HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_12 18 2014sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 18, 2014
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present there being ten (10) members present.
II. Members Present: Jennifer Martinez Belt
Craig Berry
Tom Brock
Buelah Bynum
Keith Cox
Janet Dillon
Rebecca Finney
Keith Fountain
Bill May
Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Members Absent: Alan Bubbus
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the October 30, 2014 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION AGENDA
DECEMBER 18, 2014
OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
A. Z-8959 The Lofts at Kanis Creek Long-form PD-R, located on the
South side of Kanis Road in the 14300 Block of Kanis
Road.
B. Z-8964 Dunn Short-form PD-R and Alley Abandonment, located
on the Northeast corner of Arthur and Nix Roads.
C. S-1731 Bowman Pointe Preliminary Plat, located East of South
Bowman Road, North and South of West 36th Street,
Between I-430 and South Bowman Road.
D. Z-6886-B Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD, located
at 11500 West 36th Street.
E. Z-6886-C Bowman Pointe Long-form PD-R, located East of South
Bowman Road, North and South of West 36th Street,
Between I-430 and South Bowman Road.
F. Z-5758-C Kanis Creek Apartments Long-form PD-R, located on the
Northwest corner of Kanis and Pride Valley Roads
G. Z-5649-D Accu Brand Long-form PD-I, located at 10915
Stagecoach Road.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
1. S-1261-K Kenwood Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat, located in
the Kenwood Subdivision Lots 133 – 137 on Sanible
Circle.
2. S-1705-B Haw Branch Addition Preliminary Plat, located at 13805
Crystal Valley Road.
Agenda, Page Two
NEW BUSINESS:
I. PRELIMINARY PLAT: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
3. S-1737 Rainey Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located in the 10000
Block of Old Arkansas Drive.
4. S-1738 Sorrells Subdivision Preliminary Plat, located on the
Northwest corner of Sorrells and Rummel Roads.
II. SITE PLAN REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
5. S-965-A Baseline Retail Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at
8815 Baseline Road.
6. S-1739 Miso Facility Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at
1700 Centerview Drive.
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
7. Z-7632-A Malone Short-form PD-R Revocation, located at 1100
Rock Street.
8. Z-8490-C 4314 Asher Avenue Revised Short-form PD-C, located at
4314 Asher Avenue.
9. Z-8850-A A & A Investment Filmore Street Revised Short-form PD-
O, located on the Northeast corner of West Markham and
Filmore Streets.
10. Z-8937-A Rainey Conditional Use Permit, located in the 10000
Block of Old Arkansas Drive.
Agenda, Page Three
III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: (CONTINUED)
Item Number:
File Number:
Title:
11. Z-8996 Kayla Cole Short-form PID, located at 7600, 7604, 7604
½ Colonel Glenn Road and 4122 Stannus Street.
12. Z-8997 5514/5520 West Markham Street Short-form PD-C,
located at 5514 and 5520 West Markham Street.
13. Z-8998 MEMS Headquarters Short-form PD-O, located at 1022
West 8th Street.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-8959
NAME: The Lofts at Kanis Creek Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the South side of Kanis Road in the 14300 Block
DEVELOPER:
Rowan Development
Attn. Jacob Chi
12206 West Markham Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
ENGINEER:
McGetrick Engineers
11419 Stagecoach Road, Suite 2100
Little Rock, AR 72210
AREA: 14.03 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family 20-units per acre
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
grading of future phases with the construction of the initial phase.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is proposing to rezone this site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to
allow the development of the Lofts at Kanis Creek. The development
encompasses approximately 14 acres of land. The project is expected to be
developed as a luxury multi-family residential community encompassing
288-living units contained within fourteen (14) apartment buildings. The
community will also house a clubhouse, lease office, detached fitness center,
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
2
community pool and pool house as well as a maintenance workshop. The plan
as submitted indicates the placement of 20-units per acre.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This area of Kanis Road is located outside the City limits of Little Rock but within
the City’s Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The area is not contiguous to the
City limits, which is a requirement for annexation. The property is currently
wooded and zoned R-2, Single-family. Within the general area there are a
number of residential and non-residential uses including Baker Elementary
School, single-family subdivisions and non-residential office and commercial
uses. Chenal Pet Palace is located along the southern boundary of the property.
Adjacent to the site Kanis Road is narrow rural road with open ditches for
drainage.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the
Capitol Hills Estates Property Owners Association, the Gibraltar Heights Point
West Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, the Parkway Place Property
Owners Association, the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association and
the Woodlands Edge Community Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Kanis Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be located 29.5-feet from centerline. Street improvements
should consist of striping a left turn lane.
3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is the project
proposed to be phased? Does the applicant propose to advance grade
future phases?
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
3
4. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
5. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. The upper
waters of Panther Branch appear to extend across this property and parallel
Kanis Road.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
8. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813; Greg Simmons gsimmons@littlerock.org for more
information.
10. The driveway width does not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36-feet and the landscape median must be removed.
11. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
12. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersection(s) comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
13. The owner and/or manager of each multi-family residence of 100 or more
dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the
tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow
mglasgow@littlerock.org or 501.371.4646 for more information.
14. A secondary emergency all weather access is required to be provided for
developments exceeding 30-units.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary, no comment. The property must
be annexed into the City of Little Rock to receive sewer service.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
4
Entergy: It is impossible to place this development using the provided map.
However, using the 14300 Kanis Road address it appears that there is no conflict
with Entergy facilities. A 3-phase electrical line runs along Kanis Road at this
point. Contact Entergy to verify exact location and to begin discussing electrical
service requirements. Contact Entergy, Bernard Neumeier, at 501.954.5158 for
additional information.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
3. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
4. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
5. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
6. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
7. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Maintain access. Fire hydrants per code. Fire apparatus
aerial access. All drives must be 26-feet in width. Apparatus turn-around.
Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information
County Planning: No comment.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
5
CATA: Very difficult to access public transit from proposed site. Route #5
West Markham Route is over 1.75-miles away serving Wal-mart on Bowman
Road.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the
review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at
501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875;
malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property.
Residential Low Density allows for single family homes at densities not to exceed
6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized
by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes
and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PDR
(Planned District Residential) to develop a multifamily development at a density
just over 20-units per acre on the site.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area
and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized
area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic
and pedestrians on John Barrow Road since it is a Minor Arterial. This street
may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required
shall be fifty (50) feet. The approximate average depth of the lot is nine
hundred and thirty (930) feet. A fifty foot (50) foot wide buffer is required
along Kanis Road.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
6
3. A land use buffer will be required when an adjacent property has a
dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. As a component of all land use
buffer requirements, opaque screening, whether a fence or other device, a
minimum of six (6) feet in height shall be required upon the property line
side of the buffer. A minimum of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer
shall be undisturbed. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be as provided
within the landscape ordinance of the City, Section 15-81.
4. The property to the west is zoned R-2, Single-family therefore a minimum
buffer will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot. The
maximum dimension required shall be fifty (50) feet in all instances. A fifty
(50) foot buffer is required on the west property line.
5. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide.
Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet
within the perimeter planting strip. Provide three (3) shrubs or vines for
every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip.
6. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the
parking area(s). For developments with more than one hundred fifty (150)
parking spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be
three hundred (300) square feet. Interior islands must be a minimum of
seven and one half (7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the
interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12)
parking spaces.
7. Landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for
public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck
loading or service areas not open to public parking. These areas shall be
equal to an equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular
use area.
8. The development of two (2) acres or more requires an approved landscape
plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
9. A landscape irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1)
acre or larger.
10. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
7
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 16, 2014)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were a number of outstanding technical issues associated with the
request. Staff requested the applicant provide the total building height, the
proposed construction materials, the building elevations, the location of any
dumpster facilities, any areas to be designated as green or open space. Staff
also requested the applicant provide details of the proposed signage plan.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a dedication of right of
way and street improvements were required to Kanis Road. Staff also stated a
grading permit would be required prior to any construction on the site. Staff
stated a secondary all weather emergency access was required to be provided
for development in excess of 30 units. Staff also questioned if there would be
any retaining walls on the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated both land use and street
buffers were required. Staff stated based on the width and depth of the property
a 50-foot buffer was required around the site’s entire perimeter. Staff stated a
minimum of eight (8) percent of the interior was to be landscaped with interior
islands. Staff stated an automatic irrigation system was required to water the
landscape areas.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing few of the issues
raised at the July 16, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
provided the proposed signage plan, building elevations and construction
materials. The revised plan has not located the proposed dumpster facilities,
addressed staff concerns related to landscaping or addressed engineering staff’s
comments pertaining to right-of-way dedication, boundary street improvements,
grading and drainage plan with detention area shown on the plan or sight
distance certification of driveway and driveways on the other east side of Kanis
Road. The applicant has indicated the hours of dumpster service will be limited
to weekdays from 7 am to 7pm.
The applicant has indicated the buildings will be constructed of wood framing,
masonry exterior and architectural asphalt shingle roofs. The buildings are
proposed with a maximum height of 63-feet. The buildings are proposed
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
8
three (3) and four (4) stories. According to the applicant the height is dependent
on the final finished grades of the site.
The development is proposed in three (3) phases. Buildings 1 – 5 and 7 along
with the clubhouse will be constructed in the first phase. Buildings 6, 8, 9 and 10
will be constructed in the second phase and Buildings 11 – 14 will be constructed
in the final phase.
The development is proposed with a single entry development sign. The sign is
proposed ten (10) feet in height and 120-square feet in area. The zoning
ordinance typically allows signage for multi-family developments six (6) feet in
height and twenty-four (24) square feet in area.
Fencing is proposed around the perimeters of the site. The fencing on the
northern, western and southern perimeters is proposed as a six (6) foot wood
fence. The fence along Kanis Road is proposed as a six (6) foot wrought iron
fence. Privacy gates will be provided at the front entrance to the development.
The request includes a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to
allow grading of future phases with the construction of the initial phase. The
applicant has indicated the grading is necessary to allow balancing of the site
eliminating the need to haul material from the site to later bring material back to
the site.
There are a number of outstanding technical issues associated with the request
which prohibits staff from providing a full review of the item. In addition to the
lack of information and the unresponsiveness by the applicant to staff’s request
raised at the July 16, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting staff has concerns
with the development of this site with multi-family housing and the overall density
of the development. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL),
Suburban Office (SO) and Residential Medium (RM) for this property.
Residential Low Density allows for single family homes at densities not to exceed
6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized
by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes
and cluster homes, provided that the density remains less than 6 units per acre.
The Suburban Office category shall provide for low intensity development of
office or office parks in close proximity to lower density residential areas to
assure compatibility. A Planned Zoning District is required. The Land Use Plan
shows Residential Medium Density (RM) for this property. The Residential
Medium Density category accommodates a broad range of housing types
including single family attached, single family detached, duplex, town homes,
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
9
multi-family and patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly
other housing types may fall in this category provided that the density is between
six (6) and twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. The overall density of the
development is not consistent with the typical development standards of the
City’s Future Land Use Plan. In addition, staff has concerns with the placement
of the number of units proposed with this development in addition to the units
currently approved and/or the number of units currently proposed for multi-family
in this general area. Staff feels the concentration of multi-family within such a
small geographic area could potentially negatively impact the general area and
the nearby neighborhoods.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2014)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had failed to respond to comments and issues
raised at the July 16, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the September 18, 2014, public hearing.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
Mr. Jacob Chi of Rowan Development was present representing the request. There
were a number of registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a
recommendation of denial. Mr. Chi stated he would yield this time to allow the
opposition to speak and he would the address their concerns.
Mr. Pat Malmstrom addressed the Commission in support. He stated he was a partner
in the landownership. He stated the property was purchased in 1994 as an investment.
He stated the land was previously used for manufacturing. He stated his company had
sold a portion of the property to the Chenal Pet Palace which was now a kennel. He
stated he felt the development would add to the tax base and would be a good addition
to the City.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
10
Ms. Jena McDonnell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was the
President of Spring Valley Neighborhood Association and was representing 118 homes.
She stated the resident’s concerns were density, lack of infrastructure and the land use
pattern in the area. She stated the neighborhood was in need of traffic signal at Kanis
and Cooper Orbit Roads. She stated the development did not comply with the City’s
Future Land Use Plan. She requested the Commission support staff in their
recommendation of denial.
Ms. Jane Berry of the Taylor Park Neighborhood addressed the Commission in
opposition of the request. She stated density and traffic were two concerns of the
residents. She stated the traffic volume on Kanis Road was very high. She stated she
did not want to see additional apartments which would only increase traffic in the area.
Mr. Bob Trammell addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his law firm was
on Kanis Road and he moved to the area when Kanis Road was still a rural setting. He
stated during Mayor Dailey’s term the City undertook a study of Kanis Road to maintain
the integrity and the rural character of the roadway. Mr. Trammell stated he was well
aware of the Chi development on Kirby Road. He stated when the family developed the
site they did not preserve any of the trees many of which were mature hardwoods. He
questioned if an environmental study was warranted for the site based on the historic
use of the property.
Ms. Melanie Strigel addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her home was located nearby the development on Cooper Orbit Road. She stated her
concern was the number of units proposed for the site as well as the area. She stated if
all the developments currently being considered were constructed there would be well
over 1,000 units in this immediate area. She stated the infrastructure was not in place
to handle the wastewater needs or the traffic needs. She stated improvements to Kanis
Road would be completed adjacent to the site but the remaining street would be narrow
with open ditches. She requested the Commission stand with staff in opposing the
request.
Ms. Cathi Watkins addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the number of
units proposed in the area was out of character for the neighborhood. She stated
currently under consideration and approved there were 1,239 multi-family units in the
immediate area. She stated an additional 1,000 units were proposed or approved on
South Bowman Road. She stated the neighborhood was working with staff to develop a
Design Overlay District for Kanis Road. She stated this was in the planning stages and
requested the Commission hold off on approving development along the corridor to
ensure compatible growth.
Mr. Jesse Munn addressed the Commission as a representative of the 600 homes in
the Woodlands Edge Subdivision. He stated the residents of Woodlands Edge were not
opposed to development but were concerned with the lack of traffic control on Kanis
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
11
Road. He stated the traffic volume on Kanis Road was heavy. He stated there was an
elementary school just to the west of this site which during drop-off and pick-up caused
traffic to stack onto Kanis Road. He stated the lack of infrastructure limited the ability of
the area to grow.
Ms. Linda Collins addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her home was in the Kanis Creek Subdivision. She stated she was not opposed to
development but was opposed to development which was not thought out and planned.
She stated she had lived downtown and coexisted with businesses. She stated based
on the number of units proposed the area was taking on the feel of Reservoir Road.
She requested the Commission hold off on approving development on the corridor until
after the DOD was completed to allow the area to be planned for future growth.
Mr. Ross Phillips addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated he
was not against development and had been on both sides of development in the past.
He stated the request was inconsistent with the City’s Land Use Plan. He stated with
the current number of units approved at Rushmore Avenue and at Cooper Orbit and
Kanis Roads would generate additional traffic for the area. He stated the area should
be developed with a mixture of uses including additional single-family and support
services.
Mr. Sandy Becker addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
he supported staff in their recommendation. He stated the neighborhood was right in
requesting development hold off until the DOD was put in place. He stated the
infrastructure in the area was inadequate to serve the additional traffic and homes.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the request. She stated this part of town was facing difficulties with regard to growth.
She stated the City Board should call a pause on development in this area until the
issues of development could be resolved. She stated the Commission should request
of the Board of Directors a formal directive for review of the zoning and land use
patterns in this area. She stated even with the great plan’s the City had if they were not
in-sink then the planning effort did not offer the best development patterns for the area.
Mr. Jacob Chi addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated his
family had roots in the community and had lived in Little Rock for more than 30 years.
He stated his family’s focuses were restaurant owners, hotel owners and real estate
developers. He stated his family only believed in responsible development. He stated
he was not a developer from out of town wanting to develop an apartment complex in
the neighborhood. He stated Kanis had not developed due to the limits on infrastructure
in the area. He stated the number of units proposed with his development were not out
of character with previous developments approved in the area. He stated the site would
be landscaped and a buffer along Kanis Road would be maintained. He stated based
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
12
on the cost of improvements density was critical to allowing the development to be
feasible. He stated his development was consistent with the Panther Branch
Development which was recently approved located adjacent to his site.
Mr. Chi stated traffic in this area was not an issue. He stated he and his employees had
sat at the intersection of Kanis and Cooper Orbit Roads and saw few if any delays. He
stated the longest delay was 52-seconds for a car wanting to cross Kanis Road and
travel north on Kirby Road. He stated the 288-units would not generate a large number
of cars during the am and pm peaks. He stated with the development he was being
proactive. He stated if the community wanted to wait for the infrastructure to be in place
it would most likely be more than a decade before improvements were in place.
There was a question by Commissioner Numnnley concerning the applicant’s request to
advance grade. Mr. Chi stated the topography of the site was such that advanced
grading was necessary to balance the site. He stated with advanced grading this would
minimize the truck traffic on Kanis Road and provide the least disruption to the area
residents. He stated the phasing plan was to allow the construction of all the units
within 6-months of initiation of the first building.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned if Mr. Chi was willing to contribute to a traffic signal
at the intersection of Kanis and Cooper Orbit Roads. Mr. Chi stated he was willing to
provide a financial contribution to the traffic signal.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the density. Mr. Chi stated he was willing to reduce
the number of units but was told by staff that he could not change his application.
Staff stated Mr. Chi had submitted a revised site plan two (2) hours before the
Commission meeting was scheduled to begin. Staff stated they told Mr. Chi if he
wanted to move forward with the revised plan at this late hour then the item needed to
be deferred to allow staff time to review the revision and provide a recommendation to
the Commission. Staff stated Mr. Chi elected to not defer therefore the application
before the Commission was for 288-units. Mr. Chi agreed with staff’s statement.
Staff also stated the project Mr. Chi was referring to which was not adjacent to his site
but to the south of his site was zoned C-1 and MF-6 which the C-1 would allow the
development of multi-family at a density of 36-units per acre.
Commissioner Berry stated there was a demand for affordable housing in this area due
to the high volume of service businesses in the area. He stated it was important for
staff to study and design a plan for the area to allow future development with a mix of
housing types for all incomes. He stated growth was happening and it was important for
the growth to be quality growth. He stated the area was ripe for review and completion
of a future plan for this corridor. He stated walkability and diversity were key elements
to neighborhoods.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
13
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development, the
overall area, the infrastructure in place and the lack thereof. Mr. Chi stated he was
willing to review his application to see if a lesser number of buildings and units would
allow financially feasible to allow the development to occur.
Mr. Chi requested the Commission defer his request until the October 30, 2014, public
hearing to allow him to meet with the neighborhoods and to review the feasibility of
revising his plan.
The chair entertained a motion of deferral of the item to the October 30, 2014, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 17, 2014, requesting deferral of this
item to the December 18, 2014, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated
October 14, 2014, requesting a deferral of this item to the December 17, 2014, public
hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item, as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes
0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was first docketed for the August 7th Planning Commission agenda. The item
was deferred by staff due to the applicant’s non-responsiveness to comments raised at
the July 16, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The item was again deferred after
considerable discussion at the Commission’s September 18, 2014, public hearing. Prior
to the Commission’s October 30, 2014, public hearing, the applicant requested a
deferral of the item to the December 18, 2014, public hearing. As of this writing the
applicant has not had contact with staff nor submitted a plan to address comments
raised at the September 18, 2014, public hearing.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8959
14
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration, without prejudice, to allow
the applicant time to meet with the area residents and to secure a site plan to be
presented and acted upon by the Commission. The Planning Commission By-laws
state in no case shall more than two (2) requests for deferral from an applicant be
granted. In this case there have been three (3) deferrals granted and to staff’s
knowledge the applicant has made no attempt to work with the area residents or staff to
resolve concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating based on the number of previous deferral as outlined in the
agenda staff write-up they were recommending withdrawal of this item, without
prejudice, to allow the applicant time to develop a proper site plan and allow the
applicant to meet with the area residents and property owners.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-8964
NAME: Dunn Short-form PD-R and Alley Abandonment
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Arthur and Nix Roads
DEVELOPER:
Universal Housing Group
P.O. Box 241667
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering
5318 John F. Kenney Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 1.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 – townhouse lots FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Townhouse, Single-family attached
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to
allow the creation of a townhouse lot plat. The current area is 1-acre and is
proposed with 11 townhouse lots. The site has frontage on three (3) platted City
streets, Farris Street to the east, Arthur Road to the south and Nix Road to the
west.
The site plan indicates the new lots will be developed with two (2) buildings
fronting Nix Road, two (2) buildings fronting Farris Street and three (3) buildings
with two (2) units and one single unit fronting Arthur Road. The lots are indicated
with lot widths ranging in size from 30.4-feet to 58.6-feet in width. The lot depths
range from 106.8-feet to 124.0-feet. The lot area ranges from 3,492 square feet
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
2
to 6,258 square feet. The site plan indicates a 10-foot building setback along the
northern perimeter. The plan indicates a minimum building setback along the
abutting streets of 20-feet.
The units are proposed with rear loaded garages accessed from a 20-foot alley.
The alley extends the distance between Nix Road and Farris Street. The site
plan indicates a 32-foot by 68-foot common area within the development. Four
(4) percent of the site is proposed as common open space. The development is
proposed with 8.2 units per acre.
The request also includes the abandonment of a north/south alley located
adjacent to Lots 5 and 12 Block 5, Gibraltar Heights Addition and an east/west
alley located adjacent to Lots 6 – 11 and 5 and 12 Block 5, Gibraltar Heights
Addition.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is currently platted as eight (8) single-family lots. There is a
single-family home located on the property. This area is predominately
single-family. A number of new homes have been constructed in this general
area within the last 10-years. North of the site along West Markham Street is the
Shadow Lakes Apartments. Also in the area along West Markham Street are a
number of office and commercial uses with frontage on West Markham Street
and Chenal Parkway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. A number of the comments have been in opposition. A few have
indicated they are in support of the request. All property owners located within
200-feet of the site along with the Gibraltar Heights Point West Timber Ridge
Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association
were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Nix Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
A dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Arthur Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
A dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline will be required.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
3
3. Farris Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
A dedication of right-of-way 25-feet from centerline will be required.
4. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Nix Road and Arthur Road.
5. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Arthur Road and Farris Street.
6. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Nix Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be located 13-feet from centerline. Additional asphalt maybe
required to be installed on Nix Road to provide at least 20-feet of asphalt.
7. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Arthur Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be placed 13-feet from the centerline. Additional asphalt maybe
required to be installed on Arthur Road to provide at least 20-feet of asphalt.
8. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Farris Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be located 13-feet from centerline. Additional asphalt maybe
required to be installed on Farris Road to provide at least 20-feet of asphalt.
A temporary hammerhead turnaround must be provided at the northern end
of Farris Road for City of Little Rock and emergency vehicles.
9. The proposed alley should be private and paved at least 20-feet wide from
Farris Street to Nix Road.
10. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
12. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
13. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813; Greg Simmons gsimmons@littlerock.org for more
information.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
4
14. The proposed plat does not show utility easements.
15. Residential waste will be picked up in the street adjacent to the front yard.
16. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to provide sewer
service to all lots.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to the proposed development. Single phase
electrical distribution lines exist on the southern, eastern and northwestern edge
of the property as well as an extension to the house currently located on the
property. Contact Entergy, Bernard Neumeier, at 501.954.5158, in advance to
discuss service arrangements for the development.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
3. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
4. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
5. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
5
6. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
7. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Maintain access. Fire hydrants per code. Two-ways to enter
and exit, subdivision, fire apparatus, turn-arounds. All drives must be 26-feet in
width. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: Difficult to access public transportation from this site. Location is over
¾ mile from Route #5, West Markham Route service Wal-mart on Bowman
Road.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Building permit required. Fire separation required for zero lot
line/party wall buildings that is beyond that required for standard townhouse
construction.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property.
Residential Low Density allows for single family homes at densities not to exceed
6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized
by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes
and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PDR
(Planned District Residential) to develop a townhouse development at a density
just over 8-units per acre on the site.
Master Street Plan: Nix and Arthur Roads are shown as a Local Streets on the
Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use
or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”.
