Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6079-G Staff AnalysisSeptember 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 FILE NO.: Z-607 NAME: Highway 10 Development Company Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located North of Cantrell Road at the Little Rock Christian Academy entrance DEVELOPER: Highway 10 Development Company 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 5.19 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 R-2, Single-family Single-family Residential PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Selected C-3, General Commercial District uses, Bank and Restaurant VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 12, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the first conditional use permit to allow the school, then known as Walnut Valley Christian Academy, to build a new campus on a 20 -acre site. The school was originally approved to have an enrollment of 1,040 students with a staff of 100. On June 26, 1997, the Commission approved a revision to the conditional use permit allowing for expansion of the school onto an adjacent 10 -acre tract. Enrollment stayed at 1,040 and employee numbers increased to 110. September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G On September 3, 1998, the Commission approved a second revision to the conditional use permit allowing for a change in the phasing plan and an increase in enrollment to 1,100 students. Employee numbers stayed at 110. On May 11, 2000, the Commission approved a third revision to the conditional use permit allowing for the introduction of a new phase. The site stayed at 30± acres and enrollment and employee numbers stayed at 1,100 and 110 respectively. On January 9, 2003, the Commission approved a fourth revision to the conditional use permit allowing for expansion onto an adjacent 20 -acre tract; resulting in a total of 50± acres. The revision allowed for expansion of the school and an increase in student enrollment and employee numbers to 1,700 and 170 respectively. The plan included the introduction of several new buildings, a track and practice field, a baseball field and additional parking. Some of the previously approved buildings were relocated under the new plan. The Commission reviewed and approved a revision to the school's site plan at their February 3, 2005, public hearing. The school proposed a revision to the C.U.P. allowing for a slight increase in student population and building square footage. The phases for future construction were revised to accommodate the school's current and projected needs. The student and faculty/staff numbers were proposed as 2,058 and 220 respectively. The total building square footage was proposed to increase from 264,924 square feet to 309,424 square feet. The baseball field was eliminated from the plan and the practice field and track were relocated from the front of the site to the rear. There was some slight modification of the driveways and parking. A 5.19± acre parcel at the southwest corner was removed from the plan (the area of the current zoning request). There were no specific plans for that parcel, although it was anticipated that some sort of office rezoning request would be proposed at a later date. The new driveway was shown as entering the school campus from the west. The driveway would tie into a new collector street which was to be built west of the campus. The new street and school access would be constructed to coincide with Phase I of the campus plan. This new street would be signalized at its intersection with Cantrell Road. City Staff, the adjacent land owner and the school all agreed to the new plan. Due to the change in the driveway alignment, a total of 680 parking spaces would be provided on site. Below is a summary of the joint access basic design elements agreed to by the parties. LRCA-Pfeifer shared access to a new traffic signal controlled intersection on Highway 10 at the location Pfeifer has proposed for the collector street (Northwest Territory Parkway). This would be without affecting the location of the existing Wal-Mart truck drive on the south side of Hwy. 10. The traffic signal operation would utilize what is termed as "split -phasing", with the north and south legs operating as distinct separate signal phases. This will permit dual left - turning movements southbound to eastbound onto Hwy. 10. This will also allow left turns from the Wal-Mart truck drive to be served by the traffic signal, but K September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: JA Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G green time would only be called for northbound to westbound left turn vehicle demand (northbound right turns would be in available gaps with right -turn -on - red). 2. LRCA Drive would be constructed to a 4 -lane width and intersect Northwest Territory Parkway approximately 500 feet north of Hwy. 10. As necessary, LRCA will employ off-duty police officers to direct traffic at the intersection of Northwest Territory Parkway and LRCA Drive. 3. Future east -west commercial drive access to Northwest Territory Parkway will be permitted at approximately 250 feet north of Hwy. 10 (subject to working out the Entergy ownership issue) to serve the out parcels on the south edge of the LRCA site. 4. Northwest Territory Parkway would be constructed to a 4 -lane width north from Hwy. 10 to some distance past the proposed Northwest Territory Court intersection to the west. This will allow separate (side-by-side, opposite - direction) left turn lanes to Northwest Territory Court and to LRCA Drive so there is no center left turn lane use conflicts in the offset area between the two intersections. Alternately, Northwest Territory Court could be re -aligned to intersect Northwest Territory Parkway further north and thereby provide sufficient distance between the offset intersections to allow bi-directional left -turn lane usage. 5. No changes would be made to the existing LRCA Boulevard intersection with Hwy. 10. LRCA would effect all left in and left out movements at the signal controlled intersection (Northwest Territory Parkway intersection with Hwy. 10), not at LRCA Boulevard and Hwy. 10 during AM arrival and PM dismissal peak school periods. LRCA Boulevard and Hwy. 10 would not be controlled by off- duty police officers. 