will allow city trucks access
to the site to collect garbage and provide fire protection.The development
having private streets requires a variance to allow lots without public street
frontage unless the Planning Commission explicitly approves the development on
private streets.
There are many variances from the Subdivision Ordinance required for the
preliminary plat.The minimum lot width does not meet the minimum required lot
width for residential development.The applicant proposes the lots areas to
range from 3,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet.The applicant has indicated
five (5)foot platted building lines along the front and rear of the lots and a three
(3)foot side yard setback along the sides,where units are detached and zero (0)
where attached.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances to allow the site to develop in this
manner.Staff is also supportive of the Phasing Plan submitted by the applicant.
The development is proposed as a patio home/townhouse development,which
would require special consideration to allow for development.The applicant was
previously approved with this development plan with a slightly different land
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:13 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6948-A
configuration.The units were to be sold under a horizontal property regime.
The only change to the proposed development is to add land area to the units,
which would allow the structures to be sold with "dirt".
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the planned development,to
establish a preliminary plat,as filed subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to allow lots without public
street frontage,the variance from the lot width to depth ratio for Lots 10,11,12,13,
25 and 26,the variance to allow a reduced minimum lot width for all lots and the
variance to allow a reduced platted building line on the front and side yards of all
lots.
Staff is supportive of the request to allow a reduced standard for the private street
within the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Randy Ripley was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to
revise the previous proposed planned development,to establish a preliminary plat,
subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
Staff presented a positive recommendation of the requested variance to allow lots without
public street frontage,the variance from the lot width to depth ratio for Lots 10,11,12,13,
25 and 26,the variance to allow a reduced minimum lot width for all lots and the variance to
allow a reduced platted building line on the front and side yards of all lots.
Staff stated they were also in support of the request to allow a reduced standard for the
private street within the development.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2 2
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7297
NAME:Family Dollar Store Short-form PCD
LOCATION:8510 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT:
Green,Herrington 8 Howell,LLC Joe Crews
1600 Arkansas Blvd.Suite 100 Route 2,Box 327 JB
Texarkana,AR 71854 Texarkana,TX 75501
AREA:3.06 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-3 &R-2
ALLOWED USES:General Commercial and Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:C-3 Uses
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None Requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone the site from C-3 and R-2 to PCD to allow the
construction of an 8000 square foot Family Dollar Store on the site along with 27
parking spaces.The applicant is requesting C-3 uses as alternative uses for the
site.The site will have a six (6)foot wood fence along the west property line and
October 31,2 2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7297
along the eastern property line near the rear adjacent to the rear parking area.
The applicant proposes an eight (8)foot wooden fence along the rear property
line adjacent to the single-family zoned property.
The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to
9:00 pm seven (7)days per week.
The applicant also proposes a two lot plat as a part of the development to allow a
portion of the site to be donated to the Optimist Club at a later date.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant site with spill from the Asher Avenue road widening project
being dumped on the southeast corner.The Asher Avenue widening project is
currently under construction in this area with dirt work beginning.There is a
single-family house located to the west of the site and the Optimist Park west and
north of the site.The park contains ball fields and a meeting facility.Currently
the Optimist Park has a storage building located on the applicant's property on
the western side at the northern boundary.
Other uses in the area include residential and non-residential uses.Brown's
Printing is located immediately east of the proposed development and a
commercial refrigerator sales and service center is located adjacent to Browns
Printing.Across Asher Avenue is George's Towing,a vacant church currently
listed for sale,Reeds Outdoor Equipment and Riley's Auto Parts.
The site is zoned C-3 and R-2 and is shown as Commercial on the Future Land
Use Plan.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received several informational phone calls concerning
the proposed development.All residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet
of the site,all property owners within 200 feet of the site and the Westwood
Neighborhood Association,the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress were notified of the Public Hearing
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.No right-of-way dedication or street improvements are required for this project.
2
October 31,2..2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7297
2.If not provided by AHTD,sidewalks conforming to the Master Street Plan are
required.Appropriate handicap ramps are required.
3.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.
4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding requirements for water
service.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine
whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be
installed at the Developer's expense.
Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~dt Pl I:N t I d.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹14 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and
route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
~PI I qttt:Tht q tt I tdt th BTI P kPI tqqtttt Th I d
Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied for a
Planned Commercial Development for a retail use.
The use requested is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property is located in the
area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan.The Business and
Commercial Goal states:To enhance the climate directed toward encouraging new
3
October 35,i .2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7297
businesses and commercial establishments to locate in the area as well as retention
of existing businesses.
Landsca e Issues:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance
requirements.
The face side of the proposed screening fence must be directed outward.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Bdid i ¹dBdd:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.Staff presented the item
indicating the proposed development was located in an area where right-of-way
and street improvements were not an issue.Staff stated the current Asher
Avenue widening had taken care of street improvements.
Staff stated the parking proposed was sufficient to meet the typical minimum
parking requirement.Staff request the applicant indicate on the site plan the
maximum building height and stated any site lighting must be low level and
directed away from residentially zoned property.Staff also requested details for
the proposed signage.
Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed landscaped
areas met with the minimum ordinance requirements.
There being no other issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated a six
(6)foot wood fence along the west property line and along the east property line
near the rear of the development which adjoins the single-family uses in the area.