A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
6
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 16, 2014)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the development
stating there were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
Staff requested the applicant provide building elevations, proposed construction
materials and the maximum height of the buildings. Staff questioned if the units
would be owner occupied or rentals. Staff also questioned if there would be a
development sign and if so the total height and total sign area.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right of way
and street construction would be required on the abutting streets. Staff also
stated no construction could take place on the site without the issuance of a
grading permit. Staff stated residential waste would be collected on the streets
fronting the units. Staff stated the plat as proposed did not include any utility
easements.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing staff’s concerns
raised at the July 16, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has
provided the maximum building height, the construction materials and the
proposed elevations. The applicant has indicated the units will be two (2) story
with a maximum building height of 27-feet. There will not be a development sign
to identify the proposed townhouse development. The applicant has indicated
the units will be placed on individual lots to allow for the sale of the units.
The request is to rezone the site from R-2, Single-family to PD-R to allow the
creation of a townhouse lot plat. The Subdivision Ordinance defines townhouse
lots of not less than twenty-two (22) feet in width by eighty (80) feet in depth with
an overall size of two thousand (2,000) square feet. The lots are indicated with
lot widths ranging in size from 30.4-feet to 58.6-feet in width. The lot depths
range from 106.8-feet to 124.0-feet. The minimum lot size is 3,492 square feet
and the maximum lot size is 3,258 square feet.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
7
There are 11-units total proposed. The site plan indicates the new lots will be
developed with five (5) of the units as duplex type homes and the remaining unit
is proposed as a detached unit. The units are proposed with rear loaded
garages accessed from a 20-foot alley. The alley extends the distance between
Nix Road and Farris Street. The site plan indicates a 32-foot by 68-foot common
area within the development.
The construction materials proposed are brick, siding and architectural shingles.
The site plan includes the placement of a six (6) foot fence along the northern
perimeter. Additional fencing may be added along the remaining perimeters in
the future. The maximum height all fencing will be six (6) feet. Fencing will also
be placed within the rear yards of the units to offer privacy to the residents.
The request also includes the abandonment of a north/south alley located
adjacent to Lots 5 and 12 Block 5, Gibraltar Heights Addition and an east/west
alley located adjacent to Lots 6 – 11 and 5 and 12 Block 5, Gibraltar Heights
Addition. Staff is supportive of the abandonment request of the alley as a public
right of way.
Staff is not supportive of the request. In recent years this area has seen a
number of new single-family homes constructed on individual lots. There is a
defined line between the multi-family and the non-residential uses to the north
and the single-family to the south. With the exception of the multi-family along
West Markham Street the area is predominately single-family homes on
individual lots. In addition, in staff’s opinion, the massing of the buildings is out of
character with the size and massing of the homes in this area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated August 4, 2014, requesting
a deferral of the item to the September 18, 2014, public hearing. Staff sated the
deferral request would require a waiver of the Commission’s By-laws with regard to the
late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the deferral request with regard to the late deferral request. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
8
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
Mr. Mike Marlar and Mr. AJ Gilbert were present representing the request. There were
registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Marlar, the project engineer, stated the development was proposed as an attached
single-family development. He stated the homes were proposed as patio homes, with
owner occupancy. He stated there were no front loading garages, all garages were
loaded from rear alleys. He stated the units would all have hardwood floors and granite
counter tops. He stated the site was currently platted with eight (8) single-family lots.
He stated this development would allow the placement of eleven (11) units. Mr. Marlar
stated all boundary street improvements would be completed with the development.
Ms. Paula Brown addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her home was located at 511 Nix Road and she bought her home in 1994. She stated
the neighborhood was a diverse neighborhood with residents ranging from 20 years of
age to 90 years of age. She stated there were young families and elderly residents all
living in the neighborhood. She stated Nix Road was a narrow unimproved road with
deep ditches for drainage. She stated the road was a single lane road. She stated the
residents knew to wait for the cars to pass before moving on up or down the hill. She
stated the homes ranged in price from $120,000 to $180,000. She stated the new
construction in the area was primarily single-family. She requested the Commission
maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and vote no on the proposed request.
Ms. Gaye Knight addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her home was located at 13030 Arthur Lane. She stated the area was single-family and
not multi-family. She stated the streets were narrow streets and were not developed
with curb, gutter and sidewalk. She stated placing a multi-family development in a
single-family neighborhood would decrease property values. She stated the
neighborhood did not want rental. She stated not to call into question the developers
integrity but he had a history of developments that he had not completed. She stated if
this developer could not follow through with completion of the project then property
values in the area would be affected.
Ms. Knight stated the neighborhood could hear traffic from Chenal Parkway. She stated
the site contained a great number of mature trees. She stated if the development was
completed as proposed the trees would not remain which would then case additional
noise within the neighborhood. She stated there were drainage problems on
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
9
Arthur Lane. She stated with the brick and concrete proposed this would also create
additional run-off and drainage problems.
Ms. DG New addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the
streets in the area were very narrow. She stated Gamble Road was a through street
and carried a great deal of cut-through traffic from Kanis to Chenal. She stated Arthur
Lane was only two (2) block long. She stated the residents in the neighborhood were
very diverse but they lived in single-family detached homes. She requested the
Commission maintain the single-family character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Lennice Garrison addressed the Commission on behalf of the Parkway Place
Recreational Improvement District. She stated the improvement district represented
700 homes in the Parkway Place and Gibraltar Heights neighborhoods. She stated the
proposed development was to dense for the area. She stated the area was
predominately single-family with the exception of the more dense developments nearer
West Markham and on Kanis Road. She requested the Commission protect the
integrity of the neighborhood and deny the request.
Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of
the request. She stated the League was concerned with the density, the number of
units, the number of people living there, the paved alley, the setbacks, the coverage and
such a small tract for open space. She stated based on the size of the units there
would potentially be families living in the units. She stated there was no yard area and
no common space for families to recreate outdoors. She stated the density of the
development was not right for the site.
Ms. Cherry Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
there was a home which had burned on Arthur Lane because emergency personnel
could not reach the home. She stated the streets were narrow and when cars were
parked on one or both sides of the street then the streets became impassable. She
requested the Commission deny the request due to existing safety concerns.
Ms. Christy Pettit addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the development was too intense for the site. She stated there were two (2) fires in the
area and one (1) was a total loss because the fire trucks could not make the turn on Nix
and Arthur. She stated the development was on the verge of high density. She stated
the Land Use Plan indicated this area for Residential Low which allowed six (6) units
per acre. She stated the development was proposed with two (2) car garages which
would most likely mean two (2) cars per unit which would add twenty-two (22) cars per
day on the street. She stated there were no plans to widen the abutting streets which
would add to the existing traffic concerns of the area. She requested the Commission
maintain the character of the neighborhood, stay within the scope of the existing homes
and maintain the value of the neighborhood.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
10
Mr. Marlar stated the existing septic system would be removed and water and sewer
would be added to the site to allow development. He stated the narrow streets would
be widened which would improve traffic safety in the area. He stated the development
was an attached single-family development. He stated the homes were more in
keeping with single-family than multi-family. He stated if no tree was ever removed then
none of us would have a home. He stated the property was currently platted as eight
(8) residential lots and the request was to add three (3) lots for a patio home
development.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the current condition of
the abutting streets and the street improvements required. Staff stated the street
appeared to be ten (10) to twelve (12) feet wide. Staff stated the developer would be
required half street construction of a 26-foot street. Staff stated at a minimum 20-feet of
pavement would be placed on the streets abutting the applicant’s proposed
development. Staff stated in addition curb, gutter and sidewalk would be required.
The Commission questioned staff if this was the area which was recently changed from
Residential High (RH) to Residential Low (RL). Staff stated this area was not the area
recently changed. Staff stated this area had been identified as Residential Low for a
number of years.
The Commission questioned staff if they would look at the area to determine if no
parking signs were warranted. Staff stated there was a process to place no parking
signs. Staff stated they would work with the neighbors to determine if they were in
agreement to place the no parking signs.
There was a general discussion between the Commission and the applicant and his
representative concerning the development, the density and improvements to be
completed with the proposed development. The Commission questioned if the number
of units could be reduced and if the units could be detached housing. Mr. Marlar stated
he and his client would like to defer the item to allow time to review any modifications to
the plat and determine what adjustments could financially be made.
The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the October 30, 2014, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff reducing the number of units from
eleven (11) to ten (10). The site plan indicates the placement of three (3) buildings
fronting on Arthur Road and one building each fronting Nix Road and Farris Street.
Each of the buildings contains two (2) units. A note on the site plan indicates the
structures will be two-story structures with a maximum building height of 27-feet.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
11
As noted the site contains 1.33-acres and is currently eight (8) platted lots which would
allow the development of this property with eight (8) single-family homes. The site is
identified as Residential Low (RL) on the City’s Future Land Use Plan which typically
allows for development of residential at a density of not more than six (6) units per acre.
The development is proposed with a density of 7.52 units per acre. As previously noted
staff is not in support of the request. There have been a number of new homes
constructed within this area in the last 15 years utilizing the platted lots which have been
in place for several decades. There is a defined line between the multi-family and the
non-residential uses to the north and the single-family homes which have been
constructed to the south. With the exception of the multi-family along West Markham
Street the area is predominately single-family homes on individual lots. In addition, in
staff’s opinion, the massing of the buildings is out of character with the size and
massing of the homes in this area. Staff feels the lots should be developed as currently
platted with eight (8) new single-family homes.
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Commission
called the applicant forward. Mr. Mike Marlar of Marlar Engineering stated the
developer was requesting a deferral of the item to the December 18, 2014, public
hearing. Commissioner Nunnley noted this was the applicant’s third deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes 0 noes and
0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was first docketed for the August 7, 2014, Planning Commission agenda.
Prior to the August 7, 2014, public hearing the applicant requested deferral of this item
to the September 18, 2014, public hearing. The item was again deferred after
considerable discussion at the Commission’s September 18, 2014, public hearing. Prior
to the Commission’s October 30, 2014, public hearing, the applicant requested a
deferral of the item to the December 18, 2014, public hearing. As of this writing the
applicant has not had contact with staff or the area residents concerning the proposal.
Staff recommends this item be withdrawn from consideration, without prejudice, to allow
the applicant time to meet with the area residents and to secure a site plan to be
presented and acted upon by the Commission. The Planning Commission By-laws
state in no case shall more than two (2) requests for deferral from an applicant be
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8964
12
granted. In this case there have been three (3) deferrals granted and to staff’s
knowledge the applicant has made no attempt to work with the area residents or staff to
resolve concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating based on the number of previous deferral as outlined in the agenda staff
write-up they were recommending withdrawal of this item, without prejudice, to allow the
applicant time to meet with the area residents and property owners.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1731
NAME: Bowman Pointe Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located East of South Bowman Road, North and South of West 36th
Street, Between I-430 and South Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
Richardson Properties, LLC
9800 Maumelle Boulevard
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 87.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family and POD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 24.07
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The request is to allow the subdivision of 87.69-acres into two (2) tracts and two
(2) parcels. The property is located on the north and south sides of West 36th
Street between I-430 and South Bowman Road. Tract 1 contains 1.04-acres and
is located with frontage on South Bowman Road, south of West 36th Street.
Tract 2 contains 15.57-acres, located with frontage on West 36th Street and
contains a large area of floodway (6.89-acres). The applicant’s cover letter
indicates the floodway area will be designated as open space.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
2
The properties proposed as parcels are located north of West 36th Street. Parcel
A is proposed containing 31.07-acres and is located north of West 36th Street
with frontage on South Bowman Road. The property currently zoned R-2,
Single-family and is proposed for development with several buildings of multi-
family as a separate item on this agenda (Z-6886-C). Parcel B is the property
owned by the Church at Rock Creek. The property contains 40.0-acres and as a
separate item on this agenda the applicant is proposing a revision to the
previously approved POD for the Church at Rock Creek (Z-6886-B) to eliminate a
previously required land use buffer along the western perimeter and to allow
grading of a portion of the Church’s site with the construction of the adjacent
apartment development.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located on West 36th Street between South Bowman Road and I-430.
On the north side of West 36th Street is the Church at Rock Creek, which is
located along the eastern side of the proposed development, several
single-family homes (which are not a part of the application request) and the
western portion of the development which is located adjacent to South Bowman
Road. The church has constructed the worship center, a few out ministry
buildings and several parking areas. The western portion of the property
proposed for development with multi-family is heavily wooded. The proposed
plat includes two (2) tracts on the south side of West 36th Street. The southern
tracts are heavily wooded and Brodie Creek runs through proposed Parcel B.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Sandpiper Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Bowman Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. The
dedication should also include Tract 1.
2. West 36th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. Where
a minor arterial intersects another minor arterial, the applicant shall dedicate
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
3
an additional 10-feet of right-of-way measured from the centerline of the
right-of-way for a right turn lane. The additional right-of-way shall normally
be 250 feet in length measured from the intersecting right-of-way. At such
intersections, the intersecting right-of-way lines shall normally have a radius
of 75 to 100 foot.
3. The preliminary plat should show the public street north off West 36th Street.
The right-of-way should be a width of 60 feet.
4. If the proposed street is to be public, it should be located within a 60 foot
right-of-way and additional right-of-way dedicated to connect to the existing
right-of-way north off West 36th Street.
5. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to South
Bowman Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
The new back of curb should be located 29.5-feet from centerline. Striping
should be provided for a left turn lane. Portions of the proposed right-of-way
are not in the possession of the applicant. All street improvements should
be made per AASHTO standards.
6. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to West 36th
Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new
back of curb should be located 29.5-feet from centerline. West 36th Street
should be widened where the public street from the north intersects West
36th Street at the time the apartments take access and/or the street from
South Bowman Road is constructed. At the South Bowman Road
intersection, improvements should be made per the Arterial Intersection
design in the MSP and AASHTO standards with sufficient width for a left
turn lane, 2-thru lanes, and 1-right turn lane with channelization islands.
7. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25-foot
wide drainage and access easement is required adjacent to the floodway
boundary.
8. A substantial area of the site lies within the regulated floodway and
floodplain of Brodie Creek. No future construction of any structures
including improvements to the interior of the structures over 50% of
the market value of the structure, parking areas, or placement of any
fill material.
9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
4
10. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813, Greg Simmons, for more information.
11. The proposed public street should be constructed no closer than 600-feet
from the South Bowman Road/West 36th Street intersection (arterial/arterial
intersection) due to vehicle stacking and tapers for left turn lanes. The
right-of-way should be within a 60 foot right-of-way. It is believed a future
street will be desired to the west.
12. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact Glenn Haley at 501.371.4537.
13. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the proposed driveway and street intersections comply with
2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. Superelevation of South Bowman
Road should be considered.
14. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
15. Hammerheads should be designed to be at least 80 feet in length and the
same width as the street at the end of Brook Forest Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if sewer service
is required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
Entergy: Entergy has a 3-phase power line running along the eastern side of
South Bowman Road and northern side of West 36th Street. There are no lines
on the preliminary plat. Contact Entergy in advance for service requirements,
line location and easement needs. If existing power lines need to be adjusted to
accommodate road work or driveways, please communicate with Entergy early in
the process.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
5
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
5. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
6. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: 26-foot drive lanes required, fire hydrants within 100-feet of
FDC, 2-ways to enter and exit development, fire hydrants per code, no
obstruction between fire hydrant, FDC and fire apparatus. Gates must be 20-feet
wide. Contac the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA has reviewed the plans submitted by your office on the above
referenced area. The area is currently served by CATA at West 36th Street and
South Shackleford Road approximately six (6) blocks away. The development
consists of 483 apartment units. CATA has this corridor in mind for future
expanded transit utilizing South Bowman Road and West 36th Street as corridors
to serve the growing population. CATA requests consideration of pullouts and
sidewalks on South Bowman Road and West 36th Street near the entrance to the
complex.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
6
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: No comment.
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 27, 2014)
Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the
request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were
three (3) items which were closely related on the agenda which included this
preliminary plat creating parcels to allow a revision to the POD for the Church at
Rock Creek and a PD-R to allow the development of multi-family housing on the
north side of West 36th Street. Staff stated the two (2) parcels being created on
the south side would be held for future development.
Staff requested Mr. Daters provide the zoning classification of the proposed plat
area and of abutting property. Staff also requested any additional information
concerning any existing or proposed covenants for the property. Staff
questioned the proposed phasing plan for the lots.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated dedication of right of way
would be required on both West 36th Street and South Bowman Road to comply
with the Master Street Plan. Staff questioned the proposed phasing plan for the
street construction of South Bowman Road. Staff also questioned if advanced
grading was being requested for the multi-family site.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The request is for preliminary plat approval to allow the creation of two parcels
and two tracts for this 87.69-acre parcel. The property is located on both
the north and south sides of West 36th Street and between I-430 and South
Bowman Road.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
7
Tract 1 contains 1.04-acres and is located with frontage on South Bowman Road,
just south of West 36th Street. The property is proposed for future development.
The site is currently zoned R-2, Single-family.
Tract 2 contains 15.57-acres. The tract is located with frontage on West 36th
Street. This tract contains a large area of floodway (6.89-acres). The applicant’s
cover letter indicates this area will be designated as open space and calculated
in the overall density for the multi-family portion located north of West 36th Street.
The property proposed as parcels are located north of West 36th Street. Parcel A
is proposed containing 31.07-acres and is located with frontage on South
Bowman Road. This property is currently tree covered. This property is
proposed for development with multi-family as a separate item on this agenda
(Z-6886-C).
Parcel B is the property owned and occupied by the Church at Rock Creek. The
property contains 40.0-acres. As a separate item on this agenda the applicant is
proposing a revision to the previously approved POD for the Church at Rock
Creek (Z-6886-B).
The applicant has indicated right of way dedications and street construction will
be completed to the abutting streets as the individual lots are developed. There
are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels the
proposed preliminary plat to allow the creation of the parcels and tracts as
proposed are appropriate. Staff is supportive of the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E
and F of the agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating they and the applicant were working to resolve issues raised
at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the October 30, 2014, public hearing.
There was no further discussion. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the
item as presented by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
8
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were a number of registered objectors present. Staff
presented the three items (Item D – Bowman Pointe Preliminary Plat S-1731, Item H –
the Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD Z-6886-B and the Bowman Point
Long-for PD-R Z-6883-C) as a single item for discussion purposes. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of each of the items along with an associated variance for
advance grading for the Church at Rock Creek and the Brodie Creek Long-form PD-R.
Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
Mr. Daters stated the development included the Church at Rock Creek property,
property owned by Mr. Richardson proposed for multi-family development and a
preliminary plat to allow property owned by Mr. Richardson on the South side of West
36th Street to be subdivided into two (2) tracts. He stated a 7-acre area of floodway
would be dedicated as open space. Mr. Daters stated the development would include
improvements to South Bowman Road and to West 36th Street. Mr. Daters stated on
West 36th Street additional paving would be added to allow traffic to flow northward on
South Bowman Road during peak times of church dismissal. He stated the multi-family
portion of the development would include areas of green space and courtyards.
Mr. Daters stated improvements to the intersection of South Bowman Road and West
36th Street would not be completed at this time. He stated the exact alignment of the
intersection had not been determined by the City. He stated the desire was to soften
the curve in South Bowman Road. He stated the current right of way did not allow for
the improvements to be completed. He stated the developer would complete all the
improvements required by the Boundary Street Ordinance with the development of
particular phases.
Ms. Daniel Norwood of Richsmith Development addressed the Commission on the
particulars of the development. She stated the development was proposed on a similar
style as the development across South Bowman Road. She stated the units would be a
little smaller and the amenities would be a little less but the units would still be high end
units. She stated as the units were being leased across the street they found there
were a number of residents that would like to live in the area but did not want to pay as
high a rent as the existing development commanded. She stated this development
would allow those potential residents an option for west Little Rock living. She stated
the development would be constructed in phases. She stated as each phase was
nearing full lease out the next phase would be started.
Ms. Carolyn Bolin addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her property
was located on West 36th Street and questioned what would happen to their property.
She questioned the street improvements to South Bowman Road and West 36th Street
at this intersection.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
9
Ms. Carolyn Powers addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated she objected to 609-apartments behind her house. She stated the area to the
north was a quiet residential neighborhood and the development was too dense for the
area.
Mr. Brad Adrens addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
home was located at 11207 Shady Ridge Drive. He stated he was concerned with the
development. He questioned if the development would take access through the
single-family subdivision. He stated if access was allowed this would change the
character of the single-family subdivision.
Ms. Samantha Wesley addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
provided the Commission with a petition from the neighborhood. She stated she did not
speak to everyone in the neighborhood but all the residents she spoke with were
opposed to apartments behind their home. She stated the notice form mailed to the
residents was very misleading and stated the Commission may want to reconsider their
notification requirements. She stated the development was too intense and would
change the character of the neighborhood. She requested the area remain zoned for
single-family and develop the area with single-family homes. She stated the
development would strain the infrastructure, stain the waterways and increase traffic.
Mr. Jaheon Koo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
residents were concerned with the loss of their green belt, the loss of their critters and
were concerned with the potential impacts on their adjacent homes. He stated he felt
the area should develop with single-family homes.
Mr. Daters stated the Land Use Plan indicated the property for MX or Mixed Use.
He stated the development had contained a commercial aspect at the intersection of
South Bowman Road with West 36th Street but was removed when the improvements to
West 36th Street and South Bowman Road could not be settled with the City. He stated
the improvements to South Bowman Road would include reducing the tightness of the
existing curve. He stated additional right of way was necessary to remove the curve but
the curve could be softened with the existing right of way.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the need for advanced grading of this site as well as
the Church site. Mr. Daters stated the advanced grading was necessary to remove a
hill on the Church’s property and allow for a driveway to extend to West 36th Street to
aid in the church members exiting the site during peak times. He stated the apartment
development was asking to advance grade to allow the entire site to balance.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the time frame for construction of the apartment
buildings. Mr. Daters stated once the building was nearing full lease out, the next
building would be started. He stated the entire development would be completed within
24-months. Commissioner Nunnley questioned staff of the requirements for the
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
10
advanced grading. Staff stated the site was required to be seeded and vegetated and
not allowed to remain as a dirt covered field.
There was a general discussion concerning traffic in the area and if the existing
infrastructure could handle the traffic. Mr. Daters stated South Bowman Road was an
arterial and West 36th Street was a collector street. He stated there were options for the
residents in the area which did not include accessing the intersection of South Bowman
Road and Kanis Road.
Staff stated at the intersection of West 36th Street and South Bowman Road did not
carry a large volume of traffic. Staff stated 7700 vehicles per day were at this
intersection. Staff stated the volume of traffic on Kanis was 17,000 vehicles per day
and on Vimy Ridge Road there were 10’s of thousands of vehicles per day. Staff stated
at some point this area would potentially become a public project but at this point the
City was going to put its money were the largest number of cars were located.
The Commission continued a general discussion concerning the condition of the
existing streets and their ability to handle the traffic volumes. The Commission noted
there were no paved shoulders on South Bowman Road and when emergency vehicles
traveled the area there was nowhere for vehicles to move out of the way. Commission
Brock stated he traveled this road frequently and the emergency vehicles maneuvered
as best they could but did not appear to have a problem with the condition of the road.
The Commission discussed providing housing for the residents and providing housing in
areas the residents wanted to live. The Commission stated it was important to provide
diversity in housing types in all areas of the City. The Commission noted they were not
comfortable with the number of units proposed with this development in addition to the
number of units currently being developed across South Bowman Road.
Mr. Daters stated this was the first he had heard of the street condition being a problem.
He stated staff did not raise traffic volumes as an issue during the review process. He
stated if density was a concern he was willing to defer the item to allow a review of the
overall density and determine if the development could still occur with fewer units.
A motion was made to defer the item, at the applicant’s request, to the December 18,
2014, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this request since the previous staff write-up. The
developer is proposing two (2) parcels and two (2) tracts located north and south of
West 36th Street. Parcel A is proposed for development of multi-family as a separate
item on this agenda (Item E, Bowman Pointe Long-form PD-R, Z-6886-C). Parcel B is
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1731
11
property currently owned by the Church at Rock Creek which is proposing a revision to
their previously approved POD as a separate item on this agenda (Z-6886-B0. The two
(2) tracts are located south of West 36th Street and are proposed for future
development.
Staff continues to support the proposed preliminary plat subject to the previously
identified conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval. This item as well as Items D
and E, Z-6886-B and Z-6886-C were discussed as a single item but three (3) separate
votes were taken on the items.