6. The only access to Hwy. 10 between Northwest Territory Parkway and LRCA Boulevard would be a single right -in -right -out access drive to the out parcels. Note that all issues related to Hwy. 10 access were subject to concurrence by Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. An annexation request for a 19 acre tract, including the 5.19 acre tract, was approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their May 17, 2005, Public Hearing. A. PRGPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is requesting the creation of a three lot plat and a rezoning of a portion of this 5.19 acre site from R-2, Single-family to PCD. The rezoning request includes four acres located adjacent to Cantrell Road for proposed development. The applicant has indicated the remainder of the site will remain zoned R-2, Single-family and held as a tract to be included with the school property to the north. 3 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G Little Rock Christian Academy will retain ownership of the 1.19 acre tract, which is adjacent to the driveway entrance from Cantrell Road. The previously approved CUP did not include the area adjacent to the entrance driveway and the applicant has indicated at the time of development Little Rock Christian Academy will revise their Conditional Use Permit to allow for development of this 1.19 acre tract. The remainder of the site will be developed with two lots each containing two acres. The lots will share a driveway access from Cantrell Road and will extend a drive from the northern property line to a proposed roadway located to the west (Northwest Territory Parkway). The applicant has also indicated there will be no access to the indicated lots from the Little Rock Christian Academy campus. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 2 will develop with a bank and restaurant facility and has indicated a restaurant will locate on proposed Lot 1. The applicant has indicated selected C-3, General Commercial District uses as alternative uses for each of the sites. Those selected uses include: Animal Clinic (enclosed), Antique shop, with repair, Appliance repair, Auto parts and accessories, Bakery or confectionery shop, Bank, Barber and beauty shop, Book and stationery store, Cabinet or woodwork shop, Camera shop, Catering,, commercial, Clinic (medical, dental or optical), Clothing, Community welfare or health center, Custom sewing and millinery, Drugstore or pharmacy, Duplication shop, Eating place without drive-in service, Religious, charitable organization, Feed store, Florist shop, Food store, Furniture store, Group care facility, Handicraft, ceramic, sculpture, etc. Hardware or sporting goods store, Health studio or spa, Hobby shop, Hospital, Jewelry store, Job printing, lithographer, printing, Key shop, Laboratory, Lawn and garden center (enclosure), Library, art gallery, museum, Medical appliance fittings and sales, Office — general, Office, showroom with warehouse, Office equipment sales and service, Optical shop, Paint and wallpaper store, Parking, Pet shop, Photography studio, School (business), Service station, Shoe repair, Studio (art, music, drama, etc.), Studio (broadcast or recording), Tailor, Taxidermist, Theater (not drive-in) Tool and equipment rental (inside), Travel bureau, Ambulance service post, Auto rental or leasing, Eating place with drive-in service, Glass or glazer, install, repair or sales, Home center, Landscape service, Lawn and garden center (open display), Mini - warehouse, Nursing home, Office warehouse, Plant nursery, Tool and equipment rental (outside), Upholstery shop, furniture. The applicant has indicated that a full service, sit down restaurant will be constructed on Lot 1. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation from 6:00 am to 1:00 am seven days per week. Signage is proposed consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Additional details concerning proposed Lot 2 include the development of Lot 2 with a restaurant not to exceed 3680 square feet. The applicant has indicated 4 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Co FILE NO.: Z -6079-G the hours of operation of the restaurant facility will be similar to those proposed for Lot 1. Also the proposed banking facility will have a three lane drive through and detached ATM (to the rear of the project) will be constructed on the eastern portion of Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the total square footage of the proposed building will not exceed 3280 square feet. The applicant has indicated the hours of the banking facility will be from 7:00 am to 8:00 am Monday through Saturday. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is located in an area of mixed uses and zoning located along Cantrell Road. The properties to the west contain a variety of uses including residential, commercial and office. Undeveloped tracts are located directly to the east and north. The Cantrell/Chenal Intersection is just west of the site. This intersection includes a mixture of uses, including a Wal -mart Supercenter, convenience store and mini -warehouse development. A church and a scattering of single-family homes are located to the south. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, the Margeaux Property Owners Association, all property owners located within 200 - feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. The standard conditions shown on the plans as "Public Works Notes" apply to the project. 2. Show the proposed access drive to the west in relation to the approved design for Northwest Territory Parkway and access to the school to the north. Contact Bill Henry (501) 379-1816 for approval of new driveway location and any proposed changes to the design criteria (width of street and access locations). E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. Enter : No comment received. 5 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -6079-G Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. 