The applicant proposes an eight (8)foot wooden fence along the northern
boundary of the site adjoining the single-family zoning.The applicant has also
indicated parking lot landscaping and land use buffers as required by the
ordinance.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7297
The applicant is proposing a 24-foot tall sign with a sign area of 8-foot by 12-foot.
The ordinance for commercial allows for a 36-foot tall sign with a maximum sign
area of 160 square feet.The proposed signage is consistent with signage
allowed in commercial zones.
The applicant is proposing 27 parking spaces.The typical minimum required
parking,based on an 8000 square foot building,would be 26 parking spaces.
Due to the topography of the site the applicant is proposing levels of parking
each facing into the building with the addition of employee parking near the rear
of the building.Staff is supportive of this parking arrangement and the
elimination of pull in parking along Asher Avenue.This will discourage the lining
of cars in the front row of parking and advertising them for resale by individuals
as is done currently in many places in town.
The applicant proposes a two lot plat as a part of the development.The
applicant has indicated a desire to donate any un-used property to the adjoining
Optimist Club.The applicant'is only proposing to rezone a portion of the
ownership.The site adjoins the Optimist Club in the rear connecting to the
existing ball fields.The plat established will require a variance to allow a lot
without public street frontage.It is doubtful in the current configuration and with
the uses in the area the lot will ever develop as single-family but Staff
recommends placing a condition on the plat approval,to be covered in the Bill of
Assurance,that the lot may not be sold for single-family development as a stand
alone lot.The lot must be recombined with adjoining properties,which have
public street frontage,prior to development.
Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed rezoning request.Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning and
the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions stated previously.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions stated in Paragraph H.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff stated,to their knowledge,there were no outstanding issues associated
with the proposed planned development.Staff presented a recommendation of
5
October 31,20u2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:14 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7297
approval of the proposed development subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff presented a positive recommendation of the proposed preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the conditions stated in Paragraph H above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-7298
NAME:Mountain Side Long-form PD-R
LOCATION:County Line Road just East of Vimy Ridge Road
BAC Lending The Mehlburger Firm
1308 South Bowman Road P.O.Box 3837
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72203
AREA:10.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:20 FT.NEW STREET:1245
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R
PROPOSED USE:Duplex and Sixplex housing
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to construct 64 units of duplex and sixplex housing on
this 10.0-acre site through a planned development.The buildings will be
constructed on individual lots.The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat
as a part of the development (Item 45 File No.S-1356).The plat is somewhat
connected to the planned development request in that the lots are various sizes,
sized to accommodate the structure which will be located on the site.The
applicant has indicated at some point in the future he will sell individual lots
(buildings).
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
The units are proposed as one-story units with brick and vinyl siding exteriors.
Each unit will have a double car carport and individual driveway.The units are
proposed as two (2)and three (3)bedroom units and approximately 950 to 1150
square feet.
The applicant has indicated the development will be gated.The gate allows for a
two (2)car stacking length and a turn-around in case a visitor cannot access the
site.There is a six (6)foot wooden fence along the eastern,western and
northern perimeters of the site and a wood post split rail fence along the front of
the development.The development will be developed in two phases with 36
units (10 lots)being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots)in the
second phase.
The applicant is proposing a detailed Bill of Assurance for the development with
regard to future maintenance and exterior appearance.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site,sloping slightly from north to south.County Line Road
is a narrow two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage.There are new
single-family subdivisions developing to the south in Saline County;Carrington
Place and South-Fork.On the Pulaski County side there are single-family homes
developed on acreage in a rural setting.At the northwest and northeast
intersections of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road there is a Dollar
General Store and a Conoco Quick Stop.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,Staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the
proposed development.Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,the Quail Run
Neighborhood Association,the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association and the
Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,all property owners within 200 feet of the
site and all residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing.
The Engineer also met with the neighborhood at a well attended neighborhood
meeting (50+residents).The attendees were from the Alexander Road
Neighborhood Association,the Quail Run Neighborhood Association,the Carrington
Place neighborhood,the Southfork neighborhood and the City of Shannon Hills
(residents and the Mayor,Police Chief and Planning Commissioners).
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.County Line Road is classified under the Master Street Plan as a local
street.Dedicate right-of-way 25-feet from the centerline.Since the Saline
County line forms the southern right-of-way line of County Line Road,a
minimum 50-foot right-of-way dedication as measured from the county line
will be required.
2.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
one-half street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with the
planned development.
3.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard.
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.
6.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 (Derick Bergfield)for more information.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8.Show easements for all major proposed storm drainage and detention
facilities.
9.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).
10.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-406 of the Little Rock Code.Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501)379-1813 (Steve Philpot)for more information regarding street light
requirements.
11.If this is to be a gated community,provide a proposed entrance gate design
that provides a three car stacking depth and turn-out exit for vehicles that
enter the driveway but do not enter the site.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is
required for the project.Capacity Contribution Analysis required,contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for details.
EntercnE:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
Water:Water main extension will be required.Contact Central Arkansas Water
at 992-2438 for additional details.
~RC d t:Pl fl kyd t P d.C t ttk Ctfl R RFt
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
~dt Pl l:N t l d.
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development -Residential for a residential development of
two and six plexes.