There was no discussion concerning the proposed preliminary plat. The Chair
entertained a motion for approval of this item as presented by staff. The motion carried
by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
NAME: Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD
LOCATION: Located at 11500 West 36th Street
DEVELOPER:
Richardson Properties, LLC
9800 Maumelle Boulevard
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 40.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Church and associated ministries
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: Revise the site plan to add additional parking and eliminate the
land use buffer along the western perimeter
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
grading in advance of construction of future parking areas with the development of an
adjacent apartment development.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 18,351 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on
September 19, 2002, established the Church at Rock Creek – Long-form POD allowing
for the development of this 40-acre tract at the northwest corner of Interstate 430 and
West 36th Street from R-2, Single-family to POD. The applicant proposed a conceptual
site plan for a church facility and related ancillary uses.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
2
The development plan included construction of a collector street from West 36th Street,
at the southwest corner of the church property, to Bowman Road. Access to the church
development would be gained by utilizing a private boulevard street, which would run
from near the southwest corner of the church property to the proposed collector street
near the center of the site at the west property line.
Amendments to the proposed site plan were made at the Commission meeting. The
applicant agreed the buildings would be sound-proofed, the building façades would not
be constructed of metal, concrete blocks, etc., there would not be a steeple, the building
elevation would not be determined until after the finished grades were in place, the
maximum building heights were to range from 65 to 80 feet, depending on the finished
grade, the child care center would have a maximum of 12 children in the center, the
church could not guarantee that the children would not be referred from the judicial
system, but the center would not be a half-way house, children under the care of the
church would not be allowed to drive and temporary stay would be twelve months or
less.
The car ministry the maximum building area would be 2,500 square feet and the facility
would not grow any large. Only minor car repair would be done, oil change, wash, wax
etc. No salvaged cars would be accepted. The building would also be for storage of
equipment for the entire campus. The facility would accommodate two cars at a time
inside the building. After repair and cleaning, the cars would be parked on the parking
lot. There would be no salvaged auto parts stored on the property. There would be no
test-driving of vehicles in the surrounding neighborhoods. The maximum number of
cars for car ministry uses would be twelve.
The Medical Care Center the church established the hours of operation from 9:00 am to
9:00 pm three days per week. There was to be no clear cutting of the site. The church
would remove the trees along the I-430 Frontage for visibility at the time of Phase I
development. There would be no A/C cooling tower on the site. Smaller package units
would be used. The church could not agree to have no construction take place on
weekends.
Ordinance No. 19,197 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on
October 5, 2004, allowed a revision to the overall site plan for the Church at Rock
Creek. According to the applicant the revised plan more accurately reflected the master
plan for the Church, which included a sanctuary totaling 85,000 square feet with a
seating capacity of 2,500. The development was proposed in two (2) phases with the
church and associated parking constructed in the first phase.
The Church’s intent was to create a campus design that would blend into the wooded
setting. In addition to the church there were supporting facilities to serve the needs of a
variety of church ministries which included recreation, counseling, lodging, medical and
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
3
classroom space. The approved plan was proposed to blend the building construction
and facilities into the environment with the smallest amount of impact on the natural
features of the site as possible. Configuration of the buildings and facilities provided for
preservation of a large portion of trees and land area, which existed on the site. The
applicant also proposed two (2) monument signs, one (1) for each entry located on
West 36th Street.
The site plan included a 100-foot buffer along the north property line and a 50-foot
buffer on the east and west property lines. Parking fields were designed to preserve as
many existing trees as possible within the parking areas. The site plan included the
placement of 891 parking spaces. Six hundred thirty (630) of the spaces were to be
constructed in the first phase.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The current request is a revision to the previously approved POD site plan for the
Church at Rock Creek. The request is two (2) part; One the elimination of the
western land use buffer and to allow grading along the western boundary with the
development of an adjacent multi-family development. The second is to allow
grading activities without imminent construction of any future parking areas or
buildings by the church.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The church sanctuary, associated parking and office for Welfare to Women
Ministry have been constructed on the site. The regional detention pond is also
in place. There are large areas of the site still tree covered primarily along the
northern perimeter and western perimeters. There are single-family homes
located to the north within the Sandpiper Subdivision. Along West 36th Street
there are a number of single-family homes and an office use. The property is
bound by I-430 along the eastern perimeter and property proposed for
development with multi-family (as a separate item on this agenda Z-6886-C)
along the western perimeter.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Sandpiper Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
4
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. West 36th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to West 36th
Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. West 36th
Street should be widened to 29.5-feet adjacent to the applicant's property at
the unnamed north street intersection at the time the apartments take
access and/or the street from Bowman Road is constructed.
3. A turnaround should be provided at the north end of the public street right-
of-way off West 36th Street or additional right-of-way dedicated to connect to
the proposed public street off Bowman Road.
4. If the proposed street is to be public, it should be located within a 60 foot
right-of-way and additional right-of-way dedicated to connect to the existing
right-of-way north off West 36th Street.
5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Advanced grading
is proposed with construction not imminent. An advanced grading variance
must be requested.
6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. A regional
detention pond is proposed. What covenants and agreements are in place
concerning enlargement of the facility, maintenance of the facility, shared
ownership of the facility, etc.? The detention ponds should be placed within
a private drainage easement.
7. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
8. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813, Greg Simmons, for more information.
9. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works for the streets. Contact Glenn Haley at 501.371.4537.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
5
10. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the proposed street intersection on South Bowman Road comply
with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. Superelevation of South
Bowman Road should be considered.
11. The proposed public street should be constructed no closer than 600 feet
from the South Bowman Road/West 36th Street intersection (arterial/arterial
intersection) due to vehicle stacking and tapers for left turn lanes. The
right-of-way should be within a 60 foot right-of-way. It is believed a future
street will be desired to the west.
12. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
13. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
14. Per Section 29-197(2), the grading shall be expeditiously completed in a
time frame not to exceed one (1) year in duration from the time work
commences to installation of all final erosion control measures and
vegetation.
15. Per Section 29-197(11), a permanent vegetative cover of suitable perennial
grass shall be established over all disturbed areas. Top soil should be
applied prior to planting. Where indicated by soil tests, pH adjustments and
addition of fertilizer may be required.
16. Per Section 29-197(14), all required federal, state, and local permits and
approvals shall be obtained prior to commencement of land alteration
activities.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if sewer service
is required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
Entergy: Entergy has a 3-phase power line running along the eastern side of
South Bowman Road and northern side of West 36th Street. There are no lines
on the preliminary plat. Contact Entergy in advance for service requirements,
line location and easement needs. If existing power lines need to be adjusted to
accommodate road work or driveways, please communicate with Entergy early in
the process.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
6
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
5. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
6. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: 26-foot drive lanes required, fire hydrants within 100-feet of
FDC, 2-ways to enter and exit development, fire hydrants per code, no
obstruction between fire hydrant, FDC and fire apparatus. Gates must be 20-feet
wide. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA has reviewed the plans submitted by your office on the above
referenced area. The area is currently served by CATA at West 36th Street and
South Shackleford Road approximately six (6) blocks away. CATA has this
corridor in mind for future expanded transit utilizing South Bowman Road and
West 36th Street as corridors to serve the growing population. CATA requests
consideration of pullouts and sidewalks on South Bowman Road and West 36th
Street near the entrance to the complex.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
7
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: No comment.
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use (MX) for this property. This category provides
for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned
Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is
a mixture of the three (3). The applicant has applied for a rezoning from POD
(Planned Office District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to remove the
land use buffer along the west line of this church campus.
Master Street Plan: West 36th Street is a Minor Arterial on the Master Street
Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and
their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area.
Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic
and pedestrians on West 36th Street. This street may require dedication of
right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to
the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. Easements cannot count toward
fulfilling this requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be
provided within the City’s Landscape Ordinance requirements.
3. Street buffer at Parcel B and Bowman Road should have an average of
thirty-five (35) feet.
4. All new and existing plant materials shall be in good condition at completion
of project. Replace any damaged or dead material.
5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
8
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 27, 2014)
Mr. Keith Richardson and Mr. Tim Daters were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the development stating this item and the
following item (The Pointe at Brodie Creek Long-form PD-R) were closely related
and would be discussed together. Staff requested addition information
concerning the request for the Church at Rock Creek and the areas proposed for
clearing. Staff also requested additional information concerning the construction
materials of the proposed new multi-family units, the building heights and building
elevations.
Staff noted on the site plan for the Church at Rock Creek there was a note
indicating advanced grading. Mr. Daters stated the Church was proposing to
grade an area on their site with the grading of the adjacent apartments. He
stated in addition the apartment development was proposing to grade the entire
site with the construction of the first phase of the multi-family.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the proposed street
construction to South Bowman Road and if the street construction would be
phased. Mr. Richardson stated the improvements would be phased and stated
the revised site plan would include the proposed phasing plan. There was a
general discussion concerning the proposed public street and if the street met
the intent of the Master Street Plan. Staff stated the new location of the
proposed street did not meet the intent of the Master Street Plan and should the
developments be approved a revision to the Master Street Plan would be
required. Staff questioned the proposed stormwater detention plan.
Mr. Richardson stated agreements would be in place between the church and his
development to allow the detention and maintenance of the detention facility to
be shared.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the development plans
were to include landscaping to comply with the typical standards of the City’s
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Mr. Daters stated part of the request was to
eliminate the previously required 50-foot land use buffer on the Church’s western
perimeter. He stated all other buffers would remain as previously approved.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing a
number of the issues raised at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
9
meeting. The revised plan for this item has changed slightly. The plan indicates
the limits of clearing for the land alteration variance request. The applicant has
indicated grading will take place with the development of the adjacent apartment
complex (Bowman Pointe Long-form PD-R - Z-6886-C).
The applicant has indicated all previously approved buildings and square
footages of the buildings will not change. The applicant has indicated a small
area of additional parking will be placed along the western perimeter within the
previously indicated land use buffer. With the exception of the request to
eliminate the previously proposed buffer area and the additional parking within
this area there are no other modifications proposed to the approved site plan.
Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the removal of the
previously required land use buffer will adversely impact the adjacent property.
To staff’s knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues in need
of addressing related to this site plan.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the City’s Land
Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the western perimeter of this site with the
construction of the adjacent multi-family development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating they and the applicant were working to resolve issues raised
at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the October 30, 2014, public hearing.
There was no further discussion. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the
item as presented by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were a number of registered objectors present. Staff
presented the three items (Item D – Bowman Pointe Preliminary Plat S-1731, Item H –
the Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD Z-6886-B and the Bowman Point
Long-for PD-R Z-6883-C) as a single item for discussion purposes. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of each of the items along with an associated variance for
advance grading for the Church at Rock Creek and the Brodie Creek Long-form PD-R.
Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
Mr. Daters stated the development included the Church at Rock Creek property,
property owned by Mr. Richardson proposed for multi-family development and a
preliminary plat to allow property owned by Mr. Richardson on the South side of West
36th Street to be subdivided into two (2) tracts. He stated a 7-acre area of floodway
would be dedicated as open space. Mr. Daters stated the development would include
improvements to South Bowman Road and to West 36th Street. Mr. Daters stated on
West 36th Street additional paving would be added to allow traffic to flow northward on
South Bowman Road during peak times of church dismissal. He stated the multi-family
portion of the development would include areas of green space and courtyards.
Mr. Daters stated improvements to the intersection of South Bowman Road and West
36th Street would not be completed at this time. He stated the exact alignment of the
intersection had not been determined by the City. He stated the desire was to soften
the curve in South Bowman Road. He stated the current right of way did not allow for
the improvements to be completed. He stated the developer would complete all the
improvements required by the Boundary Street Ordinance with the development of
particular phases.
Ms. Daniel Norwood of Richsmith Development addressed the Commission on the
particulars of the development. She stated the development was proposed on a similar
style as the development across South Bowman Road. She stated the units would be a
little smaller and the amenities would be a little less but the units would still be high end
units. She stated as the units were being leased across the street they found there
were a number of residents that would like to live in the area but did not want to pay as
high a rent as the existing development commanded. She stated this development
would allow those potential residents an option for west Little Rock living. She stated
the development would be constructed in phases. She stated as each phase was
nearing full lease out the next phase would be started.
Ms. Carolyn Bolin addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her property
was located on West 36th Street and questioned what would happen to their property.
She questioned the street improvements to South Bowman Road and West 36th Street
at this intersection.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
11
Ms. Carolyn Powers addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated she objected to 609-apartments behind her house. She stated the area to the
north was a quiet residential neighborhood and the development was too dense for the
area.
Mr. Brad Adrens addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
home was located at 11207 Shady Ridge Drive. He stated he was concerned with the
development. He questioned if the development would take access through the
single-family subdivision. He stated if access was allowed this would change the
character of the single-family subdivision.
Ms. Samantha Wesley addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
provided the Commission with a petition from the neighborhood. She stated she did not
speak to everyone in the neighborhood but all the residents she spoke with were
opposed to apartments behind their home. She stated the notice form mailed to the
residents was very misleading and stated the Commission may want to reconsider their
notification requirements. She stated the development was too intense and would
change the character of the neighborhood. She requested the area remain zoned for
single-family and develop the area with single-family homes. She stated the
development would strain the infrastructure, stain the waterways and increase traffic.
Mr. Jaheon Koo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
residents were concerned with the loss of their green belt, the loss of their critters and
were concerned with the potential impacts on their adjacent homes. He stated he felt
the area should develop with single-family homes.
Mr. Daters stated the Land Use Plan indicated the property for MX or Mixed Use. He
stated the development had contained a commercial aspect at the intersection of South
Bowman Road with West 36th Street but was removed when the improvements to West
36th Street and South Bowman Road could not be settled with the City. He stated the
improvements to South Bowman Road would include reducing the tightness of the
existing curve. He stated additional right of way was necessary to remove the curve but
the curve could be softened with the existing right of way.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the need for advanced grading of this site as well as
the Church site. Mr. Daters stated the advanced grading was necessary to remove a
hill on the Church’s property and allow for a driveway to extend to West 36th Street to
aid in the church members exiting the site during peak times. He stated the apartment
development was asking to advance grade to allow the entire site to balance.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the time frame for construction of the apartment
buildings. Mr. Daters stated once the building was nearing full lease out, the next
building would be started. He stated the entire development would be completed within
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
12
24-months. Commissioner Nunnley questioned staff of the requirements for the
advanced grading. Staff stated the site was required to be seeded and vegetated and
not allowed to remain as a dirt covered field.
There was a general discussion concerning traffic in the area and if the existing
infrastructure could handle the traffic. Mr. Daters stated South Bowman Road was an
arterial and West 36th Street was a collector street. He stated there were options for the
residents in the area which did not include accessing the intersection of South Bowman
Road and Kanis Road.
Staff stated at the intersection of West 36th Street and South Bowman Road did not
carry a large volume of traffic. Staff stated 7700 vehicles per day were at this
intersection. Staff stated the volume of traffic on Kanis was 17,000 vehicles per day
and on Vimy Ridge Road there were 10’s of thousands of vehicles per day. Staff stated
at some point this area would potentially become a public project but at this point the
City was going to put its money were the largest number of cars were located.
The Commission continued a general discussion concerning the condition of the
existing streets and their ability to handle the traffic volumes. The Commission noted
there were no paved shoulders on South Bowman Road and when emergency vehicles
traveled the area there was nowhere for vehicles to move out of the way. Commission
Brock stated he traveled this road frequently and the emergency vehicles maneuvered
as best they could but did not appear to have a problem with the condition of the road.
The Commission discussed providing housing for the residents and providing housing in
areas the residents wanted to live. The Commission stated it was important to provide
diversity in housing types in all areas of the City. The Commission noted they were not
comfortable with the number of units proposed with this development in addition to the
number of units currently being developed across South Bowman Road.
Mr. Daters stated this was the first he had heard of the street condition being a problem.
He stated staff did not raise traffic volumes as an issue during the review process. He
stated if density was a concern he was willing to defer the item to allow a review of the
overall density and determine if the development could still occur with fewer units.
A motion was made to defer the item, at the applicant’s request, to the
December 18, 2014, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
There has been no change to this application request since the previous public hearing.
The applicant is seeking a revision to the previously approved POD to eliminate the land
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-B
13
use buffer along the sites western perimeter. The applicant has indicated with the
development of the multi-family the buffer is no longer necessary. In addition the
applicant is seeking a variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading on this site along with grading on the adjacent proposed multi-family
site to balance the two sites.
Staff continues to support the proposed revision to the POD zoning and the land
alteration variance request subject to the previously identified conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. This item as well as Items C and E,
S-1731 and Z-6886-C were discussed as a single item but three (3) separate votes
were taken on the items.
There was no discussion concerning the proposed revision to the Church at Rock Creek
site plan. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of this item as presented by staff,
including the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
NAME: Bowman Pointe Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of South Bowman Road and
West 36th Street
DEVELOPER:
Richardson Properties, LLC
9800 Maumelle Boulevard
Maumelle, AR 72113
ENGINEER:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 31.08 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
grading of the entire site with the construction of the first phase of the development.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The request is to allow a rezoning of 31.07-acres from R-2, Single-family to
PD-R. The approval will allow the development of 609-units of multi-family
housing. The apartments are proposed with 287 1-bedroom units and
322 2-bedroom units. The buildings are proposed 2 and 3-story. The maximum
building height proposed is 35-feet.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
2
The development is proposed with 234,919 square feet of building coverage
(17.36% of the site), 443,724 square feet of pavement coverage (32.78% of the
site) and 674,901 square feet of landscape/common area (49.86% of the site).
The plan indicates covered and uncovered parking. 36-garage parking spaces
are proposed. A maximum of 201-carport spaces will be provided and 904-open
parking spaces. A total of 1,150 parking spaces are indicated on the site plan.
The buildings are proposed in 3 phases. Buildings F, G, H, I and J are proposed
in Phase 1. Buildings A, B, C, D and E in Phase 2 and Buildings K, L, M, N and
O are proposed in the third phase.
The applicant has indicated an area of floodway located south of this site will be
dedicated as open space and is proposed as a part of the overall development
plan for this site. The floodway/open space contains 6.89-acres to be included
within the land area for this development for an overall development total
acreage of 37.97 acres.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is densely wooded sloping upward from West 36th Street. Adjacent
to the site South Bowman Road is unimproved with open ditches for drainage.
To the north are single-family homes in the Sandpiper Neighborhood. There is a
nursing home located on South Bowman Road along this property’s northern
boundary. Across South Bowman Road there are a number of single-family
homes located on acreage and a large apartment development. East of the site
is the Church at Rock. South of the site along West 36th Street are single-family
homes located on acreage. There is also an office building located on the south
side of West 36th Street. West 36th Street is an unimproved street with open
ditches for drainage with the exception of the frontage of the Church at Rock
Creek. Improvements were put in place for the church’s property with the
construction of the sanctuary.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Sandpiper Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing. The John Barrow Neighborhood
Association voted to support the request at their August Neighborhood
Association meeting.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
3
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. South Bowman Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. West 36th Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. Where
a minor arterial intersects another minor arterial, the applicant shall dedicate
an additional 10-feet of right-of-way measured from the centerline of the
right-of-way for a right turn lane. The additional right-of-way shall normally
be 250 feet in length measured from the intersecting right-of-way. At such
intersections, the intersecting right-of-way lines shall normally have a radius
of 75 to 100 feet.
3. The proposed plan should show the public street north off West 36th Street.
The right-of-way should be a width of 60 feet.
4. If the proposed street is to be public, it should be located within a 60 foot
right-of-way and additional right-of-way dedicated to connect to the existing
right-of-way north off West 36th Street.
5. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to South
Bowman Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
The new back of curb should be located 29.5-feet from centerline. Striping
should be provided for a left turn lane. Portions of the proposed right-of-way
are not in the possession of the applicant. All street improvements should
be made per AASHTO standards.
6. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to West 36th
Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new
back of curb should be located 29.5-feet from centerline. West 36th Street
should be widened where the public street from the north intersects West
36th Street at the time the apartments take access and/or the street from
South Bowman Road is constructed. At the South Bowman intersection,
improvements should be made per the Arterial Intersection design in the
MSP and AASHTO standards with sufficient width for a left turn lane, 2-thru
lanes, and 1-right turn lane with channelization islands.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
4
8. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed
prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813, Greg Simmons, for more information.
9. The proposed public street should be constructed no closer than 600-feet
from the South Bowman Road/West 36th Street intersection (arterial/arterial
intersection) due to vehicle stacking and tapers for left turn lanes. The
right-of-way should be within a 60-foot right-of-way. It is believed a future
street will be desired to the west.
10. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. A regional
detention pond is proposed. What covenants and agreements are in place
concerning enlargement of the facility, maintenance of the facility, shared
ownership of the facility, etc.? The detention ponds should be placed in a
private drainage easement.
11. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the proposed driveway and street intersections comply with
2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. Superelevation of South Bowman
Road should be considered.
12. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
13. Hammerheads should be designed to be at least 80 feet in length and the
same width as the street at the end of Brook Forest Drive.
14. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. The applicant
proposes to grade the entire property with construction of Phase 1. An
advanced grading variance is required to be requested.
15. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Section 29-186 (e).
16. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. A regional
detention pond is proposed. What covenants and agreements are in place
concerning enlargement of the facility, maintenance of the facility, shared
ownership of the facility, etc.? The detention pond should be placed within
a private easement.
17. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
5
18. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
19. The owner and/or manager of each multi-family residence of 100 or more
dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the
tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow at
501.371.4646 for more information.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if sewer service
is required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
Entergy: Entergy has a 3-phase power line running along the eastern side of
South Bowman Road and northern side of West 36th Street. There are no lines
on the preliminary plat. Contact Entergy in advance for service requirements,
line location and easement needs. If existing power lines need to be adjusted to
accommodate road work or driveways, please communicate with Entergy early in
the process.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
6
5. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
6. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: 26-foot drive lanes required, fire hydrants within 100-feet of
FDC, 2-ways to enter and exit development, fire hydrants per code, no
obstruction between fire hydrant, FDC and fire apparatus. Gates must be 20-feet
wide. Contact Little Rock Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA has reviewed the plans submitted by your office on the above
referenced area. The area is currently served by CATA at West 36th Street and
South Shackleford Road approximately six (6) blocks away. The development
consists of 609 apartment units. CATA has this corridor in mind for future
expanded transit utilizing South Bowman Road and West 36th Street as corridors
to serve the growing population. CATA requests consideration of pullouts and
sidewalks on South Bowman Road and West 36th Street near the entrance to the
complex.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Apartment complex shall meet Accessibility requirements
including designated parking, building access and accessible dwelling units. For
information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a
commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724;
crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875; malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use (MX) for this property. This category provides
for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned
Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is
a mixture of the three (3). The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2
(Single Family District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for
development of an apartment complex (at approximately 12-units/acre) and a
commercial center on this site.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
7
Master Street Plan: South Bowman Road and West 36th Street are Minor
Arterials on the Master Street Plans. A Minor Arterial provides connections to
and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on West 36th Street and
South Bowman Road. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along South Bowman Road. Bike
Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. Easements cannot count toward
fulfilling this requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be
provided within the City’s Landscape Ordinance requirements.
3. Street buffer at Parcel B and Bowman Road should have an average of
thirty-five (35) feet.
4. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 27, 2014)
Mr. Keith Richardson and Mr. Tim Daters were present representing the request.
Staff presented an overview of the development stating this item and the
previous item (The Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD) were closely
related and would be discussed together. Staff requested addition information
concerning the request for the Church at Rock Creek. Staff stated there was
also a preliminary plat which included two (2) tracts south of West 36th Street of
which 6.89-acres of open space was being proposed to be included with the
overall acreage of this development. Staff requested additional information
concerning the construction materials of the proposed new multi-family units (the
Pointe at Brodie Creek), the building heights and building elevations.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
8
Staff noted on the site plan for the Church at Rock Creek there was a note
indicating advanced grading. Mr. Daters stated the Church was proposing to
grade an area on their site with the grading of this site. He stated this
development was proposing to grade their entire site with the construction of the
first phase of the multi-family.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the proposed street
construction to South Bowman Road and if the street construction would be
phased. Mr. Richardson stated the improvements would be phased and stated
the revised site plan would include the proposed phasing plan. There was a
general discussion concerning the proposed public street and if the street met
the intent of the Master Street Plan. Staff stated the new location of the
proposed street did not meet the intent of the Master Street Plan and should the
developments be approved a revision to the Master Street Plan would be
required. Staff questioned the proposed stormwater detention plan.
Mr. Richardson stated agreements would be in place between the two (2)
property owners, the apartment development and the church, related to the
capacity of the detention facility and maintenance of the facility.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the development plans
were to include landscaping to comply with the typical standards of the City’s
Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Mr. Daters stated part of the request was to
eliminate the previously required 50-foot land use buffer on the Church’s western
perimeter. He stated all other buffers would remain as previously approved.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing a
number of the issues raised at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee
meeting. This item is related to a proposed revision to the adjacent property, the
Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD (Z-6556-B) in that several
improvements proposed for this development will be completed in conjunction
with grading and clearing on the church’s property.