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). 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. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: As improvements are made to this parcel, CATA request that a bus turnout be installed along westbound Highway 10 to allow westbound buses to safely stop on Highway 10 in front of the Academy. A 106 -foot (or wider) paved shoulder would suffice. F. I SS U ESITEC H N I CAL/DESIGN : Planning Division: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for a three -lot plat and placement of a restaurant and bank on one of the newly created lots. A land use plan amendment for a change to Mixed Office Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and is built as a five -lane road adjacent to the property. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Cantrell Road since it is a Principal Arterial. Furthermore, acceleration/deceleration lanes may be required to prevent traffic conflicts entering and exiting the site. Cantrell Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. N September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G Bicycle Plan: A Class II bikeway is shown on Highway 300 between Chenal Parkway and Highway 10, and on Cantrell Road from Chenonceau Blvd. to the west. A Class II Bikeway is a route designated for the sole use of bicycles but is physically connected to the roadway. The Class II bikeway indicated on Cantrell Road is adjacent to the property. Additional paving and right of way may be required. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide the average 25 -foot wide landscape strip required by the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance along the sites northern and eastern perimeters. To meet the Landscape Ordinance, the width of the eastern perimeter landscape strip will need increase to a minimum width of 6.75 feet. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 5, 2005) Mr. Tim Daters was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the indicated site plan did not provide details concerning proposed signage and the days and hours of operation of the proposed uses. Staff also stated the indicated lot size did not comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District standard of two acres. Staff also questioned if the indicated parking was to be shared and stated if this was the case the parking should be indicated with a cross access and parking agreement. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff requested the applicant provide locations of all drives located on the site extending from the proposed roadway to the west. Staff stated the new driveway locations should be approved by Traffic Engineering and suggested Mr. Daters contact Public Works staff to seek that approval. Landscaping comments were noted. Staff stated landscaping did not appear to meet minimum ordinance requirements along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. Staff also noted screening would be required along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. ►1 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G Staff suggested Mr. Daters contact Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater directly for additional details concerning their individual comments. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the May 5, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated total acreage of 5.19 acres with the creation of a two lot plat and a parcel held as a tract. The applicant has indicated two of the lots will contain 2 acres while the remaining tract will contain 1.19 acres and be combined with properties to the north held by the school. The applicant has indicated Little Rock Christian Academy will retain ownership of the tract and the tract will remain zoned R-2, Single-family. The remaining two lots will be zoned PCD to allow development of proposed Lot 2 immediately with a bank and restaurant facility and proposed Lot 1 held for future development. The applicant has indicated selected uses as allowable uses for proposed Lot 1 and indicated at the time of development the PCD will be revised to indicate the building footprint and landscaped areas. The applicant has indicated all driveways will conform to locations previously agreed. The applicant has worked with staff to ensure compliance with the previous conditional of approval. The applicant has indicated the development of proposed Lot 2 with a bank and restaurant facility. The applicant has indicated the uses will be served with a cross access and parking agreement. The applicant has also indicated 55 parking spaces on proposed Lot 2. The typical minimum parking required for development with a bank and restaurant facility would be 44 parking spaces. The site plan includes the placement of a dumpster for each of the indicated businesses. The dumpsters are to be located in the rears of the buildings. The site plan includes a note concerning the required screening. The applicant has indicated a single sign to be located on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the sign will conform to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements or six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in sign area. The applicant has also indicated each of the lots will contain a two acre minimum as required by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The applicant has not included landscaping to meet the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The Overlay typically requires a 25 -foot average landscape strip along the sides and rear of the property. The site plan falls short of this 0 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G requirement along the eastern property line as well as the rear property line. The properties to the east and north are zoned R-2, Single-family and R-2, Single- family with a CUP. The site plan submitted does not include the required screening along the eastern or northern property lines. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request. The applicant has indicated the development of the site as a PCD to allow for immediate construction of a bank and restaurant facility and future development of Lot 1 with selected commercial uses. The applicant has not met the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to landscaping and buffering. In addition this request is inconsistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan. The applicant has filed a request to amend the Plan, which is a separate item on this agenda. Staff feels a commercial development at this location is not appropriate at this time. There is a commercial node located at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, which currently has vacant property, zoned C-3, General Commercial District. There are also properties shown on the City's Land Use Plan for commercial activity, which have yet to develop. Staff feels this site should allow for a transition between the intense commercial uses located to the west and the single-family properties to the east. Staff would support a quiet office or suburban office development on the site, which would allow this transition to occur. In addition staff feels the development of an intense commercial activity near the school is not fitting since there could potentially be traffic conflicts between the two uses. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had submitted a request dated May 17, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to place the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. �9 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FI (JULY 7, 2005) O.: Z-6079 The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a deferral of the item to the August 18, 2005, public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a waiver of the Planning Commission By-laws with regard to the late request for the deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. A motion was made to waive the Commission's By-laws with regard to the late deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 Recuse (Robert Stebbins and Jeff Yates). The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 Recuse (Robert Stebbins and Jeff Yates). STAFF UPDATE: Since the July 7, 2005, Commission Public Hearing staff has received three letters in opposition of the proposed request and a petition signed by a majority of the residents of the Maywood Manor Subdivision. The letters of opposition were received from the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association and the Pinnacle Neighborhood Association. The developer has not proposed any changes to the uses or changes to the proposed site plan. Staff continues to recommend denial of the. request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005) The applicant was resent representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Commissioner Stebbins and Commissioner Yates indicated they were recusing for the discussion and voting for this item. The chair indicated there were seven voting members currently present. He stated the applicant was typically allowed a deferral when fewer than nine voting members were present. The applicant requested a deferral to the September 1, 2005, public hearing. A motion was made to accept the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 2 recuse (Commissioners Stebbins and Yates). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 1, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. The applicant's requested land use plan amendment and rezoning request were discussed simultaneously. Please see Item #J (File No. LU05-20-05) for details concerning the land use plan amendment. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. 10 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6079-G Mr. Brock Martin addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the request was the expansion of the existing commercial node eastward to encompass three acres of commercial, one acre of office and one acre to be retained by the school to become open space or a future office development to be used by the school. He stated the commercial would not expand beyond the current request since the school's football field was located along Highway 10 to the east of the existing drive into the school. He stated the expansion would include 400 -feet of commercial area, 260 feet of office area and 630 feet, the football field, of open space. He stated the Commission had received a letter of support from the school dated May 2, 2005. He stated the developers were looking for a site to develop as commercial to allow a restaurant facility to locate on the site. He stated the available commercial property located in the area did not lend itself to development since most of the lands was a part of larger tracts. Mr. Ken Sutherfield addressed the Commission on behalf of Little Rock Christian Academy. He stated the development was value added to the school. He stated the development of the land was a huge investment for the area as well as the school. He stated the site was located a stones throw from the Wal-Mart Super Center located on Highway 10. He stated traffic details had been resolved with staff during the previous approval of the school's overall Master Plan. He stated the new boulevard would allow access to a future traffic signal in which the proposed development and the school would share access. He stated the development would only develop with a right -in and right -out access to Cantrell Road and no direct access between the school and the proposed commercial development would be granted. Commissioner Floyd questioned where the need was for the rezoning of additional land for commercial development. Mr. Martin stated there were commercial lands located in the area but many were a part of a larger tract that would require an anchor tenant to allow a smaller development to occur. Mr. Tim Daters added with larger tracts of land it was difficult to cut-out smaller parcels until an overall development plan was established for the area. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her concern was the addition of one more small piece or move the line just a little further to the east. She stated in this case it was only 400 to 600 feet but as each proposal was approved Highway 10 was being stripped out. She stated the intent of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District was to allow for a pleasant drive into and out of the City or at a minimum a less stressful drive to homes located in the area. She stated commercial nodes were established to allow a stepping down of activities in the area to allow for residential opportunities. She stated a bank and restaurant sounded intense and a restaurant was not a use she would like to see located next to a school. She stated she felt the proposal was not appropriate for the site and requested the Commission reject the application. 11 September 1, 2005 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-607 Ms. Alicia Finch addressed the Commission as the President of the Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association. She stated the neighborhood was a viable neighborhood, which had existed for 30 years. She stated since the existence the neighborhood had been able to call on each other in times of need. She stated the requested change in zoning would alter the neighborhood. She stated the land use plan was recently revised and did not recognize commercial in this area. She stated there were areas currently zoned for commercial activity located very near the site. She stated she felt the areas zoned and shown on the land use plan were adequate to serve the needs of the area. She stated currently there were lands for sale on the east and west sides of the neighborhood being requested and indicated as potential commercial developable lands. She stated the increased commercial activity would add to existing congestion and safety concerns. She stated the existing police and fire protection services in the area were stretched. Ms. Finch questioned the Little Rock Christian Academy Board as to the information that had been provided to the members. She stated many of her friends did not know the activity was occurring and those who did were not supportive of the sale. Mr. Mike Cogan addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he too felt the moving of the line to the east was not appropriate. He stated currently it was difficult to exit the subdivision and with the addition of commercial in the area this would only intensity the current situation. Mr. Tim Daters stated the property was the classic breaking point for commercial activity. He stated there was an existing AP & L easement located to the west of the site and the proposed collector street located west of the easement. He stated the football field was in place and would not be relocated on the site. He stated the open space would allow for a buffer for future office and residential developments in the area. Mr. Daters stated a future fire station was. located just to the north of the site along the future roadway. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the school's master plan. Questions were raised as to why the site was not included the master plan. Mr. Sutterfield stated the site would add value to the school site. A question was asked as to what value would be added. Mr. Sutterfield stated the sale of the land and the school was off -campus, which would offer students a place for lunch nearby. Mr. Sutterfield stated after agreements were reached with the city concerning access to the site and the school could no longer utilized their existing drive value was lost and revenues were needed to make up the difference. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 7 noes, 0 absent and 2 recuse (Commissioner Robert Stebbins and Commissioner Jeff Yates). 12 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -6079-G NAME: Highway 10 Development Company Short -form PCD LOCATION: located North of Cantrell Road at the Little Rock Christian Academy entrance Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Provide the entirety of the property for the proposed development for platting purposes. The proposed plat area is being cut from a 19+ acre tract which will need to be included as a part of the approval. 3. The applicant has indicated a restaurant will be developed on proposed Lot 1 and has indicated a selected listing of alternative uses for the lot should a restaurant not locate on the indicated lot. The site plan includes the placement of a bank and a restaurant facility on proposed Lot 2. Will the bank/restaurant be retained under the same ownership? 4. The indicated lot area does not comply with the minimum lot area requirements of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District (2 acre minimum lot size). 5. Will the parking areas be shared? If so indicate on the site plan cross access and cross access parking. 6. Provide the days and hours of operation of the proposed businesses to locate on the site. Variance/ Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. The standard conditions shown on the plans as "Public Works Notes" apply to the project. 2. Show the proposed access drive to the west in relation to the approved design for Northwest Territory Parkway and access to the school to the north. Contact Bill Henry (501) 379-1816 for approval of new driveway location and any proposed changes to the design criteria (width of street and access locations). Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. 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). 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. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. Count Plannin : No comment. CATH: As improvements are made to this turnout be installed along westbound Highway stop on Highway 10 in front of the Academy. would suffice. Planninq Division - parcel, the CATA request that a bus 10 to allow westbound buses to safely A 106 -foot (or wider) paved shoulder Landscape: The plan submitted does not provide the average 25 -foot wide landscape strip required by the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance along the sites northern and eastern perimeters. To meet the Landscape Ordinance, the width of the eastern perimeter landscape strip will need increase to a minimum width of 6.75 feet. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.