Since the Land Use Plan is to be a general guide to the future development of
the area,a development of 6.4 residential units per acre is generally consistent
with a recommendation of residential 6 units per acre.It is not so dense as to
require a Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property is located
in the area covered by the Chicot West I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan.
The plan includes objectives of "Encourage home ownership"and "Strictly
enforce building codes,especially for rental property".Action Statements
include:"Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized areas as and
"urban reserve"to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area.
Landsca e Issues:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance
requirements.
A six (6)foot opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern,
eastern and western perimeters of the site.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required.
Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will be necessary to submit copies of an
approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape
Architect.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
BBildi 8 C d:N
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the
application.Staff presented the development plan indicating the application was
two part;a preliminary plat to subdivide the acreage into 20 lots and a planned
development to construct duplex and sixplex units.
Mr.Riggins stated County Line Road was entirely on the applicant's property and
questioned what street improvements would be required.Staff stated /~street
improvements would be required but the entire dedication of right-of-way would
be required (50-feet).Staff also stated the A street improvements would be from
the centerline of the existing pavement and not the centerline of the right-of-way.
Staff noted comments from the water and wastewater departments.Staff stated
the applicant should contact each department for additional information.
Landscaping comments were discussed with regard to the rezoning request.
The proposed rezoning was also discussed.The Staff noted additional
information,which would be required on the site plan.Staff stated if the
community was to be gated,a turn-around would be required.Staff stated it
would be possible to allow the stacking onto County Line Road.Staff also
requested building elevations and proposed building materials.Staff questioned
the proposed ownership of the development and requested a detailed Bill of
Assurance,which would govern the site with regard to maintenance.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has provided a
detailed Bill of Assurance,which will govern the future of the site with regard to
maintenance,storage and automobile repair,fencing,and the funding of
maintenance of common areas.
The applicant has indicated the development will be gated.The gate allows for a
two (2)car stacking length and a turn-around in case a visitor cannot access the
site.There is a six (6)foot wooden fence along the eastern,western and
northern perimeters of the site and a four (4)foot wood post split rail fence along
5
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
the front of the development.The development will be developed in two phases
with 36 units (10 lots)being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots)in
the second phase.
The applicant has indicated a development sign to be located west of the
driveway and the sign is proposed to be three (3)foot by five (5)foot or 15
square feet in area.The proposed area is consistent with multi-family
development signage.
The applicant has stated the development will utilize private garbage collection to
serve the residents.The applicant has also stated any site lighting will be low
level and directed away from residentially zoned property.
The proposed development will consist of duplex and sixplex units.The units will
all have a two (2)carport.The units are proposed to be two (2)and three (3)
bedroom units and be approximately 950 to 1150 square feet.Each of the
buildings will be constructed on a separate lot thus necessitating the need for a
preliminary plat (Item ¹5 File ¹S-1358).The applicant has indicated at some
point in the future individual buildings will be offered for resale leading to the
potential for 20 different land owners within the development.This is a concern
of Staff.Although,the owner has provided a detailed Bill of Assurance to govern
the development the enforcement of a Bill of Assurance is a legal matter that is
out of the city's control.Based on past experiences persons are reluctant to take
their neighbor to court.
The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of brick and vinyl siding.
The applicant has indicated all structures will be single-story structures each with
a patio extending from the rear of the structure.There will not be any internal
fencing to screen the patios.
The applicant has written into the Bill of Assurance a mechanism that requires
three (3)percent of the gross rents to be used to fund the maintenance of
common areas.Although,this should ensure the common areas are maintained,
this will not ensure the buildings are properly maintained.With multiple owners,
based on past experience,exterior building maintenance has been a real issue.
Based on the proposed development plans,Staff is not supportive of the
proposed request for rezoning.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed development.
6
October 31,20u2
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:15 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7298
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Frank Riggins was present representing the application.There were objectors
present.Mr.Riggins stated he was under the impression the applicant would be allow a
deferral if fewer than nine (9)Commissioners were present.Mr.Riggins stated several
interested persons were told the item would be deferred to the November 14,2002
Public Hearing.Staff agreed they had also reported to area residents the item would
not be heard by the Commission until the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
Chairman Faust stated nine (9)Commissioners were present.Staff stated it was
possible when the item would be heard that fewer than nine (9)Commissioners would
be present.Chairman Faust questioned those who had signed cards in opposition of
the project if they were in agreement to allow the item to be heard at a later date.They
two objectors agreed.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the
November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes,1 no and 2
absent.
7
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-7299
NAME:U-Pull-It Long-form PID
LOCATION:10312 West Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Gary Johnson McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
U-Pull-It Auto Parts,Inc.319 President Clinton Avenue,Suite 202
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201
AREA:26.14 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family (non-conforming)
ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential (non-conforming auto salvage)
PROPOSED ZONING:PID
PROPOSED USE:Auto Salvage
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:15/o In-lieu contribution for road improvements
to West Baseline Road.
Three (3)year deferral of the hard surface parking area.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The present use consists of 21.4 acres,zoned R-2 with a non-conforming use.
The owner plans to expand the project by five acres and is requesting PID zoning
for the entire project.
U-Pull-It Auto parts is a parts operation whereby the owner buys cars,sets them
on blocks and removes the tires and all fluids.Once all saleable parts are
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7299
removed,the vehicles are crushed in an on-site machine and shipped out.The
site is totally fenced and screened from public view.