This request is to allow a rezoning of 31.07-acres from R-2, Single-family to
PD-R to allow the development with multi-family housing. The approval will allow
the development of 609-units contained within 15-buildings. Within the
development there will be 287 1-bedroom units and 322 2-bedroom units. The
buildings are proposed 2 and 3-stories in height. The maximum building height
proposed is 35-feet.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
9
The development is proposed with 234,919 square feet of building coverage
(17.36% of the site), 443,724 square feet of pavement coverage (32.78% of the
site) and 674,901 square feet of landscape/common area (49.86% of the site).
There is also 6.89-acre located within a floodway located south of West 36th
Street which will be maintained as open space to be included with this
development.
The plan indicates a total of 1,150 parking spaces both covered and uncovered.
36-garage parking spaces are proposed and a maximum of 201-carport spaces
are proposed. There will be 904-open parking spaces. Parking for a multi-family
development is typically calculated at one and one-half (1 ½) parking spaces per
unit. For a development containing 609-units 913-parking spaces would typically
be required.
The buildings are proposed in 3 phases. Buildings F, G, H, I and J are proposed
in Phase 1. Buildings A, B, C, D and E in Phase 2 and Buildings K, L, M, N and
O are proposed in the third phase. The site plan includes a secondary access
which will be constructed as a construction/emergency access during the first
phase. At the completion of the final phase the access will be converted to an
exit only access for the residents of the development.
The site plan indicates the placement of a development sign at the main entrance
to the complex along South Bowman Road. The sign is proposed with a
maximum sign height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of 72 square feet.
Signage typically allowed in multi-family zones is six (6) feet in height and
24-square feet in area. The signage proposed is consistent with signage
approved in similar type developments.
The street construction of South Bowman Road will be phased with the building
phasing of the development. With the first phase of the apartment development
South Bowman Road will be constructed to one-half of a 59-foot pavement width
to just south of the entrance drive. The plan includes the placement of a five (5)
foot sidewalk with Phase II of the site development. With the second phase of
the development the developer is proposing to dedicate the required right of way
for South Bowman Road and pay an in-lieu for the construction cost of the street
or if additional right of way is provided on the west side of South Bowman Road,
the developer will provide 36-feet of pavement to be installed to the intersection
of West 36th Street. With the first phase of the apartment development
improvements to West 36th Street will be completed. The improvements to West
36th Street include a right turn lane constructed with 250-feet of stack and a
150-foot taper. The plan includes the placement of a right turn slip lane to
accommodate north bound turning movements. With the Phase III construction
improvements to West 36th Street to include 24-feet of pavement from centerline
will be constructed along with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
10
Staff is supportive of the request. The site plan as presented provides for
buffering and screening along the northern perimeter of the property to protect
the adjacent single-family residence. The Master Street Plan indicates the
placement of a collector street through this property. The applicant has indicated
should zoning approval be gained prior to construction of the residential units an
amendment to the Master Street Plan will be requested. To staff’s knowledge
there are no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels
the development of the site with multi-family is appropriate.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the City’s Land
Alteration ordinance to allow grading of future phases of building construction
with the first phase of construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating they and the applicant were working to resolve issues raised
at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff presented a
recommendation of deferral of the item to the October 30, 2014, public hearing.
There was no further discussion. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the
item as presented by staff. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were a number of registered objectors present. Staff
presented the three items (Item D – Bowman Pointe Preliminary Plat S-1731, Item H –
the Church at Rock Creek Revised Long-form POD Z-6886-B and the Bowman Point
Long-for PD-R Z-6883-C) as a single item for discussion purposes. Staff presented a
recommendation of approval of each of the items along with an associated variance for
advance grading for the Church at Rock Creek and the Brodie Creek Long-form PD-R.
Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request.
Mr. Daters stated the development included the Church at Rock Creek property,
property owned by Mr. Richardson proposed for multi-family development and a
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
11
preliminary plat to allow property owned by Mr. Richardson on the South side of West
36th Street to be subdivided into two (2) tracts. He stated a 7-acre area of floodway
would be dedicated as open space. Mr. Daters stated the development would include
improvements to South Bowman Road and to West 36th Street. Mr. Daters stated on
West 36th Street additional paving would be added to allow traffic to flow northward on
South Bowman Road during peak times of church dismissal. He stated the multi-family
portion of the development would include areas of green space and courtyards.
Mr. Daters stated improvements to the intersection of South Bowman Road and West
36th Street would not be completed at this time. He stated the exact alignment of the
intersection had not been determined by the City. He stated the desire was to soften
the curve in South Bowman Road. He stated the current right of way did not allow for
the improvements to be completed. He stated the developer would complete all the
improvements required by the Boundary Street Ordinance with the development of
particular phases.
Ms. Daniel Norwood of Richsmith Development addressed the Commission on the
particulars of the development. She stated the development was proposed on a similar
style as the development across South Bowman Road. She stated the units would be a
little smaller and the amenities would be a little less but the units would still be high end
units. She stated as the units were being leased across the street they found there
were a number of residents that would like to live in the area but did not want to pay as
high a rent as the existing development commanded. She stated this development
would allow those potential residents an option for west Little Rock living. She stated
the development would be constructed in phases. She stated as each phase was
nearing full lease out the next phase would be started.
Ms. Carolyn Bolin addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her property
was located on West 36th Street and questioned what would happen to their property.
She questioned the street improvements to South Bowman Road and West 36th Street
at this intersection.
Ms. Carolyn Powers addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
stated she objected to 609-apartments behind her house. She stated the area to the
north was a quiet residential neighborhood and the development was too dense for the
area.
Mr. Brad Adrens addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
home was located at 11207 Shady Ridge Drive. He stated he was concerned with the
development. He questioned if the development would take access through the
single-family subdivision. He stated if access was allowed this would change the
character of the single-family subdivision.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
12
Ms. Samantha Wesley addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
provided the Commission with a petition from the neighborhood. She stated she did not
speak to everyone in the neighborhood but all the residents she spoke with were
opposed to apartments behind their home. She stated the notice form mailed to the
residents was very misleading and stated the Commission may want to reconsider their
notification requirements. She stated the development was too intense and would
change the character of the neighborhood. She requested the area remain zoned for
single-family and develop the area with single-family homes. She stated the
development would strain the infrastructure, stain the waterways and increase traffic.
Mr. Jaheon Koo addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
residents were concerned with the loss of their green belt, the loss of their critters and
were concerned with the potential impacts on their adjacent homes. He stated he felt
the area should develop with single-family homes.
Mr. Daters stated the Land Use Plan indicated the property for MX or Mixed Use.
He stated the development had contained a commercial aspect at the intersection of
South Bowman Road with West 36th Street but was removed when the improvements to
West 36th Street and South Bowman Road could not be settled with the City. He stated
the improvements to South Bowman Road would include reducing the tightness of the
existing curve. He stated additional right of way was necessary to remove the curve but
the curve could be softened with the existing right of way.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the need for advanced grading of this site as well as
the Church site. Mr. Daters stated the advanced grading was necessary to remove a
hill on the Church’s property and allow for a driveway to extend to West 36th Street to
aid in the church members exiting the site during peak times. He stated the apartment
development was asking to advance grade to allow the entire site to balance.
Commissioner Nunnley questioned the time frame for construction of the apartment
buildings. Mr. Daters stated once the building was nearing full lease out, the next
building would be started. He stated the entire development would be completed within
24-months. Commissioner Nunnley questioned staff of the requirements for the
advanced grading. Staff stated the site was required to be seeded and vegetated and
not allowed to remain as a dirt covered field.
There was a general discussion concerning traffic in the area and if the existing
infrastructure could handle the traffic. Mr. Daters stated South Bowman Road was an
arterial and West 36th Street was a collector street. He stated there were options for the
residents in the area which did not include accessing the intersection of South Bowman
Road and Kanis Road.
Staff stated at the intersection of West 36th Street and South Bowman Road did not
carry a large volume of traffic. Staff stated 7700 vehicles per day were at this
intersection. Staff stated the volume of traffic on Kanis was 17,000 vehicles per day
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
13
and on Vimy Ridge Road there were 10’s of thousands of vehicles per day. Staff stated
at some point this area would potentially become a public project but at this point the
City was going to put its money were the largest number of cars were located.
The Commission continued a general discussion concerning the condition of the
existing streets and their ability to handle the traffic volumes. The Commission noted
there were no paved shoulders on South Bowman Road and when emergency vehicles
traveled the area there was nowhere for vehicles to move out of the way. Commission
Brock stated he traveled this road frequently and the emergency vehicles maneuvered
as best they could but did not appear to have a problem with the condition of the road.
The Commission discussed providing housing for the residents and providing housing in
areas the residents wanted to live. The Commission stated it was important to provide
diversity in housing types in all areas of the City. The Commission noted they were not
comfortable with the number of units proposed with this development in addition to the
number of units currently being developed across South Bowman Road.
Mr. Daters stated this was the first he had heard of the street condition being a problem.
He stated staff did not raise traffic volumes as an issue during the review process.
He stated if density was a concern he was willing to defer the item to allow a review of
the overall density and determine if the development could still occur with fewer units.
A motion was made to defer the item, at the applicant’s request, to the
December 18, 2014, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to staff reducing the number of units
from 609-units to 500-units. For the most part the development has not changed
significantly. The following highlights the changes proposed:
The development is proposed in three (3) phases. Phase 1 includes the construction of
the clubhouse, leasing office and 189-units. Phase 2 consists of the construction of
187-units and in the final phase 124-units will be constructed. The applicant has
indicated the buildings will be three (3) story buildings with a maximum building height
of 40-feet. The site plan includes the placement of covered parking and garages at
various locations throughout the site.
The site plan indicates a secondary access to the site to be developed with the first
phase of construction. The access will act as secondary access for emergency
personnel for the first two phases of the development. In the third phase the access will
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
14
be converted to a gated entry and exit to the development and allow residents two
access points for entering and departing the site.
The revised plan indicates an 80-foot undisturbed buffer along the northern perimeter of
the site. In addition the site plan indicates an additional 20-foot landscape strip.
The street construction of South Bowman Road continues to be as previously proposed.
The construction will be phased with the building phasing of the development. With the
first phase of the apartment development South Bowman Road will be constructed to
one-half of a 59-foot pavement width to just south of the entrance drive. The plan
includes the placement of a five (5) foot sidewalk with Phase II of the site development.
With the second phase of the development the developer is proposing to dedicate the
required right of way for South Bowman Road and pay an in-lieu for the construction
cost of the street or if additional right of way is provided on the west side of South
Bowman Road, the developer will provide 36-feet of pavement to be installed to the
intersection of West 36th Street. With the first phase of the apartment development
partial improvements to West 36th Street will be completed. The improvements to West
36th Street include a right turn lane constructed with 250-feet of stack and a 150-foot
taper. The plan includes the placement of a right turn slip lane to accommodate north
bound turning movements. With the Phase III construction final improvements to West
36th Street to include 24-feet of pavement from centerline will be constructed along with
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Staff continues to support the request. The development is proposed with 500-units of
multi-family housing constructed on 31.07-acres. The overall site development includes
17.36 percent of building coverage, 32.78 percent of paved area and 49.86 percent of
landscaped area. The development is proposed containing 16.09 units per acre. Staff
recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff
recommends approval of the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance
to allow advanced grading of the site with the development of the first phase and staff
recommends approval of the applicant’s proposed phasing plan for street construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval. This item as well as Items C and D,
S-1731 and Z-6886-B were discussed as a single item but three (3) separate votes
were taken on the items.
The discussion of these three items was primarily related to this development of this site
with multi-family housing. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had reduced
the number of units proposed for the development form 600 to 500 units. Staff stated
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
15
the developer had also indicated the secondary access located along the southern
portion of the site would be developed as a full access for the development with the
completion of the final phase.
Mr. Keith Richardson addressed the Commission as the developer. He stated his intent
was to develop a Class ‘A’ project similar to his development across South Bowman
Road. He stated the development would be a gated controlled development. He stated
the rents would range from $820.00 to $1,125.00 per month.
Mr. Tim Daters addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
plan indicated the placement of an 80-foot undisturbed buffer along the northern
perimeter and an additional 20-foot planted landscape buffer. He stated the developer
had hired Peters and Associates to prepare a traffic study for the site. He stated the
conclusion was the increase in traffic after this development would not significantly
change traffic and congestion in the area. He stated with the traffic analysis the traffic
engineer also looked at the intersection of Kanis and Bowman Roads. He stated the
intersection was not current in the City’s funding cycle for improvements. He stated
once the improvements were completed to the Kanis/Bowman Roads intersection traffic
delays in the area would be significantly reduced. He stated the current level of service
for the intersection was a Level of Service D and after full development of the
multi-family units under consideration the level of service at the intersection would
remain a Level of Service D. He stated with the improvements both with and without
the development of the multi-family development the level of service at the intersection
would be increased to a Level of Service C.
Ms. Samantha Wesley addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated the
developers had met with the neighborhood and had provided a number of concessions
to the residents. She stated even with the modifications she did not feel the
development was a fit for the area. She stated she felt the developers and the City
should try to redo the existing multi-family developments and make residents want to
stay in the multi-family developments instead of building new apartment buildings. She
stated she did not want to devastate a neighborhood by the construction of more and
more multi-family units.
Mr. Grover Bolin, Jr. addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated traffic in the
area was already heavy and he questioned the addition of 500 apartments and the
impact of the new development on traffic. He stated getting out of his driveway was
already a difficult task and he felt before any new development occurred the street
infrastructure should be completed.
Ms. Carolyn Bolin addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated West 36th
Street was a narrow street with open ditches for drainage. She stated the street was a
hazard. She stated before any new construction the street should be widened.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6886-C
16
Mr. Monte Savoy addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated the
developer had met with the neighborhood and had made a number of concessions. He
stated the increase in the buffer, the decrease in the number of units and the agreement
to not connect to the subdivision were very critical issues to the residents of the
neighborhood. He stated there were still concerns with the development and the
increase in traffic. He stated traffic would always be a challenge based on the current
practices of the City for street construction.
Brad Ahrens addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated without
widening the street it was difficult to approve a development of this intensity. He stated
one of the tremendous concerns of the neighborhood was the narrowness of Bowman
Road and a narrow bridge just before entering the subdivision. He stated the bridge
was narrow and was difficult for two cars to pass. He stated there was no pedestrian
access over the bridge when cars were crossing. He stated the intersection of South
Bowman Road and Kanis Road was severely congested and without improvements
adding additional multi-family would only increase congestion in the area.
There was a general discussion of the Commission with Mr. Daters concerning the
traffic analysis and the traffic volumes in the area. Mr. Daters once again stated the
traffic volume with the development would not significantly impact the existing traffic
counts in the area. He stated based on the analysis a number of the residents of the
apartment development would travel south and use West 36th Street and/or Colonel
Glenn Road.
The Commission questioned the time frame for build-out. Mr. Daters stated the full
build-out was expected in two (2) to three (3) years. He stated as each phase was
brought on-line a subsequent phase would begin construction.
Commissioner Berry questioned staff as to the status of the funding for the
improvements at the Kanis Bowman Road intersection. Staff stated the improvements
were not in the current funding cycle. Staff stated in 2015 a project list would be
completed for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 funding cycle. Staff stated this was subject to
Board of Directors approval. The Commission questioned if any State funding was
available for street widening. Staff stated currently there was not.
The Chair entertained a motion for approval of this item as presented by staff, including
the variance request from the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced
grading. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
NAME: Kanis Creek Apartments Long-form PD-R
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Kanis and Pride Valley Roads
DEVELOPER:
Case and Associates
c/o Stephen Giles
425 W Capitol Avenue, Suite 3200
Little Rock, AR 72201
ARCHITECT:
Larry C. Kester
4200 East Skelly Drive, Suite 750
Tulsa, OK 74135
SURVEYOR:
Blew and Associates
Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors
524 W. Sycamore Street, Suite 4
Fayetteville, AR 72703
AREA: 12.95 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-2, Office and Institutional
ALLOWED USES: Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R
PROPOSED USE: Multi-family at a density of 17.76 units per acre
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The site contains 12.63-acres and is located on the northwest corner of Kanis Road and
Pride Valley Road. Ordinance No. 16,732 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
2
on August 16, 1994, rezoned the site from R-2, Single-family to O-2, Office and
Institutional.
A proposal to allow the development of 142-units (for a proposed density of 11.24-units
per acre) of condominium style housing under a horizontal property regime was
proposed by a previous applicant but was withdrawn prior to the Commission
considering the request at their December 7, 2006, public hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The Kanis Creek Apartments planned zoning development is the next exciting
multi-family development by Case and Associates and is located in a rapidly
growing area of Little Rock. Case and Associates continues to ‘set the bar’ for
superior multi-family developments and will again exceed the already high
development requirements as set forth in the zoning ordinance of the City of Little
Rock. Careful design considerations, i.e., building setbacks, orientation, density
and configuration and topography and minimized negative impact to adjacent
single-family residences. Development within the complex will be separated from
abutting properties by a screening fence along the property boundaries.
The land area is 12.95-acres and the lot area is 11.02-acres in size and located
at the intersection of a minor arterial street (Kanis Road) and a collector street
(Pride Valley Road) as designated on the Master Street Plan. In addition to the
excellent arterial street access, the proposed development is located
approximately 3.5 miles to direct access of Interstate 430 and 630.
The Kanis Creek Apartments are currently zoned O-2, Office and Institutional
District and designated on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as Suburban Office.
The developer is proposing to construct a gated apartment community at this
location. The apartments will be market rate, and contain a club house,
swimming pool, garages, and court yard areas. The development is proposed to
include 230-units, with a various mix of one (1) and two (2) bedroom units
contained in approximately twenty-two (22), two (2) and three (3) story wood
frame buildings. Building exteriors are proposed to be a mixture of brick/stone
veneer, cementious siding and asphalt roof shingles. The site plan includes the
placement of garages and open parking. Seventy-eight (78) garages are
proposed and 331-open parking spaces for a total of 409-parking spaces.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a wooded site located outside the City limits but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing annexation to
the City of Little Rock to receive sewer service for the proposed development
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
3
prior to construction of the new apartment units. The site is heavily wooded.
Kanis Road is located along the northern boundary and Pride Valley Road is
located along the southern boundary. Kanis and Pride Valley Roads are both
unimproved roadways with open ditches for drainage. There is a single-family
subdivision located across Pride Valley Road. To the south of this site is a mini-
warehouse development and newly developing office.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
Capitol Hills Estates Property Owners Association, the Gibraltar Heights Point
West Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association, the Parkway Place Property
Owners Association, the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association and
the Woodlands Edge Community Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required.
2. Pride Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector
street. A dedication of right-of-way 30-feet from centerline will be required.
3. A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Kanis Road and Pride Valley Road. Right-of-way should be dedicated for
Pride Valley Road to be realigned to intersect Kanis Road at a
perpendicular angle.
4. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Kanis Road
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be located 29.5 feet from centerline. Striping and tapers should
be provided for left turn lane into the facility.
5. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Pride Valley
Road including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new
back of curb on Pride Valley Road should be located 18 feet from centerline
to provide a total 36 feet street section. The eastern portion of Pride Valley
Road should be reconstructed to intersect with Kanis Road at a right angle.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
4
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is the construction
of the apartments planned to be phased? If so, is an advanced grading
variance requested to advance grade the entire site with construction of
Phase 1?
7. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan for the site per Section
29-18(e).
8. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. Show the
proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
9. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
10. A portion of the property appears to be within the 100-year floodplain on the
proposed Pulaski County FIRMs. A special Grading Permit for Flood
Hazard Areas will be required per Section 8-283 if the FIRMs are adopted
prior to construction and the property is annexed into City of Little Rock.
11. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least one (1) foot above the base
flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans.
12. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
13. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering
501.379.1813, Greg Simmons, for more information.
14. Driveway locations and widths may not meet the traffic access and
circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Is the south
driveway proposed for emergency access? Will the driveway provide any
additional access? Show the locations of driveways on the east side of
Kanis Road.
15. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the driveway and intersection(s) comply with 2004 AASHTO
Green Book standards.
16. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 South Broadway, 501.379.1805, Travis
Herbner, for more information.
17. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or
operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site
shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
5
18. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
19. The owner and/or manager of each multi-family residence of 100 or more
dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the
tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow at
501.371.4646 for more information.
20. Per Section 29-102 an evaluation should be conducted on the basis of
existing downstream development and any analysis of stormwater runoff
with and without the proposed development. If the proposed development
will cause or increase downstream flooding conditions, provisions to
minimize such flooding conditions should be included in the design of the
storm management improvements. Such provisions may include
downstream improvements and/or detention of stormwater runoff and its
regulated discharge to the downstream storm drainage system.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. The developer must seek
annexation to the City of Little Rock to receive sewer service. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for additional information concerning any sewer main
extension and/or necessary easements.
Entergy: Entergy has no objection. 3-phase power line runs along the south
side of Kanis Road and the North side of Pride Valley Road which may need to
be adjusted to accommodate the development. Contact Entergy well in advance
for service requirements, line layout and easements.
Center-Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
6
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
5. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
6. A capital investment charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department: Fire hydrants per code, maintain access, 26-foot drive lanes,
fire hydrant within 100-feet of FDC, no obstructions between, fire hydrant, fire
apparatus and FDC.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: CATA has reviewed the plans submitted by your office on the above
referenced area. The area is currently served by CATA at 800 South Bowman
Road approximately two (2) miles away. The development consists of
230 apartment units. CATA has this corridor in mind for future expanded transit
utilizing Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway as corridors to serve the growing
population. CATA request consideration of pullouts and sidewalks on Kanis
Road west of Pride Valley Road.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. Apartment complex shall meet Accessibility
requirements including designated parking, building access and accessible
dwelling units. For information on submittal requirements and the review process,
contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724;
crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875; malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office (SO) for this property. The suburban
office category provides for low intensity development of office or office parks in
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
7
close proximity to lower density residential areas to assure compatibility.
A Planned Zoning District is required. The applicant has applied for a rezoning
from O-2 (Office and Institutional District) to PDR (Planned Development
Residential) to allow for the construction of an apartment complex at a density of
approximately 21-units/acre on the site.
Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is a Minor Arterial and Pride Valley Road is a
Collector on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and
through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to
minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Kanis Road. The primary
function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to
Arterials. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require
street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall
be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall
be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip.
3. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas
adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average
linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area.
Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet.
4. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking
area(s). For developments with more than one hundred fifty (150) parking
spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be three hundred
(300) square feet. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half
(7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at
the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces.
5. Landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for
public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading
or service areas not open to public parking. These areas shall be equal to an
equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
8
6. The development of two (2) acres or more requires an approved landscape
plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
7. A landscape irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1)
acre or larger.
8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (August 27, 2014)
The applicants were present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the proposed development stating there were a number of
outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing
prior to the Commission’s final action. Staff requested the proposed construction
materials, the building elevations, the maximum height of the proposed buildings
and the location of any playground facilities.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedication
and street improvements would be required along the abutting streets. There
was a general discussion concerning public works request for alignment of Pride
Valley Road and Kanis Road. Staff advised the applicant to provide a sketch of
their proposal for review. There was a general discussion concerning the City’s
Stormwater Detention Ordinance and the requirements for detention on the site.
Staff stated there were a number of ways detention could be achieved. Staff
noted apartment developments in excess of 100-units were required to provide
and encourage recycling from its residents.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was required
street buffers along both Kanis and Pride Valley Roads. Staff stated a land use
buffer was not required along the boundary abutting the commercially zoned
mini-warehouse development. Staff stated building landscaping would be
required between the paved areas and the buildings. Staff also stated sites
containing two (2) or more acres were required to install an irrigation system.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
9
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter addressing most of
the issues raised at the August 27, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has provided the proposed construction materials, the building
elevations, the maximum height of the proposed buildings and the location of any
playground facilities. The applicant has indicated no playground facilities will be
provided. A swimming pool and deck, outdoor picnic area, courtyard recreation
areas and a dog park will be provided. The development is proposed in a single
phase. Secondary access is proposed along Kanis Road. The access is
proposed as a gated full service entrance to the development.
The development is proposed with 230-units of multi-family housing. The units
are proposed with one and two bedroom units. The units range in size from
789-square feet to 1,108-square feet. The site plan indicates there will be
garage and surface parking. The site plan notes 331 open parking spaces and
78 garage spaces.
The buildings are proposed two (2) and three (3) stories in height. The two (2)
story buildings will have garages on the ground floor and living space above the
garage. There are thirteen (13) buildings proposed with garage/living space.
With the exception of one (1) building the two (2) story buildings are located on
the perimeter of the site abutting Kanis and Pride Valley Roads and along the
perimeter abutting the mini-warehouse development. The remaining buildings
are proposed with three (3) stories and surface parking. The buildings will be
constructed with a mixture of materials including brick, stone, hardi-plank siding
with architectural singled roofs.
Parking typically required for a multi-family development containing 230-units
would require the placement of 345-parking spaces. The site plan notes there
are a total of 419-parking spaces including the garage spaces and the open
spaces.
The development is proposed with a single sign located at the main entrance.
The sign is proposed with brick columns 7’-8” tall and 24’-0” in length. The sign
face is proposed 2’-6” by 20’-0”. The sign ordinance typically allows the
placement of a ground sign not to exceed six (6) feet in height and twenty-four
(24) square feet in area. Building signage on the front of the office will be placed
not to exceed ten (10) percent of the façade area.
Perimeter fencing for the site will be solid panel and decorative fencing with brick
columns. The decorative fencing is proposed along the street frontages,
constructed of material to simulate wrought iron. The fencing along the perimeter
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
10
abutting the mini-warehouse development will be a solid wood fence or a product
to simulate wood. The maximum height proposed for the fences is six (6) feet.
Staff has concerns with the overall density of the development and the placement
of this number of units in addition to the additional currently approved and
currently proposed multi-family units in this general area. Staff feels the
concentration of multi-family within such a small geographic area could
potentially negatively impact the general area and the nearby neighborhoods.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated September 16, 2014,
requesting deferral of the item to the December 18, 2014, public hearing. Staff stated
the applicant had indicated additional time is needed to work with staff and the
neighborhoods concerning the proposed development. Staff stated the deferral request
would require a by-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they
were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the by-law waiver with regard to the late deferral request. The motion
carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated October 1, 2014, requesting withdrawal of this
item, without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated October 1, 2014,
requesting withdrawal of this item, without prejudice. Staff stated they were supportive
of the withdrawal request.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5758-C
11
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z-5649-D
NAME: Accu Brand Long-form PD-I
LOCATION: Located at 10915 Stagecoach Road
DEVELOPER:
Accu-Brand
Gary Hall
P.O. Box 241635
Little Rock, AR 72223
SURVEYOR:
Global Surveying Consultants, Inc.
6511 Heilman Court
North Little Rock, AR 72118
AREA: 8.949 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family with a CUP for a church
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and a Church
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-I
PROPOSED USE: Machine shop
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested
The applicant submitted a request dated October 14, 2014, requesting deferral of this
item to the December 18, 2014, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 2014)
The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated
October 14, 2014, requesting a deferral of this item to the December 18, 2014, public
hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5649-D
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item, as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes
0 noes and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant requested on November 19, 2014, this item be deferred to the
January 29, 2015, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on November 19, 2014, this item
be deferred to the January 29, 2015, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive
of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1261-K
NAME: Kenwood Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located in the Kenwood Subdivision, Lots 133 – 137 on Sanible Circle
DEVELOPER:
Davis Fitzhugh
5510 Hawthorne
Little Rock, AR 72207
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 1.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 – 65th Street West
CENSUS TRACT: 24.05
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance from Section 31-256 to allow a reduction in the
front building line.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The developer of the Kenwood Subdivision is proposing to amend the previously
approved preliminary plat to allow a reduced front building line. The approved
preliminary plat requires a 25-foot front building line. The applicant is requesting
to reduce the front building line for six (6) lots (Lots 133 – 134, Lot 135 A and Lot
135B and Lots 136 – 137) to 20-feet. All six (6) lots are platted on a cul-de-sac.
According to the applicant, the reduced front building line will allow additional
depth for construction of homes.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-K
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Kenwood Subdivision is developing along David O Dodd Road just south of
David O Dodd School. The lots proposed for replatting have not been
developed. Preliminary site work has begun to allow the development of the
future lots along Sanible Circle.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
property owners abutting the site along with Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct street improvements to these streets with the planned
development.
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than
residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted
and approved prior to the start of construction. A variance must be requested
to advance grade the lots prior to final platting.
3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
5. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation
of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be
repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the only
modification to the previously approved plat was to allow a reduced front building
line for six (6) of the proposed lots. There were no more issues for discussion.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-K
3
F. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need
of addressing via a revised site plan based on comments raised at the
November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is seeking
approval of a revision to the previously approved preliminary plat to allow the
front building line to be reduced from 25-feet, as typically required per the R-2,
Single-family zoning district, to 20-feet. There are no other modifications
proposed for the previously approved preliminary plat.
Section 31-256 states building lines for residential lots are to be at least 25-feet
from each street property line. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front
building line for six (6) lots (Lots 133 – 134, Lot 135 A and Lot 135B and Lots 136
– 137) to 20-feet. All six (6) lots are located on a cul-de-sac. Section 31-256(3)
defines how lots fronting on a cul de sac or curved portion of another streets is to
be measured. The ordinance states the front building line that is straight relative
to the front property line may be established by the placement of dimensioned
points on the side property lines at least 32-feet from the street right of way line
and connecting these points with a dimensioned straight line on the plat. The
line is to be not less than 25-feet from the street right of way line at any point.
The applicant has indicated the reduction in the front building line will allow
additional depth for construction of new homes on the lots. The applicant also
states the reduced front building line will fit with the street appearance matching
the homes currently developed within other areas of the subdivision.
Staff is supportive of the request. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding
technical issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel the placement
of the 20-foot front building line will adversely impact any future development of
homes within this subdivision.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow the reduction in the front
building line for Lots 133 – 134, Lot 135 A and Lot 135B and Lots 136 – 137 as
requested by the applicant.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1261-K
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to allow the
reduction in the front building line for Lots 133 – 134, Lot 135 A and Lot 135B and Lots
136 – 137 as requested by the applicant.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1705-B
NAME: Haw Branch Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 13805 Crystal Valley Road
DEVELOPER:
Doug Woodall
14996 N. Polk Street
Alexander, AR 72002
ENGINEER:
McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers
P.O. Box 30441
Little Rock, AR 72260
AREA: 9.78 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 28 FT. NEW STREET: 800 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 – Crystal Valley
CENSUS TRACT: 42.21
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
The applicant requested on December 2, 2014, deferral of this item to the
January 29, 2015, public hearing to allow the applicant and staff additional time to
determine the best location for the new street intersection with Crystal Valley Road.
Staff is supportive of the deferral request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had requested on December 2, 2014, deferral
of this item to the January 29, 2015, public hearing to allow the applicant and staff
additional time to determine the best location for the new street intersection with Crystal
Valley Road. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1705-B
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1737
NAME: Rainey Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located at 10000 Old Arkansas Drive
DEVELOPER:
Russell Rainey
1501 Rahling Road #1704
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co.
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 10.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 & 2 tracts FT. NEW STREET: 1,890 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 29 - Barrett
CENSUS TRACT: 42.01
VARIANCE/WAIVERS:
1. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced front yard building line
2. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(2) to allow a reduced side yard setback.
3. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback.
4. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(4) to allow a reduced lot depth.
5. A variance from Section 31-231 to allow lots to develop on a private street.
6. A variance from the Master Street Plan to allow street grade to exceed the
12-percent allowed.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
2
BACKGROUND:
A request to allow the development of this site with eight (8) units of multi-family
housing was withdrawn at the applicant’s request at the Commission’s August 7, 2014,
public hearing.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The request is for preliminary plat approval to allow the creation of a new
subdivision containing 12 lots from an existing parcel containing 10.91 acres.
The lots are proposed containing 0.17 acres to 0.24 acres. Within the
subdivision there is a large community recreational area, community garden and
community workshop. There is a also a large amount of undeveloped common
area to be held by the Property Owners Association. As a separate item on this
agenda the applicant has filed a Conditional Use Permit application request for
approval of the community recreational area, maintenance and storage building
and the subdivisions proposed wastewater treatment system.
The Lots 2 – 5 and 8 – 10 are proposed with an 80-foot depth and a lot width of
90-feet. The lot area proposed is 7,200 square feet. Lots 1, 6, 7 and 12 are
proposed with a lot depth of 120-feet and a lot width of 90-feet. The lot area
proposed for these four (4) lots is 10,800 square feet.
The front and rear building line is indicated at 15-feet. The side yard setbacks
are proposed at 5-feet.
The new lots are proposed to be served with a private street. The street is
indicated with 24-feet of pavement in a 68-foot access easement. 1,890 linear
feet of new private street construction is proposed. The street will be constructed
per the Master Street Plan as a local residential street with open drainage.
Old Arkansas Drive appears to be a private street with a 25-foot road easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is located behind the gate of Old Arkansas Drive. Old Arkansas is
a narrow unimproved chip-seal road with open ditches for drainage. The
property is located outside the City limits of Little Rock but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The area is primarily single-family with
homes located on acreage. There is a PD-C zoned parcel located on Barrett
Road to the east which was approved as an in-home beauty salon. The property
north of Barrett Road has a significant slope from north to south. This property
also has a significant slope from north to south. The timber on this site was
recently removed.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
3
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a number of phone calls both informational
and with concerns related to the request from area residents. All property
owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the Coalition of West Little
Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct street improvement to the proposed Old Arkansas
Circle with the planned development. The street should be constructed to
24 feet in width and 6 foot paved shoulders, and open ditch within a 68 foot
easement. The proposed street grade cannot exceed twelve percent (12%)
slope without a variance from the Master Street Plan to increase to eighteen
percent (18%). Show the proposed street elevation on a sketch grading and
drainage plan.
2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
3. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
4. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
5. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Greg Simmons, Traffic
Engineering, 501.379.1813 for more information.
6. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance
at the intersection(s) comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. A single phase line currently
exists along Old Arkansas Drive on the west side of the road leading up to the
property. Contact Entergy in advance to begin discussions about service
requirements.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
4
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
3. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
4. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
5. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
6. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
7. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information. Provide a letter from the
Maumelle Volunteer Fire Department indicating their knowledge of the proposed
subdivision.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
5
County Planning:
1. Provide Bill of Assurance.
2. Show distances and bearings to second land corner, provide state plane
coordinates.
3. Provide Health Department approval of Wastewater treatment system.
4. Provide approval from Volunteer Fire Department.
5. Provide street cross sections for Old Arkansas Circle.
6. Provide profile for Old Arkansas Circle.
7. Label all street centerlines.
8. Provide storm drainage plan.
9. Old Arkansas Circle must comply with Pulaski County Master Road Plan for
a local road. Provide 60-foot access easement width. Provide 28-feet
pavement width for Old Arkansas Circle.
10. Provide for maintenance of Old Arkansas Circle in the Bill of Assurance.
11. Provide full set of construction plans for Old Arkansas Circle.
12. Front, rear and side setbacks do not comply with Pulaski County
Subdivision and Development Code standards. 25-foot front and rear yard
setback required and 8-foot side yard setbacks are required.
13. Provide SWPPP for Pulaski County review.
14. Pay $33.00 review fee.
15. Provide means of stabilizing cut and fill slopes.
16. Provide water and wastewater design plans for Public Works review.
17. Name leftover vacant tract and common area. Provide for maintenance of
both tracts in the Bill of Assurance.
18. Show both road edges of Old Arkansas Drive.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
6
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: No comment.
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
Mr. Russell Rainey and Mr. Mike Marlar were present representing the request.
Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested Mr. Marlar provide the linear feet of internal street, the
source of water and the average lot size for the proposed lots in the general
notes section of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff also requested Mr. Rainey
provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their
knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the proposed lots.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned if the street would be
public or private and questioned if the development would be gated. Staff also
requested Mr. Marlar provide a road profile for the proposed street. Staff stated
the ordinance allowed a 12-percent street grade and a variance up to an
18-percent street grade could be approved by the Commission.
Staff stated in addition to the preliminary plat the applicant was requesting a
Conditional Use Permit application as a separate item on the agenda (Z-8937-A)
to allow the placement of the wastewater treatment system and the community
buildings and pool. Staff questioned the status of the proposed wastewater
treatment system. Mr. Marlar stated plans were being prepared and the owner
had decided on the type for the proposed treatment system. He stated plans
would be submitted to AEDQ for approval as well as the Arkansas Department of
Health. He stated AEDQ normally would provide a respones and/or approval in
60 to 90 days and the Health Department response and approval was usually
45-days.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing a number
of the issues raised at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
7
The applicant has provided the average size of the lots, the source of water and
the linear feet of internal street in the general notes section of the proposed
preliminary plat. The applicant has stated the volunteer fire department approval
will be provided prior to the Commission meeting.
The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of
a new single-family subdivision containing 12-lots located within an existing
parcel containing 10.91 acres. The lots are proposed ranging from 0.17 acres to
0.24 acres. Within the subdivision there are two (2) tracts to be held in common
ownership through the property owners association. Within the internal tract
there is a community recreational area containing a pool, fitness center and
greenhouse. There is also a community garden in this area. Located on the
perimeter of the development is a community workshop, garden center and
storage building. Within this area the development is also proposing the
placement of a wastewater treatment system. As a separate item on this agenda
the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Z-8937-A) to
allow the community recreational areas and the wastewater treatment system.
Lots 2 – 5 and 8 – 10 are proposed with an 80-foot depth and a lot width of
90-feet. The lot area proposed is 7,200 square feet. Lots 1, 6, 7 and 12 are
proposed with a lot depth of 120-feet and a lot width of 90-feet. The lot area
proposed for these four (4) lots is 10,800 square feet.
A variance from Section 36-254(d)(4) to allow a reduced lot depth is being
requested for Lots 2 – 5 and 8 - 10. The plat is indicated with 15-foot front and
rear yard building line. The applicant is seeking a variance from Section
36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced front building line from 25-feet to 15-feet and
from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback from 25-feet to
15-feet. The request also includes a variance from Section 36-254(d)(2) to allow
a reduced side yard setback. The side yard setback is indicated at 5-feet. The
ordinance would typically require the side yard setback to be 10-percent of the lot
width not to exceed 8-feet.
The new lots are proposed to be served with a private street. The street is
indicated with 24-feet of pavement in a 68-foot easement. The street will be
constructed per the Master Street Plan as a local residential street with open
drainage. The request includes a variance from the Master Street Plan to allow
street grade to exceed the 12-percent allowed. The Commission may grant an
increase in the street grade to 18-percent. The street grade proposed is
19.4-percent. The street grade must not exceed 18-percent.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
8
Staff is supportive of the requests. The subdivision is proposed at a density of
1.10 units per acre. Although there are variances associated with the proposed
preliminary plat staff does not feel the variances will adversely impact the
development. The total area proposed for homes site includes 2.32 acres with
8.58 acres of undeveloped common useable area for the residents of the
subdivision.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the following variances:
1. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(1) to allow a reduced front yard building
line.
2. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(2) to allow a reduced side yard setback.
3. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(3) to allow a reduced rear yard setback.
4. A variance from Section 36-254(d)(4) to allow a reduced lot depth.
5. A variance from Section 31-231 to allow lots to develop on a private street.
6. A variance from the Master Street Plan to allow street grade to exceed the
12-percent allowed, but not to exceed 18-percent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval as well as approval of the associated
variance request. Staff also presented a Conditional Use Permit application request in
conjunction with the preliminary plat application request. Staff noted the two items were
related and could be discussed at the same time but would require separate votes.
Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
development was a single-family subdivision consisting of 12 lots. He stated 79-percent
of the site would be designated as open or green space. He stated the variances were
being requested to allow the most efficient development of the property. He stated the
street was a private street constructed to comply with the existing access to the site
which was also private. He stated the development would provide a state of the art
treatment system to serve the new homes. He stated the system was permitted and
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
9
monitored by the State and would be owned by the Property Owners Association. He
stated the amenities provided would enhance the subdivision by providing common
recreational opportunities.
Russell Rainey addressed the Commission as the developer. He stated his
development was a state of the art development. He stated the homes would be
developed based on green design. He stated the homes were proposed as homes for
his family members and close personal friends. He stated the development was being
constructed in such a manner as to allow for a buffer around the development for the
adjacent residential properties.
Mr. Mike Marlar addressed the Commission as the project engineer. He stated the
variances were being requested to allow for a centralized courtyard. He stated without
the clubhouse and garden area located internal to the development the lots would fully
comply with the minimum standards of the City ordinances. He stated traffic from the
development would not be significant. He stated he had contacted the City’s Traffic
Engineer for his thoughts on traffic accessing Old Arkansas Road. He stated the City’s
Traffic Engineer did not feel the subdivision would not generate a great deal of traffic
and Mr. Henry did not have concerns with the development or access via Old Arkansas.
Mr. Andy Davis addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his
firm sold the treatment system that would be used for the subdivision. He stated the
system was being used in several locations within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction as well as around the State.
Mr. David Meints addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his
company surveyed the site to determine the best means of wastewater treatment for the
development. He stated it was determined individual septic systems could not serve the
new homes and a centralized system was the best means for treatment.
Mr. Scott Schallhourn addressed the Commission on behalf of the opposition. He
stated his firm was representing a number of the homeowners in the area which were
opposed to this dense development. He stated the homes previously looked over a
forested area and now the property was cleared of timber and was a barren site. He
stated there was not a silt fence in place to control runoff from the site. He provided the
Commission with a graphic which indicated the development with a football field overlay
and stated the development as proposed would fit into War Memorial Stadium and look
very similar. He stated the subdivision did not fit the rural setting of the area. He stated
the run-off from the treatment system would drain into the backyard of the homes to the
south.
Mr. Schallhourn stated it was unclear if the developer had right of access to Old
Arkansas which was a private street. He stated the developer had not approached the
homeowner association to indicating if he was willing to pay into the maintenance of the
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
10
road if access was granted. He stated Old Arkansas was a 14-foot chip seal road, very
narrow and difficult for two (2) cars to pass. He stated Mr. Rainey had access to a
public street on the southwest corner of his development. He stated he felt the
developer should confirm access or provide a preliminary plat with access to the public
street prior to the Commission approving the preliminary plat.
Dr. Andrijka Kwasny addressed the Commission in strong opposition to the request.
She stated her home was located along the southern boundary of the development.
She stated within the State of Arkansas waterways were not classified as creeks but as
wet weather streams. She stated the wet weather stream which would provide outflow
for the developments wastewater treatment system was located along her properties
boundary. She stated with the current clearing silt fencing had not been installed and
the creek and the crossing at Barrett Road had been eroded. She stated the site plan
indicated containment areas which were located on her property. She questioned if
these areas were clogged who would clean the areas. She stated pooling of water
would only increase the erosion to her property and potentially cause health concerns.
She stated the receiving stream was the Little Maumelle River. She stated the
discharge from this plant would pass through Pinnacle State Park which was used for
public recreation.
Mr. Don Thompson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated if the
subdivision was approved this would significantly change the character of the River
Valley. He stated with the exception of one subdivision most of the homes in the area
were developed on larger parcels containing 3 to 5 acres. He stated this area was
homesteads for families. He stated the road was narrow, and difficult for two (2) cars to
pass. He stated the development was not compatible with other development in the
area. He stated the development would change the topography of the site significantly
to allow the creation of a flat spot for the home sites. He stated the developer could
build three (3) to four (4) homes on the site which was more in keeping with
development in the area. He stated his concern was the drainage and runoff from this
site to adjacent tributaries. He stated to allow this development the developer would
have to move the mountain. He stated the area residents encouraged development of
single-family homes just not at this intensity.
Mr. James Morgan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his property was located on the south side of Barrett Road. He stated he had an organic
vegetable farm on the property and questioned if he would be allowed to continue to
grow organic vegetables if the development was approved. He questioned the
discharge from the treatment plant and the impact the runoff would have on
downstream conditions.
Mr. Scott Schallhour summarized the resident’s concerns. He stated the development
was too intense for the area. He stated the plat contained a number of variances which
were not consistent with development of single-family per the City’s ordinances. He
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
11
questioned if the development had the right of access to the private street. He
requested the Commission deny the R-2, Single-family plat as well as the Conditional
Use Permit request for the wastewater treatment facility and community activities.
Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission providing a letter from the area Volunteer
Fire Department acknowledging the proposed project. Mr. Spivey also provided the
permit request from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality concerning the
permitting process for the wastewater treatment system. He provided a statement form
Daniel Lanehart concerning the clearing of the site and the reasoning for the harvest
stating the trees were damaged by a 1983 wildfire and a number of the trees were
unhealthy.
Mr. Spivey quoted a petition filed in 1979 which indicated the intent was a dedication of
Old Arkansas Road as a public access with limited maintenance. He stated in 1988 a
petition was filed listing the reason for closing the road. He stated within the petition it
was stated no property owner would be denied access to any abutting property along
the road. He stated Mr. Rainey’s property abutted the road and he therefore should be
allowed access to his property.
Mr. Spivey stated this subdivision was a small subdivision. He stated the request was
straight forward in that the plat was proposed as a R-2, Single-family plat. He stated
there were variances associated with the plat which allowed the development to lessen
the footprint on the site and the abutting properties. He stated it was always more
difficult to build your home when everyone else’s home was already constructed.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development and
the intensity of the development. Commissioner Berry questioned staff as to their
change in recommendation from the previous request and the current request. Staff
noted the previous request was for a multi-family development with eight (8) units of
attached housing. Staff stated the current request was twelve (12) units of detached
single-family housing developed per the subdivision ordinance. Staff noted there were
variances requested which would allow for larger homes on the individual lots and
flexibility in the placement of the new homes on these lots.
The Commission questioned staff if they felt access to the new lots was in place. Staff
stated they felt access was provided via the order referenced by Mr. Spivey. Staff
stated this was not a legal opinion because they had not researched the order or read
the order but felt Mr. Spivey had quoted to the Commission something true and correct.
The Commission questioned stormwater detention and the time for consideration of
stormwater runoff and detention. Staff stated the development was located in the
County and the development would be reviewed by the County through their
development standards. Staff stated the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance did not
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1737
12
extend outside the City limits and the developer was not in violation for removing the
timber from the site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the preliminary plat item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote
of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1738
NAME: Sorrells Subdivision Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Sorrells and Rummel Roads
DEVELOPER:
Kent Sorrells
35 Sherrill Road
Little Rock, AR 72202
SURVEYOR:
Paxton R. Singleton
Global Surveying Consultants
6511 Heilman Court
North Little Rock, AR 72118
AREA: 9.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 – River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCE/WAIVERS:
1. A variance from Section 31-232 to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot.
2. A variance from Section 31-2 to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot inconsistent
with the minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. A variance from Section 31-231 to allow the creation of lots abutting a private street.
4. A deferral of the required street construction to Rummel Road for a period of five (5)
years or until one of the lots abutting Rummel Road is final platted.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to allow the creation of
six (6) single-family lots from a tract containing 10.057 acres. The final platting of
the lots will occur in two (2) phases with Lot 1 being the only lot final platted in
the first phase. Phase two includes the street construction and final platting of
Lots 2 through 6.
There are variances associated with the proposed preliminary plat request.
These include a variance from Section 31-232 to allow the creation of a pipe
stem lot, a variance from Section 31-2 to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot
inconsistent with the minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and a
variance from Section 31-231 to allow the creation of lots abutting a private
street.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required street improvements to
Rummel Road. The applicant is requesting deferral of the street improvements
to Rummel Road for a period of five (5) years, until adjacent development occurs
or until the final platting of a second lot, Lots 2 through 6. Sorrells Road is a
private access easement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This area contains primarily single-family homes located on large tracts and
acreage. Rummel Road is an unimproved with open ditches for drainage. The
site is heavily wooded. On the south side of Sorrells Road there are a number of
single-family homes located on large tracts. West of the site is the Thomas Park
Addition which also contains single-family homes on large tracts.
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 Pinnacle Valley Neighborhood
Association, the Tulley Cove Neighborhood Association and the Westchester
Heatherbrae Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Rummel Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street.
A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be required for the
entire length of the property.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
3
2. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Rummel Road with the
planned development. The new back of curb should be 13 feet from the
centerline.
3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to
platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Greg Simmons, Traffic Engineering,
501.379.1813 for more information.
5. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
(Sorrells Road) unless the property owners association provides a waiver of
damage claims for operations on private property.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if sewer service is
required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional
information.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. However, there is a single
phase electrical line extending west from Rummel Road near the lot line between
Lots 4 and 5 which feeds the customer on Lot 1. Entergy will require an
easement for this line. All other lots can be served as they develop.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
3. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
4
4. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
5. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
6. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
7. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: No comment.
Planning Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
Mr. Paxton Singleton was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the development stating there were additional items necessary to
complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. Singleton provide the names
of owners of any landlocked parcels within or abutting the plat area and the
names of owner of platted tracts in excess of 2 ½ acres. Staff also requested
Mr. Singleton provide the proposed phasing plan.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
5
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the boundary street
ordinance requirements would apply to the lots fronting Rummel Road. Staff
stated right of way dedication and street construction would be required for these
lots prior to final platting. Mr. Singleton stated the developer was requesting a
deferral of the street improvements to Rummel Road until the platting of one of
the lots (Lots 2 – 6) which had frontage on the street. Staff stated once Lot 1
was final platted three (3) parcels would be created. Staff stated in addition to
the final platting condition there would also be a time limit on the construction of
the street improvements. Staff stated the deferral would be for a period of five
(5) years or until one of the lots abutting Rummel Road was final platted,
whichever occurred first, would result in the requirement for street construction.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing issues
raised at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The
applicant has indicated the zoning classification within and abutting the proposed
plat area. The applicant has also indicated there are no land locked parcels
abutting the proposed plat area. The applicant has stated the deferral request as
requested by staff at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The request is for preliminary plat approval to allow the creation of six (6) single-
family lots from this single tract containing 10.057 acres. The final platting of the
lots is proposed in two (2) phases with Lot 1 being the only lot final platted in the
first phase. Phase two will be the final platting of Lots 2 through 6. Upon final
platting of these lots the required boundary street improvements to Rummel
Road will be completed.
There are variances associated with the proposed preliminary plat request.
These include a variance from Section 31-232 to allow the creation of a pipe
stem lot, a variance from Section 31-2 to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot
inconsistent with the minimum standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and a
variance from Section 31-231 to allow the creation of lots abutting a private
street. The Subdivision Ordinance states the creation of pipe stem lots is
prohibited in residential subdivision. The ordinance provides criteria for the
creation of pipe stem lots. The ordinance also states lots are to be served by
public streets unless otherwise approved by the Commission.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
6
The Subdivision Ordinance defines a pipe stem lot as a tract of land which is
served for access, legally and physically by a narrow strip of land less than the
ordinance required minimum lot width. The body of a pipe stem lot is typically an
elongated figure or a polygon capturing a difficult building site behind another lot.
For purposes of a variance of subdivision design for a pipe stem lot the following
minimum dimensions will control: (1) The minimum width of the stem at the street
right-of-way shall be thirty (30) feet. The lot width at the street is indicated at
32.98-feet. (2) The maximum depth of a pipe stem lot, including the stem shall
be limited to three hundred (300) feet. The depth of the lot including the stem is
approximately 650-feet. (3) The minimum width of the lot body shall be sixty (60)
feet. The lot body is approximately 385-feet. (4) The minimum lot area shall be
ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The minimum lot area is 3.301-acres.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required street improvements to
Rummel Road for the first phase of the subdivision. The requested deferral of
the street improvements to Rummel Road is for a period of five (5) years, until
adjacent development occurs or until the final platting of a second lot within the
subdivision, Lots 2 through 6, whichever occurs first. Sorrells Road is a private
access easement. No improvements are required to Sorrells Road.
Staff is supportive of the request and the associated variances. Staff does not
feel the creation of six (6) single-family lots from this 10+ acre parcel will
adversely impact the area.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from Section 31-232 and
Section 31-2 for the variances associated with the creation of the pipe stem lots.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow the creation of lots
abutting a private street.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral request for the required boundary
street ordinance requirement for street construction to Rummel Road for a period
of five (5) years, until abutting street construction occurs or until the final platting
of an additional lot contained within Lots 2 through 6.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1738
7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated December 11,
2014, requesting deferral of this item to the January 29, 2015, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-965-A
NAME: Baseline Retail Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 8815 Baseline Road
DEVELOPER:
Rock Capitol Group LLC
4220 Rodney Parham Road, Suite 120
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
Crafton Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 2.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District
PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 – Geyer Springe West
CENSUS TRACT: 41.05
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
The applicant submitted a request dated November 18, 2014, requesting withdrawal of
this item without prejudice. Staff is supportive of the withdrawal request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated November 18,
2014, requesting withdrawal of this item without prejudice. Staff stated they were
supportive of the withdrawal request.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-965-A
2
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1739
NAME: Miso Facility Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: Located at 1700 Centerview Drive
DEVELOPER:
Flake and Kelly Commercial
John Flake/James Harkins
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
SURVEYOR:
Crafton Tull and Associates
10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72211
AREA: 6.204 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, Office and Institutional
PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 – I-430
CENSUS TRACT: 24.07
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The request is for approval of a site plan per Section 31-13 of the Little Rock
Code of Ordinances to allow the construction of multiple buildings on a single
site. In addition to the office building currently under construction on the site the
applicant is requesting approval to allow the placement of carport structures over
a portion of the parking spaces within the employee parking area. The site plan
proposes the placement of three (3) carport structures covering approximately
55-parking spaces.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1739
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is located in area which is developing in an office park setting. Within
the area there are several lots which have not developed currently zoned O-3,
General Office District. Centerview Drive and Executive Center Drive are
constructed to Master Street Plan standard. The building located on this lot is
currently under construction. Access to the site is from Centerview Drive.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
property owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
No comment.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Entergy has no objection to this proposal. Contact has already been
made by the developer and electrical extension issues have been resolved.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use.
Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA,
successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly
Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas
Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1739
3
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 501.377.1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. 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.
5. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
6. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
7. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the
review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at
501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875;
malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: No comment.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1739
4
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Care shall be exercised during construction to avoid damage to trees and the
surrounding ground surface area especially within the critical root zone. All
previously approved landscaping, fencing, striping, dumpster enclosures,
irrigation, etc., to remain must be in good condition or replaced at the
completion of this project.
3. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was not present. Staff stated presented the item stating there
were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. There was no
further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request raised at
the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The request is for
approval of a site plan per Section 31-13 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to
allow the construction of multiple buildings on this single parcel. The applicant is
proposing the construction of covered parking to serve the office building
currently under construction. The proposal is to allow the placement of three (3)
carport structures within the employee parking lot covering approximately
55-parking spaces. The covered parking is located in the rear of the office
building, near the western property line.
Staff is supportive of the request. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding
technical issues associated with the request. Staff does not feel the placement
of the carport structures as proposed will have any adverse impact on this site or
on any adjacent developments.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to compliance with the comments and
conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1739
5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to compliance
with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-7632-A
NAME: Malone Short-form PD-R Revocation
LOCATION: Located at 1100 Rock Street
DEVELOPER:
Josh Malone
1100 Rock Street, Apt. D
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
Donald Brooks
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.16 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-R
ALLOWED USES: Multi-family and Single-family
PROPOSED ZONING: R-4A
PROPOSED USE: Existing Multi-family and Single-family
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 19,136 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 20, 2004,
rezoned the property from R-4A, Low Density Residential District to PD-R to allow the
creation of a two-lot plat for the site. A four-story, four-unit brick apartment building and
an uninhabitable frame house were located on the site. The intent was to split the lot
into two (2) separate lots to allow the frame house and apartment building to exist on
separate parcels. The further intent was to renovate the single-family dwelling to allow
the unit to become a functional residence once again. The applicant indicated this
would not be suitable if the two (2) structures continued to share a lot. The lot was not
split and the renovations to the single-family home were not completed.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7632-A
2
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
Per Section 36-454(d) the owner of an approved PD or PUD may, for cause,
request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development when it has been
determined that the development will not occur. A written request may be filed
with the City staff at any time up to three (3) years after the date of adoption of
the ordinance creating the PUD or PD. The request shall set forth the cause of
the repeal.
According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission recommendation on the
repeal request shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for their
consideration. The board of directors may grant or deny the request or return the
request to the planning commission for further study. If the request is approved,
an ordinance shall be adopted repealing the PUD or PD.
The owner has stated the development will not occur as planned. The owner is
requesting the PD-R zoning be revoked and the R-4A Zoning District zoning be
restored.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing apartment building and a dilapidated single-family
home. There is a vacant commercial building located to the west of the site.
There are single-family and two family homes located to the south and north of
the site. To the east of the site is MacArthur Park.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. The
Downtown Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating the request was
a revocation of the previously approved PD-R zoning. Staff stated there were no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. There was no further
discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the current PD-R zoning classification be revoked and the
previously held R-4A zoning be restored.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7632-A
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation the current PD-R zoning classification be
revoked and the previously held R-4A zoning be restored.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-8490-C
NAME: 4314 Asher Avenue Revised Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 4314 Asher Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Tracy Johnson
1507 Dorado Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
SURVEYOR:
White-Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.34 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: PD-C
ALLOWED USES: Private club
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Extend the hours of operation
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 20,164 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 6,
2009, rezoned the site from the C-4, Open Display Zoning District to PD-C to allow the
site to be redeveloped with a private club. The site was vacant and was proposed with
the construction of a two (2) story 4,500 square foot building. The site plan indicated
the placement of 31 on-site parking spaces and indicated agreements to allow
additional off-site parking spaces at the adjacent funeral home. The hours of operation
were approved from 9:00 pm to 2:00 am Thursday through Saturday.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-C
2
Ordinance No. 20,372 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 7,
2010 allowed a revision to the previously approved PD-C. The approval allowed the
construction of a smaller building and rearrangement of the parking layout on the site.
The use of the building remained a private club. The building approved was a single
story building containing 3,536 square feet and 19 on-site parking spaces. Additional
parking was provided via an agreement from an adjacent property owner to allow
16 additional off-site parking spaces. The hours of operation approved were 9:00 pm to
2:00 am, Thursday through Saturday. A single ground sign along Asher Avenue as well
as building signage on the front façade along Asher Avenue was approved.
Ordinance No. 20,817 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 19,
2013, allowed a revision to the previously approved PD-C to extend the hours of
operation from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am seven (7) days per week.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The owner is now proposing a revision the currently approved PD-C to extend
the hours of operation for his establishment. There are no site plan changes
proposed from the existing built site, this includes no changes to the building,
parking, landscaping, ingress/egress. The owner will continue to lease parking
from an adjacent funeral home business, located across the alley to the north,
which reserves 18 – 20 parking spaces together with the onsite parking adjacent
to the building.
The hours of operation are proposed to coincide with the current ABC permit.
The hours of operation requested with this application are from 4:00 pm to
5:00 am seven (7) days per week. Currently the hours of operation approved for
the site are from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am seven (7) days per week.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is developed with a private club and parking located on the north side of
Asher Avenue. This area contains a number of uses including auto repair, auto
towing, bars, churches, a gas station, a funeral home, a hair salon, a mortgage
company office and auto financing. This area of Asher Avenue also contains a
number of vacant buildings and large paved areas. Further north of the site are
single-family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents concerning the proposed request. All property owners located within
200-feet of the site along with the Curran Conway Neighborhood Association, the
Goodwill Neighborhood Association, the Love Neighborhood Association, the
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-C
3
Midway Neighborhood Association and the South of Asher Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the proposal
stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
E. ANALYSIS:
There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need
of addressing via a revised site plan. The applicant is seeking a revision to an
existing PD-C to extend the hours of operation for his business. The current
approval of the PD-C allows for the business to operate from 4:30 pm to 2:00 am
seven (7) days per week. The applicant is requesting to extend the hours to
4:00 pm to 5:00 am seven (7) days per week.
Ordinance No. 20,940 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October
6, 2014, established a process whereby private clubs may stay open until
5:00 am. The ordinance defines the process and security measures that are to
take place to allow the Class B Private Clubs to remain open until 5:00 am.
These measures include the hiring of a minimum of two (2) individuals, who are
certified by the State of Arkansas to act as a Law Enforcement Officer to be
present on and around the exterior premises of the club from 12:00 midnight until
closing on Friday and Saturday nights and on State-recognized holidays and
during special events. The ordinance also states the club is to employ an
adequate number of individuals to work as security on the inside of the club. The
inside employees are not required to be certified by the State of Arkansas to act
as a Law Enforcement Officer. Adequate lighting, video surveillance and signage
to prohibit loitering is also to be placed on the property.
The applicant, Tracy Johnson, has a Class B Private Club License which has
been issued by the State of Arkansas Alcohol Beverage Control Board. The
Class B Private Club License allows his business to operate until 5:00 am, if
approved by the City. Based on the Board of Directors recent adoption of an
ordinance regulating 5:00 am clubs staff feels the applicant’s request is
appropriate. The business will be required to fully comply with the provision of
Ordinance No. 20,940 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8490-C
4
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the hours of operation for
this business owner, Tracy Johnson, to be allowed to operate from 4:00 pm to
5:00 am seven (7) days per week.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to extend the
hours of operation for this business owner, Tracy Johnson, to be allowed to operate
from 4:00 pm to 5:00 am seven (7) days per week.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
NAME: A & A Investment Filmore Street Revised Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of West Markham and Filmore Streets
DEVELOPER:
Arkansas Spine and Pain
5700 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
ENGINEER:
ETC Engineers and Architects
1510 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72202
AREA: 0.27 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: POD
ALLOWED USES: Mixed Use containing O-3, General Office and C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial District uses
PROPOSED ZONING: Revised POD
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use containing O-2, Office and Institutional, and C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial District uses
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance to allow the driveway locations and widths which do
not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance No. 20,725 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 21, 2013,
rezoned the property from O-3, General Office District to Planned Office Development,
(POD), to allow the development of the site with a two-story building containing
15,000 square feet of office and retail space. The approval allowed 3,000 square feet of
the lower level to be marketed to retail space utilizing the C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial Zoning District uses as allowable uses. The approval allowed a maximum
of 1,500 square feet of the 3,000 square feet to be used as restaurant space. The
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
2
remaining area was to be marketed to office users utilizing the O-3, General Office
District uses as allowable uses. The approved site plan included the placement of
29 parking spaces.
With the construction of the office building located on the northwest corner of West
Markham and Filmore Streets this site was graveled and used as a “laydown area” for
the materials and construction machinery. In addition to storage of materials and
equipment the office personnel of the office building used this area for parking during
construction of the office building. The office personnel continue to use this site for
parking and the property owner has been issued a notice to appear in City
Environmental Court to answer as to why the area has not been secured to eliminate
the use of the site as a parking lot and to also answer as to why all the construction
equipment and materials have not been removed for the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to revise the previously approved POD to allow
the placement of a 12,000 square foot building on the site along with a ground
level parking area and a surface parking lot. According to the applicant the
topography condition of the site allows the plan to include a ground level parking
area under the two (2) story building. Landscaping and/or architectural screening
is proposed to visually mask the parking along West Markham Street.
The site is located within the Mid-town Design Overlay District, which requires
new development to be reviewed through the planned zoning development
process.
In addition to the request for the revised site plan the applicant is requesting to
use the site temporarily as parking for the employees of the office building
located to the west. The applicant has indicated the use will be temporary, until
construction of the new building begins. The time frame as outlined by the
applicant is as follows:
1. Allow parking within the area, where the proposed surface parking lot is
shown on the site plan until May 01, 2015, when the construction of site
improvement will start.
2. A partial site improvement that will include the perimeter street improvements
including curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalks and gravel parking lot will be
completed by July 31, 2015.
3. After the completion of partial site improvements, allow parking in the gravel
parking area until May 01, 2016, when the building and surface parking lot
construction will start.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
3
4. The building and surface parking lot construction will be completed by
March 2017.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is a vacant lot which has been used for parking and a laydown yard for
the construction of the medical office building located on the northwest corner of
Filmore and West Markham Streets. There are a variety of uses in the area
including St. Vincent’s Hospital, multi-family residential, War Memorial Park Golf
Course and additional office uses. To the west of the site is an elderly housing
development. Further west is the West Markham Street and University Avenue
intersection, which contains retail and office uses including Park Plaza Mall,
Mid-towne Shopping Center and Park Avenue Shopping Center.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
The Mid-town Redevelopment District #1 Advisory Board reviewed the request at
their November 21, 2014, meeting and voted to approve the request with minor
revisions. The revisions include the placement of handicap parking in the
surface lot, landscaping added in the parking lot and pedestrian access through
the parking area. The revised plan submitted to staff on November 26, 2014, has
addressed these items.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that North Filmore Street for the frontage of this property must meet
commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2. West Markham Street is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet
from centerline will be required.
3. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
West Markham Street and North Filmore Street.
4. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to North
Filmore Street including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
4
The curb should be installed so that a 31 foot wide street is provided north
of the driveway and a 36 foot wide street is provided south of the driveway.
A temporary certificate of occupancy will not be issued until all street
improvements are installed and inspected per City code.
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed
adjacent to West Markham Street in accordance with Section 31-175 of the
Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. The sidewalk configuration at
the intersection may need to be modified at time of building permit.
7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
8. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
9. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
10. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works,
Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package.
11. Retaining walls designed to exceed 15 feet in height are required to seek a
variance for construction. Provide proposed wall elevations.
12. Prior to construction of retaining walls, an engineer's certification of design
and plans must be submitted to Public Works for approval. After
construction, an as-built certification is required for construction of the
retaining wall.
13. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade if needed for alignment or with
proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering for approval. The intersection will be striped and signalized for
3-lanes.
14. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy on property on the west side of
North Filmore Street, all construction material including gravel, fill, and
building supplies must be removed from the subject property. Vegetation
should be re-established on the property.
15. The entire width of the alley should be paved to a minimum width of 20 feet
in accordance to City standards. A new driveway apron may be needed if
the existing apron does not comply with City of Little Rock Detail PW-35.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
5
16. The access ramps at the West Markham Street/North Filmore Street
intersection should be constructed per City of Little Rock detail PW-50.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. A 3-phase electrical line
exists on the east side of the property and on the south side across Markham
Street. One streetlight exists on the southeast corner of the property. Contact
Entergy in advance to arrange service needs.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use.
Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA,
successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly
Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas
Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 501.377.1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. 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.
5. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
6
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
6. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the
review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at
501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875;
malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Office (O) for this property. The Office (O)
category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g., legal,
financial, medical) as well as general offices which support more basic economic
activities. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from POD (Planned Office
District) to PDO (Planned District Office) to allow for the development of an office
building and parking on the site. The application is within the Midtown Design
Overlay District.
Master Street Plan: West Markham Street is a Minor Arterial and Filmore Street
is a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides
connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide
short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be
limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on West Markham
Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent
properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more
intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”.
A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. These streets may
require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for
entrances and exits to the site.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
7
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements and the Midtown Overlay District.
2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The property is located in the City’s
designated mature area. A twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements is acceptable. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within
the City’s landscape ordinance requirements.
• The depth of the lot is approximately one hundred and twenty-five
(125) linear feet. After the twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the
buffer requirements a six foot nine inch (6.75) street buffer will be
required on Filmore Street.
3. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide.
The property is located in the City’s designated mature area. A 25% reduction
of the perimeter requirements is acceptable. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs
or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting
strip.
• A minimum 6.75 foot perimeter planting strip is required adjacent to
the vehicular use area at the north property line.
4. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking
area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred
fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer
parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half
(7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at
the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. A 25% reduction
of the interior green space requirements is acceptable.
5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
8
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the item stating the
request included a revision to the previously approved POD for the site to allow
an additional level which would be used for parking. Staff stated access to the
parking was proposed from the alley located along the property’s eastern
boundary. Staff noted there were additional items necessary to complete the
review process. Staff stated the development was located within the Mid-town
Design Overlay District which required additional information related to the
design of the building and landscaping. Staff requested the applicant provide
clarification to the points identified within the Mid-town DOD.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the driveway location did
not comply with the typical ordinance standards and stated the location would
require a variance. Staff also stated a radial dedication of right of way was
required at the intersection of the two (2) streets. Staff stated sidewalks were
required along West Markham Street and North Filmore Street. Staff stated the
entire width of the alley should be paved to a minimum of 20-feet in width.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the landscaping should
comply with the minimum standards of the Mid-town DOD as well as the
landscape ordinance. Staff stated the street buffer could be reduced to
6-feet 9-inches since the site was located within the Designated Mature area.
Staff stated eight percent of the vehicular use area was to be landscaped with
interior islands.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing a number of the
comments raised at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting.
The applicant has indicated the materials, height and building placement for the
new construction. The applicant has also indicated the building will comply with
most of the typical design standards of the Mid-town DOD.
The request is a revision to the previously approved POD to allow the placement
of a 12,000 square foot building on the site along with a ground level parking
area and a surface parking lot. According to the applicant the topography
condition of the site allows the plan to include a ground level parking area under
the two (2) story building. Landscaping and/or architectural screening will be
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
9
provided to visually mask the parking area along West Markham Street. The site
is located within the Mid-town Design Overlay District, which requires new
development to be reviewed through the planned zoning development process.
The applicant has indicated the design of the building will be modern style
architecture. The height and massing of the structure will be altered as typically
required by the DOD. The height of the building ranges from 35-feet to 45-feet
measured at mid-point of the roof. The DOD states structures north of Markham
Street and east of University Avenue shall be limited to a height of 35-feet. The
building height as proposed exceeds the typical height established by the DOD.
The primary entrance to the building is from Filmore and West Markham Streets.
Customer entrances will be provided to the building from both street frontages.
Pedestrian access will also be provided through the parking lot to the building.
Landscaping will be provided within the surface parking lot to comply with the
Mid-town DOD and the City’s Landscape Ordinance requirements.
The site plan includes ten (10) parking spaces beneath the building and
25 surface parking spaces. The applicant has indicated the building will be used
for office and retail uses. The applicant is requesting the allowance of O-2,
Office and Institutional zoning district permitted uses as allowable uses and C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial District uses. A maximum of 1,200 square feet of
floor area is proposed for the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District uses. No
accessory or conditional uses in either the O-2, Office and Institutional zoning
district or the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district are requested. The
previous approval allowed a maximum of 1,500 gross square feet for an eating
place. The current approval would limit the area to 1,200 gross square feet.
Parking per the DOD is limited to fifty percent of the required parking of the
zoning ordinance article VIII. The maximum parking allowed is the minimum
standard established in this article. In this case the ordinance would typically
require 53-parking spaces to serve a mixed use development. The site plan
indicates 36-parking spaces. The parking as proposed does comply with the
typical standards of the DOD.
The applicant has indicated metal finishes will be used. The Mid-town DOD
states exterior building materials and colors are to be aesthetically pleasing and
compatible with materials and colors used in the neighboring developments.
Predominate exterior building materials must be of high quality materials such as
brick, wood, stone, tinted stucco, EIFS. Predominate exterior building materials
may not be smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated
steel panels. The applicant has indicated the metal will be painted metal with a
color similar to the colors suggested in the DOD.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
10
A note on the site plan indicates the hours of operation for the development will
be 24-hours per day, seven (7) days per week. The site plan includes the
placement of a dumpster. A note indicates the dumpster will be screened per
typical ordinance standards. The hours of dumpster service have not been
limited. Staff recommends the hours of dumpster service be limited to 8 am to
6 pm Monday through Friday.
Staff is supportive of the requests. The applicant is proposing a revision to a
previously approved POD to add an additional level to the proposed building and
use the ground floor as parking for the office building and the office building
located across North Filmore Street to the west. The design of the development
is proposed consistent with a number of the design elements of the Mid-town
DOD. Staff does not feel the areas the development falls short of the DOD will
adversely impact the development or the area.
Staff is not supportive of allowing this site to continue to be used as a parking lot
to serve the adjacent office building. The lot is not paved and does not meet the
minimum criteria for parking per the zoning ordinance. In addition the owner did
not consult staff prior to placing the gravel on the lot and using the lot for
construction related activities nor did the applicant seek approval for use of the
site as a temporary parking area. Staff feels if additional parking is required by
the adjacent office building a parking area should be constructed to meet the
minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance including paving and
landscaping.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested site plan subject to compliance with
the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends the hours of dumpster service be limited to 8 am to 6 pm
Monday through Friday.