The owner proposes to dedicate any required right-of-way for West Baseline
Road,but requests to be allowed to make a 15%in-lieu contribution of
development cost for roadway improvements to West Baseline Road.The
applicant has justified this request on the basis of the uncertainty of any pending
highway construction in connection with the I-30 widening project currently under
construction.
The applicant has requested a three (3)year deferral of the hard surface parking
area,A portion of the public parking will be located in the right-of-way.The
applicant is requesting to be allowed to franchise the parking spaces located in
the right-of-way.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is an auto salvage yard with a 6-foot wooden fence adjoining West
Baseline Road and a corrugated tin screening fence along the east and west
property lines.The area in which the applicant has requested expansion has
been cleared and lies adjacent to a tributary of the Fourche Creek.It appears
there has been filling within the floodway of the creek.
Other uses in the area include two churches on the south side of West Baseline
Road;one to the east and one to the west.The areas immediately to the north,
south,east and west are heavily wooded with a recent rezoning and landuse
plan amendment directly south of the site.A Planned Industrial Development
was approved to the southwest of the site on the corner of West Baseline Road
and Sibley Hole Road earlier this year.
The site is currently shown on the Future Land Use Plan as STD (Service Trades
District),which allows for a selection of office,warehousing and industrial park
activities.The development requires a Planned Development if the development
is not wholly office.The applicant has met these criteria by filing for a Planned
Industrial Development.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7299
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Southwest Little Rock United for "Progress,all property owners within 200 feet and all
residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
Public Hearing.As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area
residents.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.This is a Public Works enforcement action of the land alteration ordinance
and flood plain ordinance.A stop work order was issued for clearing and
grading without a permit in a regulated floodplain.If the proposed re-zoning
is not approved,restore the land in accordance with the land alteration
ordinance and the floodplain ordinance.
2.Delineate the floodplain and floodway boundary on the site.
3.With building permit:—
Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.
Dedication of right-of-way 55 feet from the centerline will be required.
4.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan.Construct
half-street improvements to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.These improvements would also qualify for contribution in-
lieu of construction per City Ordinance.
5.A grading permit for Special Flood Hazard Area will be required per Section
8-283.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7.An NPDES permit will be required for this project.Contact the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality for approval prior to the start of work,
8.Contact the US Army Corp of Engineers for approval prior to start of work,
regarding regulated wetlands.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
~Enter:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7299
Water:No objection.
~NO d t:App d P tlt d.
~CI Pl I:N t I d.
CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹15 and has no effect on bus radius,
turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
~PI I pill:TPI q tt I tdl tk Olt C kPI tgptttt.
The Land Use Plan shows Service Trades District for this property.The
applicant has applied for a Planned Industrial Development for expansion of an
existing non-conforming auto salvage business.
As stated,this is an existing use and the buildings associated with the use are a
small consequence in any redevelopment of the site for a future use.Since the
request is to legitimatize an existing business and allow a small expansion
through the Planned Development process,it is consistent with previous City
actions to make the review without modifying the Land Use Plan.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:Land use and street buffers are not shown on the plan
submitted.The zoning ordinance requires a fifty (50)foot wide street buffer
along Baseline Road and a fifty (50)foot wide land use buffer along the northern
perimeter of the site.Additionally,a forty (40)foot wide land use buffer is
required along the eastern perimeter of the site.Unless otherwise provided for,
trees and shrubs are required within the street and land use buffer areas.If the
existing facility were to be brought into current ordinance compliance,then it
would also need to provide a fifty (50)foot wide street buffer along Baseline
Road and along the northern perimeter and a forty (40)foot wide land use buffer
along the western perimeter of the site.
An eight (8)foot tall,opaque wall or fence is required to screen all sides of the
salvage yard.This fence or wall must be constructed of wood (with its face side
directed outward)or metal.In addition to this requirement,the maximum
stacking height of vehicle bodies is fifteen (15)feet.
Landscaped areas must be irrigated.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7299
Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will be necessary to provide an approved
Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
~Bildi C d:N t i d.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick an McGetrick Engineers and Mr.Gary Johnson,the
applicant,were present representing the application.Staff presented the application
to the Committee indicating additional information requested on the site plan.Staff
stated the site plan indicated a gravel parking area and the area was to be
constructed with a hard surface.Staff also stated the site plan did not indicate the
proposed fencing material.The applicant indicated he was requesting a three (3)
year deferral of resurfacing the parking area.
Landscaping comments were discussed.The applicant was informed the fencing
must be eight (8)feet in height and the maximum stacking of automobiles was 15-
feet.Staff stated the street buffer and land use buffers were not shown on the plan
submitted.Staff requested these items be identified on the revised plan.Staff also
stated a forty (40)foot wide land use buffer would be required along the eastern
perimeter of the site.
Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated right-of-way dedication would
be required.Staff also stated an in-lieu contribution for street construction would be
acceptable.Staff stated the applicant would be required to submit plans to
Environmental Quality to obtain a NPDES permit and contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers prior to starting work,regarding regulated wetlands.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission
for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted revised plans to Staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has located the
crushing area and the dumpster location,both of which,are located to the rear of
the property.The applicant has also indicated the floodplain and floodway lines
on the proposed plan.The applicant has shown a 40-foot landscape strip
adjacent to the floodway on the "southeastern boundary of the property adjacent
to the street.The applicant has also indicated a 75-foot undisturbed buffer in the
expanded area located at the rear of the site.