Staff recommends denial of the request to allow this lot to be used as parking for
the adjacent office building in its current state.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item stating the applicant had agreed to construct the parking lot in the
first phase of the development. Staff stated the parking lot construction would consist of
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8850-A
11
a paved parking lot and landscaping to meet the minimum requirements of the
Landscape Ordinance. Staff stated no parking would be allowed on the area indicated
for future building construction. Staff stated this area was to be seeded and fenced to
prohibit parking within the area that was not paved. Staff stated the parking lot
construction was to begin no later than March of 2015. Staff stated the building
construction was to begin within 18 to 24 months of approval.
The applicant stated they were agreeable to the construction plan as presented by staff.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
NAME: Rainey Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 10000 Block of Old Arkansas Drive
DEVELOPER:
Russell Rainey
1501 Rahling Road #1704
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
Marlar Engineering Co.
5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
AREA: 10.91 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 & 2 tracts FT. NEW STREET: 1,890 LF
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
for construction of a wastewater and treatment system and a community
recreational facility and community maintenance and storage building.
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located in the 10000 Block of Old Arkansas Drive. Adjacent to
the property Old Arkansas Drive is a private street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located behind the gate of Old Arkansas Drive. Old Arkansas is
a narrow unimproved chip-seal road with open ditches for drainage. The
property is located outside the City limits of Little Rock but within the City’s
Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The area is primarily single-family with
homes located on acreage. There is a PD-C zoned parcel located on Barrett
Road to the east which was approved as an in-home beauty salon. The property
north of Barrett Road has a significant slope from north to south. This property
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
2
also has a significant slope from north to south. The timber on this site was
recently removed.
As of this writing, staff has received a number of phone calls both informational
and with concerns related to the request from area residents. All property
owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the Coalition of West Little
Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
As a separate item on this agenda the applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to
allow the creation of twelve (12) lots and two (2) tracts to be developed on a
private street. The subdivision will be served by a centralized wastewater
collection treatment system. The subdivision will also share a private
recreational facility and community storage building. Both of which necessitate
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The development is proposed as a single-family subdivision with twelve (12)
homes constructed on individual lots. The community pool is proposed internal
to the development. The wastewater collection site is located in the eastern
portion of the property. The maintenance building is located adjacent to the
treatment system. The maintenance building is located approximately 60-feet
from the eastern property line. The treatment site is located approximately FILE
NO.: 70-feet from the eastern property line.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct street improvement to the proposed Old Arkansas
Circle with the planned development. The street should be constructed to
24 feet in width and 6 feet paved shoulders, and open ditch within a 68 foot
easement. The proposed street grade cannot exceed twelve percent
(12%) slope without a variance from the Master Street Plan to increase to
eighteen percent (18%). Show the proposed street elevation on a sketch
grading and drainage plan.
2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan.
3. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
3
4. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
5. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide
plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior
to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Greg Simmons, Traffic
Engineering, 501.379.1813 for more information.
6. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance
at the intersection(s) comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards.
6. UTILITY/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/CATA/BUILDING CODES:
Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. A single phase line currently
exists along Old Arkansas Drive on the west side of the road leading up to the
property. Contact Entergy in advance to begin discussions about service
requirements.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this
property.
3. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
4. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
5. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
4
6. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the
hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for
installation of the hydrant(s).
7. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information. Provide a letter from the
Maumelle Volunteer Fire Department indicating their knowledge of the proposed
subdivision.
County Planning:
1. Provide Bill of Assurance.
2. Show distances and bearings to second land corner, provide state plane
coordinates.
3. Provide Health Department approval of Wastewater treatment system.
4. Provide approval from Volunteer Fire Department.
5. Provide street cross sections for Old Arkansas Circle.
6. Provide profile for Old Arkansas Circle.
7. Label all street centerlines.
8. Provide storm drainage plan.
9. Old Arkansas Circle must comply with Pulaski County Master Road Plan for
a local road. Provide 60-foot access easement width. Provide 28-feet
pavement width for Old Arkansas Circle.
10. Provide for maintenance of Old Arkansas Circle in the Bill of Assurance.
11. Provide full set of construction plans for Old Arkansas Circle.
12. Front, rear and side setbacks do not comply with Pulaski County
Subdivision and Development Code standards. 25-foot front and rear yard
setback required and 8-foot side yard setbacks are required.
13. Provide SWPPP for Pulaski County review.
14. Pay $33.00 review fee.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
5
15. Provide means of stabilizing cut and fill slopes.
16. Provide water and wastewater design plans for Public Works review.
17. Name leftover vacant tract and common area. Provide for maintenance of
both tracts in the Bill of Assurance.
18. Show both road edges of Old Arkansas Drive.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
7. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
Mr. Russell Rainey and Mr. Mike Marlar were present representing the request.
Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review
process. Staff requested Mr. Marlar provide the linear feet of internal street, the
source of water and the average lot size for the proposed lots in the general
notes section of the proposed preliminary plat. Staff also requested Mr. Rainey
provide a letter from the area volunteer fire department indicating their
knowledge of the project and their ability to serve the proposed lots.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned if the street would be
public or private and questioned if the development would be gated. Staff also
requested Mr. Marlar provide a road profile for the proposed street. Staff stated
the ordinance allowed a 12-percent street grade and a variance up to an
18-percent street grade could be approved by the Commission.
Staff stated in addition to the preliminary plat the applicant was requesting a
Conditional Use Permit application as a separate item on the agenda (Z-8937-A)
to allow the placement of the wastewater treatment system and the community
buildings and pool. Staff questioned the status of the proposed wastewater
treatment system. Mr. Marlar stated plans were being prepared and the owner
had decided on the type for the proposed treatment system. He stated plans
would be submitted to AEDQ for approval as well as the Arkansas Department of
Health. He stated AEDQ normally would provide a respond and/or approval in
60 to 90 days and the Health Department response and approval was usually
45-days.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
6
8. ANALYSIS:
There were few outstanding technical issues associated with the proposed
Conditional Use Permit request raised at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The request is for approval of a CUP to allow the placement
of a community recreational area and maintenance/storage building and to place
a wastewater collection and treatment system on the site to serve the proposed
subdivision, a separate item on this agenda, (S-1737). The zoning ordinance
defines water or sewage treatment plant and related facilities as a facility for the
systematic collection and treatment and dispersal of water and waste materials.
Within the Conditional Use Section of the zoning ordinance it states certain public
and quasi-public uses due to their nature and impact on adjacent properties shall
be permitted by right only in the industrial classifications established by the
zoning ordinance. The uses may be permitted in all other classifications by
approval of a conditional use permit application. Water or sewer treatment plant
or ancillary facilities are specifically called out as needing a Conditional Use
Permit.
The treatment facility will be sized to serve the new homes located within this
subdivision. The developer must receive approval from the Arkansas
Department of Health and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
prior to installation of the system. The applicant has indicated maintenance of
the system will be the responsibility of the Property Owners Association.
Monitoring and reporting will be provided to the various State agencies as
required to be in compliance with State and Federal codes.
In addition within the R-2, Single-family Zoning District uses defined as needing
approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to development are a country club,
golf course, swimming pool or other private recreational uses usually associated
with or incidental to a social country club or subdivision association operated for
mutual recreation for the members, and not as a business for profit. The
placement of the subdivision recreational area and maintenance and storage
building fall within this category.
Staff is supportive of the development as proposed. The applicant is seeking
approval to allow for a treatment facility for this small single-family subdivision
and to be allowed to place a community recreational area and maintenance and
storage building. To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request. Staff feels the placement of the amenities to serve
the subdivision as proposed by the applicant is appropriate.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
7
9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of approval as well as approval of the associated
variance request. Staff also presented a Conditional Use Permit application request in
conjunction with the preliminary plat application request. Staff noted the two items were
related and could be discussed at the same time but would require separate votes.
Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the
development was a single-family subdivision consisting of 12 lots. He stated 79-percent
of the site would be designated as open or green space. He stated the variances were
being requested to allow the most efficient development of the property. He stated the
street was a private street constructed to comply with the existing access to the site
which was also private. He stated the development would provide a state of the art
treatment system to serve the new homes. He stated the system was permitted and
monitored by the State and would be owned by the Property Owners Association. He
stated the amenities provided would enhance the subdivision by providing common
recreational opportunities.
Russell Rainey addressed the Commission as the developer. He stated his
development was a state of the art development. He stated the homes would be
developed based on green design. He stated the homes were proposed as homes for
his family members and close personal friends. He stated the development was being
constructed in such a manner as to allow for a buffer around the development for the
adjacent residential properties.
Mr. Mike Marlar addressed the Commission as the project engineer. He stated the
variances were being requested to allow for a centralized courtyard. He stated without
the clubhouse and garden area located internal to the development the lots would fully
comply with the minimum standards of the City ordinances. He stated traffic from the
development would not be significant. He stated he had contacted the City’s Traffic
Engineer for his thoughts on traffic accessing Old Arkansas Road. He stated the City’s
Traffic Engineer did not feel the subdivision would not generate a great deal of traffic
and Mr. Henry did not have concerns with the development or access via Old Arkansas.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
8
Mr. Andy Davis addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his
firm sold the treatment system that would be used for the subdivision. He stated the
system was being used in several locations within the City’s Extraterritorial Planning
Jurisdiction as well as around the State.
Mr. David Meints addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated his
company surveyed the site to determine the best means of wastewater treatment for the
development. He stated it was determined individual septic systems could not serve the
new homes and a centralized system was the best means for treatment.
Mr. Scott Schallhourn addressed the Commission on behalf of the opposition. He
stated his firm was representing a number of the homeowners in the area which were
opposed to this dense development. He stated the homes previously looked over a
forested area and now the property was cleared of timber and was a barren site. He
stated there was not a silt fence in place to control runoff from the site. He provided the
Commission with a graphic which indicated the development with a football field overlay
and stated the development as proposed would fit into War Memorial Stadium and look
very similar. He stated the subdivision did not fit the rural setting of the area. He stated
the run-off from the treatment system would drain into the backyard of the homes to the
south.
Mr. Schallhourn stated it was unclear if the developer had right of access to Old
Arkansas which was a private street. He stated the developer had not approached the
homeowner association to indicating if he was willing to pay into the maintenance of the
road if access was granted. He stated Old Arkansas was a 14-foot chip seal road, very
narrow and difficult for two (2) cars to pass. He stated Mr. Rainey had access to a
public street on the southwest corner of his development. He stated he felt the
developer should confirm access or provide a preliminary plat with access to the public
street prior to the Commission approving the preliminary plat.
Dr. Andrijka Kwasny addressed the Commission in strong opposition to the request.
She stated her home was located along the southern boundary of the development.
She stated within the State of Arkansas waterways were not classified as creeks but as
wet weather streams. She stated the wet weather stream which would provide outflow
for the developments wastewater treatment system was located along her properties
boundary. She stated with the current clearing silt fencing had not been installed and
the creek and the crossing at Barrett Road had been eroded. She stated the site plan
indicated containment areas which were located on her property. She questioned if
these areas were clogged who would clean the areas. She stated pooling of water
would only increase the erosion to her property and potentially cause health concerns.
She stated the receiving stream was the Little Maumelle River. She stated the
discharge from this plant would pass through Pinnacle State Park which was used for
public recreation.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
9
Mr. Don Thompson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated if the
subdivision was approved this would significantly change the character of the River
Valley. He stated with the exception of one subdivision most of the homes in the area
were developed on larger parcels containing 3 to 5 acres. He stated this area was
homesteads for families. He stated the road was narrow, and difficult for two (2) cars to
pass. He stated the development was not compatible with other development in the
area. He stated the development would change the topography of the site significantly
to allow the creation of a flat spot for the home sites. He stated the developer could
build three (3) to four (4) homes on the site which was more in keeping with
development in the area. He stated his concern was the drainage and runoff from this
site to adjacent tributaries. He stated to allow this development the developer would
have to move the mountain. He stated the area residents encouraged development of
single-family homes just not at this intensity.
Mr. James Morgan addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his property was located on the south side of Barrett Road. He stated he had an organic
vegetable farm on the property and questioned if he would be allowed to continue to
grow organic vegetables if the development was approved. He questioned the
discharge from the treatment plant and the impact the runoff would have on
downstream conditions.
Mr. Scott Schallhour summarized the resident’s concerns. He stated the development
was too intense for the area. He stated the plat contained a number of variances which
were not consistent with development of single-family per the City’s ordinances. He
questioned if the development had the right of access to the private street. He
requested the Commission deny the R-2, Single-family plat as well as the Conditional
Use Permit request for the wastewater treatment facility and community activities.
Mr. Bill Spivey addressed the Commission providing a letter from the area Volunteer
Fire Department acknowledging the proposed project. Mr. Spivey also provided the
permit request from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality concerning the
permitting process for the wastewater treatment system. He provided a statement form
Daniel Lanehart concerning the clearing of the site and the reasoning for the harvest
stating the trees were damaged by a 1983 wildfire and a number of the trees were
unhealthy.
Mr. Spivey quoted a petition filed in 1979 which indicated the intent was a dedication of
Old Arkansas Road as a public access with limited maintenance. He stated in 1988 a
petition was filed listing the reason for closing the road. He stated within the petition it
was stated no property owner would be denied access to any abutting property along
the road. He stated Mr. Rainey’s property abutted the road and he therefore should be
allowed access to his property.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8937-A
10
Mr. Spivey stated this subdivision was a small subdivision. He stated the request was
straight forward in that the plat was proposed as a R-2, Single-family plat. He stated
there were variances associated with the plat which allowed the development to lessen
the footprint on the site and the abutting properties. He stated it was always more
difficult to build your home when everyone else’s home was already constructed.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development and
the intensity of the development. Commissioner Berry questioned staff as to their
change in recommendation from the previous request and the current request. Staff
noted the previous request was for a multi-family development with eight (8) units of
attached housing. Staff stated the current request was twelve (12) units of detached
single-family housing developed per the subdivision ordinance. Staff noted there were
variances requested which would allow for larger homes on the individual lots and
flexibility in the placement of the new homes on these lots.
The Commission questioned staff if they felt access to the new lots was in place. Staff
stated they felt access was provided via the order referenced by Mr. Spivey. Staff
stated this was not a legal opinion because they had not researched the order or read
the order but felt Mr. Spivey had quoted to the Commission something true and correct.
The Commission questioned stormwater detention and the time for consideration of
stormwater runoff and detention. Staff stated the development was located in the
County and the development would be reviewed by the County through their
development standards. Staff stated the City’s Land Alteration Ordinance did not
extend outside the City limits and the developer was not in violation for removing the
timber from the site.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the conditional use permit as presented by staff. The motion carried by a
vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-8996
NAME: Kayla Cole Short-form PID
LOCATION: Located at 7600, 7604, 7604 ½ Colonel Glenn Road and
4122 Stannus Street
DEVELOPER:
Kayla Cole
804 Virginia Avenue
Bauxite, AR 72011
ENGINEER:
Troy Laha
Laha Engineering
6602 Baseline Road, Suite E
Little Rock, AR 72209
AREA: 0.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: I-2, Light Industrial
ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING: PID
PROPOSED USE: Add single-family as an allowable use
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The property is currently zoned I-2, Light Industrial. The applicant is requesting
to rezone the property to PID to add single-family as an allowable use for the
property while retaining the I-2, Light Industrial District uses. There are
four (4) buildings on the site. Three (3) are residential and the fourth was
constructed as a commercial building and has been rented in the past as a thrift
store. Two (2) residential units are currently vacant and have been vacant for
more than six (6) months.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8996
2
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This area of Colonel Glenn Road has a mixture of uses including residential,
office, commercial and manufacturing. There is an elementary school located
across Stannus Street to the east. Further to the east is a US Post Office and to
the west is a City of Little Rock Fire Station. Immediately to the west of this site
is a boutique, a hair salon and a grocery store. North of the site are single-family
homes fronting on West 41st Street.
Adjacent to the site Colonel Glenn Road is a four lane street with a center turn
lane. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are in place on Colonel Glenn Road adjacent to
the site. Stannus Street has been constructed as a residential street with curb
and gutter. There are no sidewalks located along Stannus Street.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
John Barrow Neighborhood Association and the Westwood Neighborhood
Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Stannus Street and Colonel Glenn Road.
2. At time of building permit for future development, sidewalks with appropriate
handicap ramps are required to be installed along Stannus Street in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan.
3. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from
AHTD, District VI.
5. At the time of building permit, depending on the proposed development
stormwater detention ordinance may apply to this property if the amount of
proposed impervious surface is greater than the existing impervious surface.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8996
3
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easementsfor Tract 1 if sewer
service is required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for
additional information.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. Three phase lines exist on
the south and east sides of the property with service lines extending to the
existing structures. These can be removed and new electrical extensions made
as the property develops. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss these plans.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use.
Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA,
successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly
Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas
Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 501.377.1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. 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.
5. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8996
4
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
6. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #14, the Rosedale Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: No comment.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use (MX) for this property. Mixed Use provides
for a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned
Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is
a mixture of the three. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from I-2 (Light
Industrial District) to PID (Planned Industrial District) to recognize the existing
uses and structures on the site.
Master Street Plan: Colonel Glenn Road is a Principal Arterial and Stannus
Street is a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. A Principal Arterial is to serve
through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within
the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative
effects of traffic and pedestrians on Colonel Glenn Road. The primary function of
a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are
abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes
are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design standard is used for
Commercial Streets. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and
may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along Colonel Glenn Road. Bike
Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles.
Landscape: No comment. Any future redevelopment of the site may require
upgrades in landscaping.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8996
5
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there
were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated
all uses proposed for the non-residential building were to be located indoors and
no outdoor display or storage was allowed. Staff stated the rezoning would
recognize the existing use of the site, the single-family homes, and all other uses
for the non-residential building were to be consistent with the existing developed
site.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a radial dedication of right
of way was required at the intersection of Colonel Glenn Road and Stannus
Street. Staff stated any future redevelopment of the site would require sidewalks
to be brought into compliance including handicap ramps. Staff stated at the time
of building permit, depending on the proposed development, the City’s
stormwater detention ordinance could apply to the redevelopment/construction
depending on the amount of impervious surface added with the new construction.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated any future redevelopment
of the site would potentially require upgrades in landscaping.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted revised comments related to the proposed development
and site plan. The applicant has indicated signage will be limited to the
non-residential building and will be placed on the façade with street frontage.
The maximum façade coverage will be limited to ten (10) percent of the façade
area. Any ground signage will be limited to signage allowed in industrial zones or
a maximum of 30-feet in height and 72 square feet in area.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from I-2, Light Industrial to PID to
recognize three (3) residential structures located on the property and to allow
alternate uses for the existing non-residential building. The current zoning of the
property does not allow for single-family uses to occur. The applicant is
requesting the rezoning to add single-family as an allowable use for the property
while retaining the I-2, Light Industrial District uses as allowable use for the
non-residential building.
Two (2) residential units are currently vacant and have been vacant for more
than six (6) months. The Zoning Ordinance (36-153(c)) states a nonconforming
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8996
6
use that has been discontinued or abandoned for a period of six months shall not
be reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of such land or
structure must comply with the regulations of the zoning district in which such
land or structure is located. Within the I-2, Light Industrial Zoning District
single-family is not an allowable use. Section 36-152(c) states any rezoning of a
property occupied by a nonconforming use shall be accomplished only through a
planned development process.
The applicant has indicated the non-residential building will be used for a small
engine repair shop or any of the I-2, Light Industrial uses which would
accommodate the existing site conditions. There are no modifications proposed
for the site including no new paved areas and no new landscaped areas.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to PID to
add single-family as an allowable use within the I-2, Light Industrial zoning district
for this site. With the approval the three (3) homes located on the site will be
leased as residential units. The use of the non-residential building is to be
consistent with the existing developed site. No new paved areas are to be
installed without proper site plan review and approval. Within the area of the
non-residential building all activities are to be located indoors and no outdoor
display or storage is allowed.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-8997
NAME: 5514/5520 West Markham Street Short-form PD-C
LOCATION: Located at 5514 & 5520 West Markham Street
DEVELOPER:
Hotmail, Inc.
200 Vinue Lane
Little Rock, AR 72223
Stewart Mackey
Coldwell Banker Commercial
2100 Riverdale, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72202
ENGINEER:
White Daters and Associates
24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 0.452 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: O-3, General Office District
ALLOWED USES: General Office
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-C
PROPOSED USE: Restaurant
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: A variance to allow the driveway locations and widths which
do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and
31-210.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
The applicant is requesting rezoning of the site from O-3, General Office District
to PD-C to allow the redevelopment of the site with a restaurant. The applicant is
proposing to raze the existing empty dated medical office buildings and
redevelop the site with a Popeye’s restaurant. The site is located within the
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
2
Mid-town Design Overlay District, which requires new development to be
reviewed through the planned zoning development process. The applicant is
proposing construction of a 2,695 square foot space. The entryways for the
building will be facing the primary parking area for the development (east) and
the street (West Markham Street). The development is indicated with 17-parking
spaces. All parking will be on the east and west sides of the building. There will
be no parking in the front or rear of the building. The drive lanes will be a
minimum of 10-feet wide. There is a drive lane located in front of the building,
along West Markham Street. With the drive lane and a landscaping strip, the
building will be sitting 19-feet from the front property line.
The 20-foot high façade will have windows all along the south side. There will
also be windows on the southern end of the east and west sides of the building.
The elevation indicated decorative down lights on the exterior of the building and
shutter panels in areas where windows are not practical. The service entrance
will be on the north end of the building. The building is proposed as a single
story building. All utilities are proposed underground.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains two (2) office buildings which are presently vacant. Office uses
are located to the east and west of this site. There are residential uses located to
the north which include multi-family and to the east there are single-family
homes. Across West Markham to the south is War Memorial Golf Course.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
Hillcrest Residents Association were notified of the public hearing.
The Mid-town Redevelopment District #1 Advisory Board reviewed the request at
their November 21, 2014, meeting and voted to approve the request with minor
revisions. The revisions include the placement of sidewalks, pedestrian access
and two (2) parking spaces where the current curb-cut is shown. The revised
plan submitted to staff on November 26, 2014, has addressed these items.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan specifies
that Taylor Street for the frontage of this property must meet commercial
street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
3
2. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Taylor Street and West Markham Street.
3. With site development, provide the design of street conforming to the
Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Taylor Street,
including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development. The new back of
curb should be 36 feet from the existing back of curb on the west side of
Taylor Street and striped for 3 lanes at intersection.
4. A 5 foot wide sidewalk with appropriate handicap ramps is required in
accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master
Street Plan to be installed along Markham Street.
5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other
than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be
submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
7. Stormwater detention will not apply to the proposed development.
8. Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation
requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The width of driveway must
not exceed 36 feet. Per City code driveways on West Markham Street
should be spaced 300 feet from other driveways and intersections and
150 feet from the side property line. On Taylor Street, driveways should be
spaced 250 feet from other driveways and intersections and 125 feet from
side property lines. Variances must be requested for the proposed
driveways.
9. Show the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and centerline of West Markham Street and
Taylor Street on the plan.
10. Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project. Study should
address trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also
should take into account existing and projected traffic growth. From other
similar facilities, provide service times, number of customers during peak
times, expected vehicle stack on site; and expected vehicle stack on West
Markham Street for turn movements. For additional information, contact
Bill Henry in Traffic Engineering at 501.379.1818.
11. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the driveway(s) comply with 2011 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
12. The site plan shows 2-way traffic on the east side of building which creates
traffic conflicts.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
4
13. If the existing alley is used for access, the paved surface should be widened
to a minimum of 22 feet.
14. The proposed wooden fences on the east and north property lines create
sight distance conflicts and should be removed or modified to eliminate the
conflict.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: Entergy does not object to this proposal. There are a couple
streetlight poles and service wires along West Markham Street and 3-phase
primary lines on the north side of the alley on the north edge of the property.
Contact Entergy in advance to work out service requirements to the new building.
Centerpoint Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water:
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use.
Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA,
successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly
Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas
Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 501.377.1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. 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.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
5
5. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
6. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
7. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code, minimum road width
shall be 26-feet (Appendix D). Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for
additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #5, the West Markham Route.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the
review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at
501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875;
malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Office (O) for this property. The Office (O)
category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g., legal,
financial, medical) as well as general offices which support more basic economic
activities. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from O-3 (General Office
District) to PDC (Planned District Commercial) to allow for the construction of a
drive-through restaurant on this site. The site is within the Midtown Design
Overlay District.
Master Street Plan: West Markham Street is a Minor Arterial and Taylor Street is
a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections
to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
6
distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited
to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on West Markham Street.
The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties.
Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive
zoning than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector
design standard is used for Commercial Streets. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances
and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements and the Midtown Overlay District.