5
October 31,20UZ
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:16 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7299
The applicant has indicated an eight (8)foot chain link fence with metal slats to
act as the screening to the east.Staff is not supportive of the request.The
ordinance requires a fence used to screen a salvage yard-to be a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or metal.In addition,the ordinance prohibits
the use of plastic or metal slats woven into a chain link fence.
The applicant has requested a three-year deferral of paving the public parking
area.Staff is not supportive of this request.Staff feels the applicant should bring
the existing parking area into compliance with city code.The business is an
existing business,which wishes to expand,not a start up business operating on
limited capital.
Overall Staff is supportive of the development plan and the mitigation of the
floodway issues associated with the proposed development.Staff feels the use
is compatible to the area.The.site is shown as Service Trades District on the
Future Land Use Plan,which with a Planned Development the site would meet
the spirit of the Plan.
Staff is not however supportive of the request to allow the chain link fencing with
the metal slats as the eastern screening or the request for the three year deferral
of the hard surface parking area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development subject to compliance
with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report.
Staff recommends denial of the proposed request for a three (3)year deferral of
the hard surface parking area.
Staff recommends denial of the request to allow an eight (8)foot chain link fence
with metal slats to serve as the eastern screening device.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the
application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of approval of the proposed development subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct the hard surface parking area and to
construct a wood or metal fence along the eastern property line for the screening
device.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 recuse.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:Z-7300
NAME:Ormsbee Short-form PD-O
LOCATION:16925 Cantrell Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Town and Country Animal Hospital Dee Wilson
16925 Highway 10 P.O.Box 604
Little Rock,AR 72212 North Little Rock,AR 72115-0604
AREA:0.346 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family (non-conforming use)
ALLOWED USES:Veterinarian Clinic with no outside uses.
PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0
PROPOSED USE:Veterinarian Clinic with no outside uses.
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The site has been used as a veterinarian clinic by Town and County Animal Hospital
since 1989;and is still being used as this use.The site is currently zoned as R-2,
Single-family with a non-conforming use.The applicant is requesting a Planned
Development —Office zoning classification to become conforming.The applicant
has indicated there will not be any changes to the exterior of the building,however,
they wish to ensure that the site can be rebuilt to the original specifications in case of
damage,or loss to the building.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7300
The applicant has indicated the only kennels on the property are located inside
the building and no exterior kennels will be added.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a converted single-family house located on the southeast corner of
Drew Drive and Cantrell Road.The site is currently functioning as a veterinarian
clinic and has for several years.There are no outside pens or runs located on
the site.
Other uses in the area include single-family homes directly south and west of the
site with non-residential properties (The Ranch Development)located to the
north.A Planned Development for a bank was approved earlier in the year
across from the site on the corner of Ranch Drive and Cantrell Road.A Planned
Development for a office development was also approved to the west of this site;
across Drew Drive one lot removed.
The Future Land Use Plan indicates Suburban Office for the site,which allows
for low intensity development in close proximity to lower density residential areas
to assure compatibility;a Planned Development is required.The applicant's
property also lies within the Highway 10 Overlay District,which requires a
Planned Development for sites less than 2-acres.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received one (1)phone call from a neighbor in opposition
to the rezoning.The Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association and the
Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association,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:
No comments regarding the continuing the existing use of this site.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7300
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is
required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional details
at 688-1414.
EntennEP.No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection.
~NC ~d t:Add d d dtd.
C~tPt t:N t t d
CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
'lanninDivision:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The applicant has
applied for a Planned Development -Office for an existing non-conforming
veterinarian office.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan,which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an
area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan.
Landsca e Issues:No comment.
Belch t C d:~,t t d.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7300
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Doctor Ormsbee was present representing the application.Staff presented the
item as a Planned Development to recognize an existing use.Staff stated the
applicant was not proposing any exterior modifications or the addition of any runs
or kennels.
Staff requested the number of doctors and employees.Dr.Ormsbee stated there
were 2.5 doctors and 5 employees.Staff questioned if there was currently a
dumpster located on the site.Dr.Ormsbee indicated there was and pointed out
the location of the dumpster.
Staff noted comments from the Wastewater Department.There,being no further
issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter to Staff addressing the comments
received at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated
there are two full time doctors and one part time doctor currently operating at the
clinic.The applicant has also indicated there are five full time employees in
addition to the doctors.The hours of operation are from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm
Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 pm on Saturday.There is an
existing dumpster located on the site which will require screening;if not currently
screened.
Staff is supportive of the request.The request is to recognize an existing non-
conforming use,a veterinarian clinic.The applicant has not requested any
additional uses as alternative uses for the site.The applicant proposes no
exterior modifications or the addition of any outdoor kennels or runs.The site
contains indoor kennels presently,which are to remain.The site will be
approved for a veterinarian clinic with no outside uses proposed.
There is not any additional signage proposed as a part of the request,therefore,
the existing square footage of signage is to remain as the approved signage.
Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with
the proposed request for rezoning to a Planned Development —Office to allow
Town and Country Animal Hospital to become a conforming use.
4
October 31,20ud
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:17 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7300
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed request subject to compliance with
the conditions outlined in Paragraphs E and F of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors present.
Staff stated to their knowledge,there were no outstanding issues associated with the
proposed request.Staff presented a positive recommendation of the proposed planned
development subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:Z-7301
NAME:Auto Zone Auto Parts Short-form PD-C
LOCATION:On the Southeast Corner of Roosevelt Road and Commerce Street
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
A-Z Investments,LLC White-Daters and Associates
400 West Capitol Avenue,Suite 1200 ¹24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock,AR 72203 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:0.64 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0
CURRENT ZONING:C-4,C-3 and C-1
ALLOWED USES:Various Commercial Uses
PROPOSED ZONING:PCD
PROPOSED USE:Auto Parts Store (C-3 Uses as alternative uses)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone this site from various commercial zones to PD-C
to allow for the development of a'402 square foot building to house an Auto Zone
Auto Parts store.There are 29 parking spaces proposed as a part of the
development.
There are two signs proposed with the development.One sign located at Sherman
Street and East 26'"Street is proposed at 20 x 6 and 30-feet in height,which is
consistent with signage allowable in commercial zones.The second sign is a
monument style sign located on the corners of East Roosevelt and Commerce
street.The sign proposed is 15 by 5 and 14 feet in height.This too conforms to the
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7301
allowable sign area in commercial zones.The site currently contains four lots
between Sherman Street and Commerce Street south of East Roosevelt Road.The
applicant is proposing to close a 20-foot alley as a part of the development.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A portion of the site contains a building once used by a service station and is now
a used car lot extending from Sherman Street to the alleyway.Across the (non-
functioning)alleyway there is a vacant grass covered lot.There are two bill
boards located on the site.
Other uses in the area include single-family residences on R-3 zoned property to
the south across East 26'"Street and a church on 0-1 and C-3 zoned property.
Immediately west of the site across Commerce Street if a vacant lot which once
served as overflow parking for the former VA Hospital.
Our House is located directly north of the site and the VA Complex is located
northwest of the site.There is a service station located on the northeast corner
of the site.
East Roosevelt Road is a four lane road without turn lanes into the intersecting
streets.The boundary streets,West 26'"Street,Commerce Street and Sherman
Street,are residential streets with no curb and gutter.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing Staff has received several informational phone calls concerning the
proposed development.The East of Broadway,Community Outreach and
Meadowbrook Neighborhood Associations,all property owners within 200 feet and
all residents,who could be identified,within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
Public Hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Roosevelt Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline will be required.
(5 additional feet).
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at all street intersection
corners.
3.Provide design of all boundary streets conforming to the Master Street Plan.
Construct or re-construct as necessary,one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7301
Boundary streets include East Roosevelt,Commerce,East 26'",Sherman
Streets.
4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.
5.A grading permit will be required for this development.Stormater detention
ordinance does not apply.
6.Obtain permits prior to doing any street work 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.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Existing sewer main located in alley must be relocated at the
Developer's expense.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for
additional details.
Entercnt:No comment received.
ARKLA:No comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No comment received.
Water:No objection to alley closure.Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding
requirements for water service at 992-2438.
~di P ~d:App d d Add
~Apl i:N I i d.
CATA:Site is located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,
turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property.The
applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for the
development of an auto parts store.
The current zoning is commercial on this property.The request,while not
consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan,is closer to the spirit of the Plan than
the existing zoning pattern.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7301
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the South End Area Improvement Plan.The Office and
Commercial Development objective states "Attract new businesses to the area."
Landsca e Issues:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum 6.7 foot
wide on-site street buffer along East Roosevelt Road and East 26'"Street
required by both the zoning and landscaping ordinances.Though a 6.7 foot wide
street buffer is required by the Zoning Ordinance,no landscaping is required
between the proposed parking area and the building (considerable flexibility is
allowed with this requirement).
A water service within seventy-five (75)feet of all landscaped areas is required.
Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect
landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.
All of these requirements take into account that this site is located within the
designated mature area of the city.
~BilCh C d:~
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates and Mr.Nolan Rushing of Flake
and Kelly were present representing the application.Staff presented the
proposal indicating there were issues associated with the proposed development
including setbacks,right-of-way dedication and landscaping.Staff stated they
had met with the applicant prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting and
requested the applicant adjust the building to face east/west on the site but the
applicant had declined that request.Staff stated with the current orientation the
site was "tight".
The applicant indicated they could shorten the driveway width and still meet the
ordinance requirement and allow for the right-of-way dedication.The applicant
stated they would review the site plan to see if it was possible to adjust the
parking and building location to meet the landscaping requirements.Staff stated
a minimum of 6.7 feet would be required as street buffers on all sides of the
development.
After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7301
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
dedication of right-of-way along East Roosevelt Road as requested by Public
Works.The applicant has also indicated a 6-foot landscaping along the street
side of East Roosevelt Road.The ordinance required a minimum 6.7 foot wide
strip along the street side.The applicant has also indicated a zero (0)buildin
setback and landscaping strip along the rear of the site,adjacent to East
26'treet.
The applicant has proposed landscaping along the front,and sides.The rear of
the building will have a zero setback and will not have landscaping outside the
right-of-way.The applicant has indicated a desire to franchise the placement of
plantings in the right-of-way to soften the rear of the building.The applicant is
also proposing no openings on the rear of the building other than those required
for fire safety.The zero setback with no rear landscaping is a land use buffer
requirement and approval is granted by the Planning Commission.
The applicant has indicated street improvements will be made along all boundary
streets.There is a 20-foot alley that runs through the site which the applicant
proposes to close as a part of the development.The applicant is contacting the
utility companies to determine the status of the easement and if closure would be
a problem.Staff is supportive of the request to close the alley,if all the utility
companies are agreeable.
The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm
daily.The applicant has also requested all C-3,general commercial uses as
alternative uses for the site.The applicant proposes a ground-mounted sign
adjacent to East Roosevelt Road at Commerce Street and a pole mounted sign
located on the corners of East 26'"Street and Sherman Street both of which
conform to signage allowed in commercial zones (160 square feet in area and
not to exceed 36-feet in height).
Staff is somewhat supportive of the proposed development.Staff feels the site is
a "tight site"and the developer has stretched the site to the limit as far as build
ability.The site does not meet the required land use buffer requirements along
East 26'"Street but Staff feels with the franchising of the right-of-way and the
placement of plantings in this area could mitigated the lack of the land use buffer.
The area set aside along Roosevelt Road falls below the required 6.7 feet on a
portion of the frontage but well above the required area on other portions of the
site.The applicant has left quite a large landscaped area adjacent to Commerce
Street and a slightly larger than required area along Sherman Street.Staff feels
the areas set aside meet the spirit of the ordinance requirements.
5
October 31,200M
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:18 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7301
Staff is agreeable the site is a difficult site to develop.Staff feels the
redevelopment along East Roosevelt Road should be quality development not
just development.Since this is a Planned Development Staff is requesting the
Commission strike any outdoor automobile repair that may be requested or
implied by the applicant.In past experience,many auto parts store allow the
customers to,and even loan the customers tools to,"work on"their automobiles
in the parking lot.Staff is not supportive of this arrangement.This is a C-4 use
and not an allowable C-3 use nor a use which should be approved as a part of
this PCD.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development plan as submitted subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E,F and H of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had increased the front
landscape area to 7-feet.Staff stated otherwise,to their knowledge,there were no
outstanding issues associated with the proposed planned development.Staff presented
a positive recommendation of the request subject to compliance with the conditions
outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:19
Name:Davis Properties Land Alteration
Location:13000 Chenal Parkway,undeveloped lots
east and north of Hearne Family Practice
Center in Little Rock,Pulaski County,
Arkansas
~QIA Max Davis,owner of subject property.
~Re uest:Approval of site retoration plan consisting
seeding and installing a pine tree buffer along
southern and eastern property lines,no
removal of fill material.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Master Street Plan
This portion of Chenal Parkway is a principal arterial.
3.Develo ment Potential
This approximate 2 acre site is adjacent to Chenal Parkway and the Hearne
Family Practice Center ("Hearne").The zoning for this property along with
Hearne is 03-Office.Chenal Creek strip center,a PCD,is adjacent to the
property on the east.On the west the property is adjacent to the Landings
Apartments zoned R5-multifamily along with Hearne.The property to the north is
owned by the City of Little Rock and contains the floodplain of Rock Creek.It is
believed the subject property will develop in the next 5 to 10 years.
4.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
The area along Chenal Parkway is retail,office,and multifamily developments
with Rock Creek bounding on the north.The northern portion contains a 400 to
600 feet floodplain which is owned by the City of Little Rock.The southwest
portion of this original tract of land has been developed by Parkway Family
Medical Center.
5.Nei hborhood Position
No opinion position has been presented to Public Works.
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:19 Cont.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Mr.Max Davis,owner of Davis Properties contacted Public Works pertaining to adding
fill to this property.Public Works inspected the property,contacted Mr.Davis and
explained due to construction not being imminent the northern portion of the property
could not be filled due to floodplain and the remaining property could only be filled with
less than 1000 cubic yards,less than 10 vertical feet of fill,and remove 7 trees or less
as stated in the Land Alteration Ordinance,Section 29-186(a,b,c,d).
On July 1,2002,Mr.Davis wrote Public Works a letter complying with the fill stipulations
for this property.On July 12,2002,Public Works conducted a site inspection and
discovered about 6000 cubic yards of fill had been placed on the property.Mr.Davis
was issued a Stop Work Order and a Notice of Violation.
The Notice of Violation directed Mr.Davis per Section 29-170(c)to restore the land to
maximum extent practicable to its original condition beginning with a site restoration
plan within 30 days.
Mr.Davis agrees with the issuance of the stop work order and the notice of violation but
objects to restoring the land to maximum extent practicable to it original condition by
removing the fill material placed on the property.Mr.Davis is appealing to the planning
commission to replant pine trees on the south and east property lines to screen the fill
material.