2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The property is located in the City’s
designated mature area. A twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements is acceptable. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within
the City’s landscape ordinance requirements.
• The depth of the lot is one hundred and thirty-four (134) linear feet.
After the twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements a six foot nine inch (6.75) street buffer will be required
on Markham.
• The width of the lot is one hundred and forty-eight feet (148) linear
feet. After the twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements a six foot nine inch (6.75) street buffer will be required
on Taylor Street.
3. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide.
The property is located in the City’s designated mature area. A 25% reduction
of the perimeter requirements is acceptable.
4. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking
area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred
fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer
parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half
(7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at
the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. A 25% reduction
of the interior green space requirements is acceptable.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
7
5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an
overview of the item stating there were a number of outstanding technical issues
associated with the request in need of addressing prior to the Commission acting
on the request. Staff stated the development was located within the Mid-town
Design Overlay District which had specific development criteria. Staff requested
the applicant provide a narrative outlining the DOD requirements and the areas
the development would not comply with the minimum standards.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated additional right of way
was required on Taylor Street and a radial dedication was required at the
intersection of Taylor and West Markham Streets. Staff stated the driveways did
not comply with the minimum standards of the Subdivision and Master Street
Plan Ordinances. Staff stated the locations would require approval of a variance.
Staff questioned if the development would take access to the alley. The
applicant stated the site plan as currently presented did allow for access to the
alley. Staff stated the wooden fence located along the alley created sight
distance concerns and the fence should be modified to eliminate any conflicts.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated based on the current site
plan a variance from the City Beautiful Commission would be required. Staff
stated the minimum street buffer width was 6-feet 9-inches since the site was
located within the Designated Mature area of the City. Staff stated building
landscaping was required in addition to a minimum of eight percent (8%) of the
interior paved area was to be landscaped with landscape islands.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and cover letter to staff addressing a
number of the technical issues associated with the request raised at the
November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan has
indicated the minimum landscape strip along North Taylor Street and the eastern
perimeter of the site. The landscape strip along West Markham Street is
indicated at 5-feet which is insufficient to meet the buffer and landscape
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
8
ordinance requirement (6-feet 9-inches). The revised site plan has removed the
driveway access to North Taylor Street and eliminated access to the alley located
along the northern perimeter. The revised plan has addressed the Mid-town
Redevelopment District #1 Advisory Board’s concerns and has provided access
through the parking areas, added two additional parking spaces and included a
larger landscape island within the parking lot located along North Taylor Street.
The request is a rezoning from O-3, General Office District to PD-C to allow the
redevelopment of the site with a restaurant with drive-through service. The
applicant is proposing to raze the existing office buildings and redevelop the site
with a Popeye’s restaurant. The building will contain 2,695 square feet of space.
The site plan indicates 17-parking spaces. All parking will be on the east and
west sides of the building. There will be no parking in the front or rear of the
building. The drive lanes will be a minimum of 10-feet wide. There is a drive
lane located in front of the building, along West Markham Street. With the drive
lane and a landscaping strip, the building will be sitting 19-feet off the front
property line. Entryways to the building are facing the primary parking area to
the east and West Markham Street.
The site is located within the Mid-town Design Overlay District, which requires
new development to be reviewed through the planned zoning development
process. The DOD states for new construction at least 60 percent of the ground
floor level facing internal pedestrian public circulation areas or streets are to be
glass-windows, entry features or displays. The elevation provided indicates the
20-foot high façade to have windows along the south side, West Markham Street
and on the southern end of the east and west sides of the building, primary
parking area and North Taylor Street respectively. The elevation indicates
decorative down lights on the exterior of the building and shutter panels in areas
where windows are not provided.
The primary entrance is located along West Markham Street with a pedestrian
access located on North Taylor Street. The site plan indicates pedestrian
accesses to the building from the two (2) abutting streets and through the primary
parking area. The service entrance will be on the north end of the building,
adjacent to the alley.
The Mid-town DOD states exterior building materials and colors are to be
aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in the
neighboring developments. Predominate exterior building materials must be of
high quality materials such as brick, wood, stone, tinted stucco, EIFS.
Predominate exterior building materials may not be smooth-faced concrete block,
tilt-up concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels. The building construction
materials are compliant with the typical materials of the Mid-town DOD.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
9
The building is proposed as a single story building. The applicant has indicated
the maximum height of the building will be 20-feet. The DOD states small
buildings, less than 5,000 square feet, are to be limited to a height of 35-feet.
The DOD also stated buildings located north of West Markham Street and east of
University Avenue are limited to a maximum height of 35-feet. Front yard
setbacks maybe reduced to zero (0) but should not be more than 20-feet. Side
yard setbacks may be zero (0) except when adjacent to single-family which
should then be set at four (4) feet. Rear yard setbacks are to be zero (0) except
where adjacent to single-family detached, in which case the rear yard setback is
to be 25-feet. This site does not abut single-family to the east or north. The front
setback is 19-feet.
Parking per the DOD is fifty percent of the required parking of the zoning
ordinance article VIII. The maximum parking allowed is the minimum standard
established in this article. In this case the ordinance would typically require
26-parking spaces to serve a restaurant use. The site plan indicates 17-parking
spaces. The parking as proposed does comply with the typical standards of the
DOD.
Signage per the DOD is limited to six (6) feet in height and twenty-four
(24) square feet in area. The sign is to be incorporated into the landscaped area
of the parking lot. No pole signage is allowed. Building signage is allowed per
article X of the zoning ordinance. The building signage allowed is a maximum of
ten (10) percent of the façade area abutting a public street. Signage would be
allowed on the south and west facades of the building.
No street buffer or landscaping is required along streets classified less than an
arterial. When the structure is not built to the property line, landscaping is
required in the area between the building and property line up to that required in
the Landscape Ordinance. In this case, since the site is located within the
Designated Mature Area of the City, the required landscape strip is 6-feet
9-inches adjacent to the paved areas. The site plan as submitted does not meet
this minimum requirement along West Markham Street. The applicant must seek
approval of a variance from the City Beautiful Commission to allow the reduced
landscape strip along West Markham Street. The applicant has indicated with
the new construction all existing trees will be removed from the site.
All site lighting and utilities will comply with the minimum standards of the DOD.
The applicant has eliminated driveway access to North Taylor Street. Per the
Master Street Plan the designation of North Taylor Street is a commercial street.
The minimum pavement width for a commercial street is 36-feet from back of
curb to back of curb. The site plan indicates the pavement width as 24-feet from
back of curb to back of curb. A right of way dedication of 30-feet from center line
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
10
is required to meet the Master Street Plan requirement. The site plan does
include the 30-foot right of way dedication. The developer has indicated they will
build the sidewalk and the curb along North Taylor Street. Based on the
development not taking access to North Taylor Street the development is
required to construct ½ of a 36-foot pavement width for the street which would
require the placement of 18-feet of paving from centerline on North Taylor Street
The applicant has not provided staff with the requested traffic analysis. The
applicant has stated the Traffic Analysis will not be available until December 12th
to the 16th. Staff has concerns with the item moving forward without the Traffic
Analysis to determine if the site can handle the traffic flows and not stack cars
onto West Markham.
Overall staff is not supportive of the request. The development is proposed
within an area which has been identified on the City’s Future Land Use Plan as
Office. The commercial uses have primarily been located nearer the
intersections of West Markham and University Avenue and West Markham and
Fair Park Boulevard/North Van Buren Street. This area is an office corridor.
Staff does not feel this is an appropriate location for a commercial use and more
specifically a fast food restaurant.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Stuart Mackey addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated
the developer had met with the City of Little Rock Staff, the Mid-town Advisory Board,
the Hillcrest Residents Association and the Hillcrest Merchants Association. He stated
the developer had made changes to the plan to accommodate all the groups and felt the
plan as presented did comply with the minimum standards of the Mid-town Design
Overlay District. He stated this area was an urban neighborhood which one would
expect to have amenities. He stated the multi-family located adjacent to the site was a
transient population. He stated the site plan had eliminated access to Taylor Street and
the alley located along the northern perimeter. He stated Taylor Street did not have
access to Lee Street to the north. He stated a traffic analysis had been prepared for the
site and the report did not indicate a significant impact on West Markham. He stated
the development did require a variance to allow the five (5) foot landscape strip along
West Markham Street. He stated based on the depth of the site and the required drive
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
11
lanes there was not adequate area to provide the six foot nine inch (6’9”) landscape
strip required by the Landscape Ordinance.
Mr. Jason Dickinson was to address the Commission but left. Ms. Pam Brown-
Courtney addressed the Commission with his concerns. She stated Mr. Dickinson had
stated his office was located across Taylor Street from the proposed development. She
stated he had stated if the development was allowed the increase in traffic would
significantly impact his property and traffic on West Markham Street.
Ms. Brown-Courtney addressed the Commission as the property owner to the east of
the proposed development. She stated she owned the two (2) office buildings to the
east. She stated one was recently vacated by a medical doctor and the second was
leased by a daycare center. She stated she had been approached to sell her property
for commercial development but did not feel this was the right use for the area. She
stated traffic on West Markham was heavy. She stated a commercial business would
generate a large amount of traffic to the area and she felt a commercial business would
hinder her ability to lease the office space in the future. She requested the Commission
deny the request.
Ms. Judith Adam addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was the
manager of the Markham House Inn which was located to the east of this site. She
stated the apartments to the north of the site were also owned by her company. She
stated the primary residents of the Markham House and the apartments were persons
undergoing cancer treatment at UAMS. She stated the residents needed a quiet place
to stay and needed their rest. She stated the restaurant hours were not in keeping with
the residential area. She questioned the trash collection hours. She stated sight
distance at this site was limited due to the slight incline and the curve in West Markham.
Mr. Mackey stated he felt this development was a fit for the neighborhood. He stated a
medical clinic generated a great deal of traffic around the lunch hour and at the end of
the day when couples wanted to meet with doctors. He stated the adjacent property
had been vacant for more than one (1) year. He stated the dumpster hours would be
limited and fully screened. He stated he had discussed with his client limiting the left
turns out of the site from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm to aid in traffic conflicts.
There was a discussion concerning traffic in the area and if the site would prohibit left
turns into and out of the site. Mr. Mackey stated without a driveway onto Taylor Street
access to the site was limited and to not allow full access to West Markham would
cause severe harm to the business. He stated the developer was willing to limit the
turns out of the site during the lunch hour rush.
The Commission questioned staff as to the stacking on the site and the potential for
stacking onto West Markham Street. Staff stated there was no left turn lane on West
Markham at this location. Staff stated any left turns would be required to stack into the
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8997
12
through lane on West Markham before entering the site. Staff stated there was a traffic
analysis conducted on the site and the hired traffic engineer (Peters and Associates) did
not feel there would be stacking off the site onto West Markham.
The Commission discussed with staff the existing traffic concerns on West Markham
and the need for improvements. Staff stated for the business there was not a large
volume of traffic entering the site. Staff noted once again there was not a turn lane at
this location on West Markham.
The Commission noted this area was primed for redevelopment and the redevelopment
would most likely be a mixed use development. Staff stated this area was designated
on the City’s Future Land Use Plan a number of years ago as an office corridor. Staff
stated there was an outcry at the time to not allow another Rodney Parham Road by
stripping West Markham with commercial businesses and an overabundance of
driveways.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item including all staff recommendations and comments except that of
denial. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.
December 18, 2014
ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-8998
NAME: MEMS Headquarters Short-form PD-O
LOCATION: Located at 1022 West 8th Street
DEVELOPER:
MEMS
Metropolitan Emergency Medical Service
1022 West 8th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
ENGINEER:
Cromwell Architects Engineers
101 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 3.13 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 zoning lot FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: UU, Urban Use District
ALLOWED USES: Residential, Office, Commercial and Industrial – all inside
PROPOSED ZONING: PD-O
PROPOSED USE: Ambulance service, headquarters post
VARIANCE/WAIVERS: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT’S STATEMENT:
On a previous occasion Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services (MEMS),
appeared before the Planning Commission to present the Master Plan for the
MEMS campus. This filing represents the first phase of implementation of the
Master Plan. As part of the planning several key points are needed for
construction of a new secure campus; located south of 8th Street and between 8th
and 7th Streets and Ringo and Cross Streets.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
2
• First, the existing MEMS Main Building, built in 1985, was not designed to
withstand the significant wind or seismic loads required for a facility
housing essential public services. In order to place MEMS in a good
position for the future, a structurally sound, code compliant Headquarters
building is critical to the organization’s continued success.
• Second, the existing MEMS Headquarters Building currently sits on land
leased from the Arkansas State Highway Department (AHTD).
Theoretically, AHTD could choose to cancel or not renew the lease. While
this is unlikely it does make MEMS vulnerable to future changes in use
along the I-630 corridor.
• Third, due to Operational and Training functions within the MEMS
organization, additional land would be required for an ambulance vehicular
use area and employee parking. MEMS has acquired additional acreage
for the purposes of vehicular use and parking after the 2012 presentation
to the Planning Commission.
• Fourth, due to growth of the metropolitan area and an increase in services
provided (for example, the dispatching and coordination function of the
Arkansas Trauma System) by MEMS, more and larger building spaces are
required.
• Fifth, MEMS is a 24/7 operation, with employees moving about the
campus at all hours. MEMS long ago outgrew the original secure, fenced
compound. There have been increasing security concerns for MEMS
employees.
On the site plan, the new headquarters building is shown in the southwest corner
of Block 289, setback from the property line to allow for the width of the spread
footing. Directly to the north is the visitor and 8 to 5 employee parking lot of
29 regular spaces and 4 ADA compliant parking spaces, surrounded by an
ornamental metal fence and appropriate landscape screening. MEMS currently
has this proposed parking area enrolled as a brownfield site with Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (AEDQ) due to the presence of
dry-cleaning chemicals beneath the grounds surface. Building or disturbing the
earth’s surface with anything other than parking on this portion of the site is not
possible due to the agreement with ADEQ. To the east of the headquarters
building is the vehicular use area for ambulances and other MEMS support
vehicles. This includes five covered drive-thru bays for ambulance cleaning and
resupply. The parking shown in the southeast corner of Block 289, is exclusively
for parking of ambulance trucks. Between every two parking spaces will be a
bollard containing electrical connections for charging the ambulance batteries.
This area, while containing islands, is best described as a vehicular service yard
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
3
similar to those utilized by local utility provides. On the south side of the
headquarters building is the service entry and delivery dock. The extensive
concrete paving in this location is to accommodate heavy, semi-truck turning in
order to access the dock. The portion of the site leased from AHTD, directly
south of 8th Street, will be utilized as parking for the 24-7 employees. The
existing main building will remain until the new headquarter building is built. At
some point in the future, the main building may be removed to provide more
secure parking. It should be noted that the 8th Street connection to the I-630
West entrance ramp is currently being permanently closed based on approval
from AHTD and MEMS.
The vehicular use pattern will be as follows:
• Ambulance traffic will turn off 7th Street, south onto Ringo Street and enter
MEMS campus thru an electronically controlled, swing gate. Ambulances
will traverse the driveway and stop to be cleaned and resupplied beneath
the covered drive-thru bays. Each ambulance will either then park to
charge or exit campus by going north on Ringo Street.
• Delivery truck traffic will turn off of 7th Street, south onto Cross Street and
stop to be allowed entry to the MEMS campus via another electronically
controlled, swing gate. Delivery traffic will then negotiate a turn-around
and back-up to the delivery dock, make their delivery and then circle back
around and out Cross Street north to 7th Street.
• Employees parking for regular 8-5 employees will be within the parking lot
at the corner of 7th Street and Cross Street. The parking area is
controlled, after business hours by an electronically controlled arm gate.
Emergency medical and dispatch employees will enter campus via Cross
Street and park within the area leased from AHTD, which is essentially
unchanged from its existing layout.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The MEMS site is located along I-630 at the Chester Street entrance ramp.
There are a number of buildings located on the site related to the operation of
MEMS. West 8th Street through the site was recently closed. Portions of Ringo
and Cross Streets were also abandoned as public rights of way.
There are a number of uses in the area including State and Federal offices, a
City of Little Rock Fire Station, restaurants, retail uses and residential uses.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
4
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. All owners of property located within 200-feet of the site along with the
Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Right-of-way dedications meet the Master Street Plan standards.
2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy. South Cross Street should be overlaid
with asphalt to the centerline.
3. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit
from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
4. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
5. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation
of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be
repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
6. A truck route should be established for delivery trucks to the site. Equipment
should be installed to enable the proposed gates to be opened for vehicles to
pass through the site on 8th Street and Ringo Street due to street turnarounds
are not provided.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: See attached for Entergy’s previous response to this proposal. An
Entergy designer is already working with the developer on options and cost to
rearrange the electrical facilities to enable the construction.
Centerpoint Energy: Be advised that Centerpoint Energy owns and operates
facilities in street right-of-way on 8th, Cross, and Ringo Streets in Little Rock, AR.
As mentioned in our ROW abandonment response letter on July 30th, 2014 CNP
requests that a twenty foot (20’) utility easement be maintained within the
proposed ROW being abandoned. CNP also requests access to these facilities
be granted to CNP and contractors at our discretion.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
5
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No comment received.
Fire Department: Maintain access, fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little
Rock Fire Department for additional information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #15, the 65th Street Route.
1. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for
water service must be met.
2. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure
zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZA) is required on the domestic water
service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use.
Central Arkansas Water requires that upon installation of the RPZA,
successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly
Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by Central Arkansas
Water. The test results must be sent to Central Arkansas Water’s Cross
Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter.
Contact the Cross Connection Section at 501.377.1226 if you would like to
discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project.
3. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure
and fire protection.
4. 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.
5. Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional
review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation
of water facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas
Department of Health Engineering Division and the Little Rock Fire
Department is required.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
6
6. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will
apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all
connections including metered connections off the private fire system.
7. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central
Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer.
8. Contact Central Arkansas Water if additional fire protection or metered water
service is required.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Building Code: Project is subject to full commercial plan review approval prior to
issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the
review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at
501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.org or Mark Alderfer at 501.371.4875;
malderfer@littlerock.org.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Downtown Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use-Urban (MX-U) for this property. The Mixed
Use-Urban category provides for a mix of residential, office and commercial uses
not only in the same block but also within the same structure. This category is
intended for older "urban" areas to allow dissimilar uses to exist, which support
each other to create a vital area. Development should reinforce the urban fabric
creating a 24-hour activity area. Using the Planned Zoning District or the Urban
Use District, high and moderate density developments that result in a vital
(dense) pedestrian oriented area are appropriate. The applicant has applied for
a rezoning from UU (Urban Use District) to PDO (Planned District Office) to allow
the additional development to support the MEMS service on this site.
Master Street Plan: 7th Street is a Collector and Cross and Ringo Streets are
Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector
Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. The primary
function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local
Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning
than duplexes are considered as “Commercial Streets”. A Collector design
standard is used for Commercial Streets. These streets may require dedication
of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to
the site.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
7
Bicycle Plan: There is a Class III Bike Route shown along 7th Street. Bike
Routes require no additional right-of-way or pavement markings, but only a sign
to identify and direct the route.
Landscape:
1. Site plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. The property is located in the UU, Urban Use district. Street trees a minimum
of three-inch caliper will be required. The trees shall be located a minimum of
two (2) feet off the back of a curb and shall be thirty (30) feet on center and
no closer than thirty (30) feet to a street intersection with a water source
provided. The tree canopy shall be maintained at least eight (8) feet above
the sidewalk.
• Street trees are to be provided on South Cross Street and West 7th Street.
3. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the
lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (½) the full width requirement
but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The property is located in the City’s
Designated Mature Area. A twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements is acceptable. Easements cannot count toward fulfilling this
requirement. The plantings, existing and purposed, shall be provided within
the City’s landscape ordinance requirements.
• The depth of the lot is approximately three hundred and sixty (360) linear
feet. After the twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirements a sixteen (16) foot street buffer will be required on West 7th
Street.
4. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas
adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average
linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area.
Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet.
5. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area
that abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide.
The property is located in the City’s designated mature area. A 25% reduction
of the perimeter requirements is acceptable. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs
or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting
strip.
• A minimum 6.75-foot perimeter planting strip is required adjacent to the
vehicular use area at the west property line. Up to twenty-five (25)
percent of the perimeter planter area may be shifted from one area of
the site to another. In no instance shall the perimeter planting strip
width be less than five (5) feet.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
8
6. Landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for
public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading
or service areas not open to public parking. These areas shall be equal to an
equivalent planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area.
7. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking
area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred
fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer
parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (7
1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at
the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces.
8. An irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or
larger.
9. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing
trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance
requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or
larger.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 19, 2014)
The applicant was present. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there
were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested
the applicant provide the maximum building height for the proposed structures.
Staff also requested additional information concerning the proposed uses of the
buildings and the future use of the existing buildings.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right of way dedications
were required to meet the Master Street Plan standards. Staff stated if the
disturbed area was more than one (1) acre a NPDES stormwater permit from the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality would be required. Staff
requested the applicant provide the proposed truck route to the site.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site was located within
the Designated Mature Area which allowed the landscape strips to be reduced to
6-feet 9-inches. Staff also stated screening would be required adjacent to the
vehicular use area and the street right of way. Staff stated building landscaping
would be required and should be a minimum of three (3) feet in width. Staff
stated nonpublic parking areas were not required to be landscaped.
Staff noted the comments from the various other agencies. There were no more
issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full
Commission for final action.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
9
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a
number of the issues raised at the November 19, 2014, Subdivision Committee
meeting. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height for the
structures will be 35-feet above the finished floor elevation. The applicant has
indicated the headquarter building is primarily business occupancy, commercial
office use. The dispatch and operations portions of the headquarters building will
be 24-hours a day, seven (7) days per week, 365-days per year. The 2nd floor
will house the training area, finance, billing and accounts receivable departments
and executive offices and board room. The existing MEMS building will
eventually be demolished, as part of a separate construction contract, but until
that time MEMS will utilize the space as storage for materials currently stored at
an off-site, rented facility.
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from UU, Urban Use District to PD-O to allow
the approval of a site plan for the redevelopment of the future MEMS
headquarters. The applicant has previously presented to the City their Master
Plan for redevelopment of the site. The applicant is now requesting the rezoning
to establish the plan and future components.
The street buffer is required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot. The
minimum dimension must be one-half (½) the full width requirement but in no
case less than nine (9) feet. This property is located in the City’s Designated
Mature Area which allows a twenty-five (25%) percent reduction of the buffer
requirement. Based on the depth of the lot, approximately 360 linear feet, a
21.6-foot street buffer would typically be required. There is a twenty-five (25%)
percent reduction of the buffer requirement allowed which reduces the required
street buffer along West 7th Street to sixteen (16) feet. The applicant is
requesting a reduction in the required buffer along West 7th Street to be allowed
the placement of a 14-foot 6-inch buffer.
Staff is supportive of the request. The applicant is seeking a rezoning of the site
from UU, Urban Use District to PD-O to allow the approval of the overall master
plan for the MEMS Headquarters site. To staff’s knowledge there are no
remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff feels
the development as proposed is appropriate.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
December 18, 2014
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8998
10
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 2014)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to
compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of
the agenda staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
DATE �
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD
� C:. 1 C• Lv �
BELT, JENNIFER MARTINEZ MMMMMlMMMMMMWMWMM�
BERRY, CRAIG ---mm---mmwmmmmm�
■ �,mmmmmm--mmm-m--_-_-
BUBBUS,ALAN COX, KEITH
DILLON, JANffT -Jmmmmmwmwammmmmmmm
FINNEY, REBECCA MM FA "lltMMMWlp4WMMMM�
MMMMEW
FOUNTAIN, KEITH mmmmmm mimimmmmm�
MAY, BILL B. _ mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�
FAIN
Meeting Adjourned ��� ` ;�,`i P.M.
�'� AYE ��` NAYE A- ABSENT �S ABSTAIN # RECUSE
BELT, JENNIFER MARTINEZ
BERRY, CRAIG
BROCK, TOM
DILLON, JANET
REBECCA
l►Li►
/.h►/i►
/�►
/�►f
[�r��������
FOUNTAIN, KEITH
MAY, BILL B.
Meeting Adjourned ��� ` ;�,`i P.M.
�'� AYE ��` NAYE A- ABSENT �S ABSTAIN # RECUSE
December 18, 2014
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
at 6:59 p.m.
Date
'J'
Chairman Se etary