Public Works is in support of the concept of Mr.Davis'lan but believes a 25 feet wide
buffer of 2—2.5 cal,10-12 feet pine trees should be planted on the east and south
property lines.The western buffer also is in need of repair and plantings are required in
inadequate areas.Also,all disturbed areas of the fill material must be hydroseeded
with bermuda grass.Public Works requires a restoration plan and warranty agreement
be submitted prior to commencing work.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
Mr.Max Davis was present representing the application.There were no objectors
present.Staff stated the applicant had requested a deferral to the February 7,2003,
Public Hearing to allow time to develop a development plan and a possible building
proposal.Staff stated they were supportive of the request for deferral.Staff stated the
deferral would take a waiver of the By-Laws.
There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waiver the By-Laws.the
motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.The item was placed on the
consent agenda for approval and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent,
2
October 31,2002
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO.:G-23-317
Name:Wingate Drive Abandonment
Location:A portion of Wingate Drive lying north
of Markham Street in Little Rock,
Pulaski County,Arkansas
I~IIA Thomas L.Jones,Meredith Taft;Clyde
Karnes,Betty Karnes
~Re ueet:To abandon approximately 25'f that
portion of Wingate Drive lying north of
Markham Street.Existing right-of-way
width is 50 feet.
STAFF REVIEW:
1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa
Wingate Drive is a residential street providing access to the Wingate
subdivision located north of Markham and west of Mississippi Streets.
Wingate Drive intersects with Markham Street approximately 400 feet
west of the Markham and Mississippi intersection and Mississippi Street
approximately 300 feet north of the intersection.
Early this year,Wingate residents complained that Wingate Drive was
being used as a "cut through"between Markham and Mississippi to avoid
the intersection.According to the residents,both the volume and speed of
the cut through traffic caused a hazard to the neighborhood.
Public Works conducted traffic counts on Wingate Drive in August 2001
and January 2002.The 2001 count indicated 377 west bound vehicles
and 187 east bound vehicles in a 10-hour period at a median speed of 22
miles per hour and an 85'"percentile speed of 28 mph.
The 2002 count indicated 344 east bound and 492 west bound vehicles in
an 11 hour period at a median speed of 22 mph and an 85'"percentile
speed of 28 mph.
In April of this year,Public Works erected temporary barriers to close the
entrance off Markham Street and few complaints have been received as a
result of this closure.In June,residents brought an application to the
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
Board of Directors to close Wingate Drive at its intersection with Markham
Street and the Board referred the action to the Planning Commission for
recommendation.
The applicants are property owners abutting Wingate Drive at its
intersection with Markham Street.
2.Master Street Plan
Wingate Drive is classified as a local street.Both Markham Street and
Mississippi Street are classified as minor arterials.
3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets
The current right-of-way width of Markham Street at this location is 60'.
The Master Street Plan calls for a width of right-of-way of 70 feet at this
location.Five feet of right-of-way will be retained at the intersection of
Wingate with Markham (35 feet from the centerline of Markham)to provide
the required Master Street Plan right-of-way width.
4.Develo ment Potential
This is an established area consisting of mostly single family homes.
There is little re-development potential in the vicinity of Wingate.
5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect
This established area along Markham and Mississippi has been
developed for many years and the majority of land use in the immediate
vicinity is single family.In the past,because Wingate drive connects to the
south to Markham,and to the east to Mississippi,Wingate has been used
by some drivers as a way to bypass the intersection of Mississippi and
Markham.This "cut-through"traffic has been cited by the applicants as the
reason for requesting closure.Closing this portion of Wingate would mean
that only local traffic in the neighborhood would use this street.
Closure would also limit alternatives for local traffic to enter and leave the
subdivision.All traffic would have to enter and exit the subdivision from
Mississippi Avenue.Traffic Counts on Mississippi are 17,000 vehicles per
day,and 20,000 vehicles per day use Markham.
2
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
6.Nei hborhood Position
All abutting property owners and neighborhood associations were notified
of the public hearing.At this writing,one objection to the closure from a
landowner in Wingate has been received.
7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities
Several utility companies have facilities located in the existing right-of-
way.There is no objection to closure of the right-of-way,provided a utility
easement is retained.
Fire Department —has no objection to the abandonment
8.Reversiona Ri hts
All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property owners,
A utility and access easement will also be retained in the former right-of-
way.
9.Public Welfare and Safet Issues
Permanently abandoning this segment of Wingate will reduce traffic on
this local street,and would be expected to enhance public safety for those
residents living on Wingate.However,closure would also limit the options
residents have for entering and leaving the subdivision,routing all traffic to
a single entrance on Mississippi.
Wingate is a local street not a part of the Master Street Plan network.
Local streets are typically designed to carry up to 2500 vehicles per day,
however,peak traffic counts on Wingate were 836 vehicles per day.
Closure would have no measurable impact on traffic safety operations or
the arterial network.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Since the proposed closure will have no
significant impact on traffic operations and is primarily a neighborhood
consideration,Public Works supports the closure.
3
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.:20 Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION (June,2002)
The applicants originally filed the petition for abandonment directly with the Board
of Directors.Rather that requesting closure under the statute for unused right-of-
way,the petition requested closure under the State statute for closure under the
general police powers of the Board.The Board declined to hear the petition and
referred it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated
the notices mailed to the area residents stated November 14,2002 as the Public
Hearing date.Staff stated they were supportive of the request to defer the item
to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.
There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for
deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
October 31,2002
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned
at 7:00 p.m.
Date
Chai an e et
/
(