Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7771-A Staff AnalysisNovember 10, 2005 ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771 -A NAME: Ludwig Complex Long -form POD LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road DEVELOPER: Gene Ludwig 8501 Pinnacle Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 37.2 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF AF —Agriculture and Forestry Single-family, Agricultural uses and recreational uses POD and R-2, Single-family Single-family and Office VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. 1. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. BACKGROUN The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for approval a proposed rezoning to PCD at their January 20, 2005, Public Hearing. The Little Rock Board of Directors denied the request at their February 15, 2005, Public Hearing. The proposal included the development of this 37 acre tract with three proposed uses including a two story law office (9000 square feet), a two story single-family residence (8000 square feet) and two separate garage areas to house a concrete pumper truck business with 18-20 trucks (13,200 total building square footage). The applicant November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771 proposed the development as a compound with all parking located internally and screened entirely by the buildings and walls. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing to rezone the site to POD to allow the development of four acres of this 37 acre tract with office uses and rezone the reminder of the site to R-2, Single-family to be held for future residential use. The applicant has indicated proposed Lot 1 would contain 44,600 square feet of office space in four buildings. The buildings are proposed as two story buildings. The applicant has indicated this would allow him to have his office on the hard corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road with additional speculative office space. The applicant has indicated the architecture of the office lot would be similar to the original application request or the Kentucky Horse Farm Style Architecture with all parking internal to the site. The site plan includes the placement of a single sign eight feet in height and not to exceed 100 square feet of sign area. The site plan also includes the placement of a 30 -foot building line adjacent to the roadways. The site plan indicates the site lighting will meet dark skies standards. The applicant is also requesting the rezoning of the remaining 33.78 acres from AF, Agriculture and Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant has indicated the rezoned property will allow for future single-family development. The applicant is not requesting a preliminary plat application for the single-family portion at this time. The applicant is requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to the roadways. A proposed Land Use Plan amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-20-04) to change the site from Single-family to Suburban Office. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and has been used in the past as pasture. The area around the site is rural in nature and contains single-family homes and small farms. Three parks are located in the general vicinity; Two Rivers Park, Maumelle Corps of Engineers Park and Pinnacle Mountain State Park. County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road are two lane roadways with open ditches for drainage. There are no sidewalks in place. 2 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The River Valley Neighborhood Association, the Walton Heights/Candlewood Neighborhood 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Pinnacle Valley 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. A 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road. 3. Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a five foot sidewalk, with the planned development. Special design standards apply to Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open ditches. For the east -west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, add an additional travel lane per standard details. 4. This property is outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary. No grading permit or storm water detention facilities are required by the City. 5. Obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County. The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on the plat for flood hazard areas. 6. Public Works would support a five year deferral of street construction of the office development site, but not for final platting of the residential lots. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: Easements are required to serve the proposed development. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center -Point Ener : Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. c November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection based on hydraulic modeling to be performed by Central Arkansas Water. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This 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: Outside the service boundary, submit comments from local volunteer fire department which serves this area. County Planning: 1. A driveway permit should be obtained from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department (340-6800). 2. A Permit for Development in the Floodplain and an Engineering "No Adverse Impact" Certificate should be obtained from Pulaski County Planning and Development (340-8260). 3. Show all proposed and exiting drainage structures on the proposed site plan. 4. Provide copies of NPDES Permit and Clearing Permit for the County's records. 5. Indicate owners and uses of adjoining parcels. 6. Show the boundary of the development. 7. Indicate the limits of the floodway in relation to the parcel. 8. Delineate wetland areas; if none exist, so state. 9. Provide construction details for proposed - fencing. A variance will be required for the construction of fencing located in the floodplain/floodway. 10. Provide the finished floor elevation for all proposed structures. 11. Provide an erosion control plan. 12. Contact the Corps of Engineers, if you have not done so. 13. Show all building setback lines. 14. The survey must meet minimum standards. 15. Note: "Development shall meet the standards of the City of Little Rock and Pulaski County." 16. All work in the right-of-way will require a permit from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7771 -A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: 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 POD (Planned Office Development) for four office buildings and a rezoning of AF zoned property to R-2, Single-family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Suburban Office for four acres t at the northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Roads is a separate item on this agenda (LU05-20-04). The residential element of the development is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Master Street Pian: Pinnacle Valley Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and County Farm Road is shown as a Collector. 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 and the primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and will require street improvements. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bikeway is shown on Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage 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: In addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings (or in the general areas) will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and western perimeters. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 24, 2005) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff stated the site was previously reviewed by the Commission for a commercial compound containing residential, office and concrete pump trucks. 5 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A Staff stated the applicant was now requesting the development of an eight lot plat containing residential and office. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process and requested Mr. White provide the total square footage of the office in the general notes section of the proposed site plan and provide the proposed building lines for Lots 1 — 7 on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan, which would typically require a 35 -foot building line for residential lots. Staff stated non-residential development would typically require a 45 -foot building line when located in the County but within the Planning Boundary. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated Pinnacle Valley Road was classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial and a dedication of right-of-way 45 -feet from centerline would be required. Staff also stated a 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way would-be required at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road. Staff requested the applicant provide the design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Staff stated construction of one-half street improvements, including a five foot sidewalk would be required. Staff noted special design standards applied to Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open ditches. Staff stated for the east -west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, an additional travel lane per standard detail was required. Staff stated Public Works would support a five year deferral of street construction related to the office development site, but not for the final platting of the residential lots. Staff noted the property was located outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary and no grading permit or storm water detention facilities were required by the City. Staff stated County comments would apply and noted the applicant would be required to obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County prior to development. Staff stated the minimum Finish Floor elevation was required on the plat for flood hazard areas. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated in addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings was required. Staff stated a six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, was required along the northern and western perimeters of the office site. Staff also stated an irrigation system to water landscaped areas would be required. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont, FILE NO.: Z -7771-A H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the March 24, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has revised the site plan to remove the residential portion of the request and is now requesting a rezoning of 33.73 acres of the site from AF, Agriculture and Forestry to R-2, Single-family. The applicant is also requesting a POD zoning on the hard corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road to allow 3.48 acres to develop with 44,600 square feet of office space. The site plan includes the placement of a 30 -foot building line adjacent to the roadways. The Subdivision Ordinance would typically require a 45 -foot building line for properties located outside the City limits but within the City's Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction for non-residential development. The revised site plan indicates required right-of-way dedication per the Master Street Plan. The applicant is however, requesting a five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. The area is rural in nature and staff feels the deferral request will have a limited impact on the adjoining properties. The applicant has indicated landscaping will be added to the site to meet current City Code. The applicant has indicated building landscaping will be installed between the building and the public parking areas. The applicant has also indicated screening will be placed along the northern and western property lines with either a wood fence, dense evergreen plantings or a wall. The applicant has indicated irrigation will be provided to water landscaped areas. Staff is not supportive of the proposed development. Staff feels an office use on the site is not appropriate for the area. In addition, staff feels the placement of such a large square footage of office buildings on the site is out of character for the area. Staff stated with the previous application they would support an office use on the property if the use was directly tied to a residential component. The site plan indicates the development of 44,600 square feet of office on this site contained in four office buildings. There is no residential component proposed. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the remainder of the site to R-2, Single-family to allow for future residential development, independent of the office uses. The applicant has indicated general and professional office uses for the proposed buildings. Staff feels this is an intense office development, which potentially would generate a great deal of traffic to the area. Staff is comfortable in supporting a single user office with a primary residence located on the site. Staff does not feel this would generate the same traffic demand as the proposed development. 7 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 14, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated April 7, 2005, requesting the item be deferred to the May 26, 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 on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of"! 1 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff for consideration. The applicant has indicated the development of the site with 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 square feet of residential space. The applicant has indicated the residence will be maintained as a caretaker's residence or the owner's home. The applicant has indicated the development will be gated and the overall design is similar to the previous proposal which includes buildings of white with green metal roofs; a style which is compatible with the "Kentucky Horse Farm" theme that has been used by other newer development in the area. Ranch style fencing will enclose the property as a whole as well as line the driveway and encircle the compound. A single driveway will provide access from Pinnacle Valley Road on the north/south leg of the roadway. The applicant is requesting a deferral of street improvements for 5 years or until adjacent development. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to permit an intense office use at this site. Staff previously indicated support of an office/residential development but the support was based on the residential use being the primary use of the site and the office uses as a secondary use. Staff feels the development of this site with 30,000 square feet of office space and intense development for the area. The area is predominately residential and public/quasi-public uses. Staff feels the development of this site with an intense office use will negatively impact the river valley area, which has retained it rural character. Staff does not feel the office use as proposed retains the rural character of the area. Additionally, staff is concerned about the impact of a proposed intense office use that would generate a great deal of traffic on substandard county and city streets. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request. November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 26, 2005) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Gene Ludwig addressed the Commission on the merits of his request. He stated he was revising the application reviewed by the Commission at their .January 20, 2005, Public Hearing to remove the pumper truck operation from the proposed site plan. He stated the current proposal included the placement of 30,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 square feet of residential space. He stated his desire was to relocate his office to the new site. He stated his previous office was located on the corner of Beck Road and Pinnacle Valley Road and burned. He stated he could not clean the site because there was an insurance claim still pending and until the claim was settled he could not remove the debris from the site. He stated his long-term goal was to add a residence to the site in a separate location. He stated he had worked with staff to minimize their concerns but could not get a number of the square footage they would be comfortable with. He stated staff would not give him a number they felt was appropriate for the development of the site. Ms. Regina Norwood addressed the Commission in" opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighbors were not support of commercialization of the area. She stated she felt staff had made the right decision to not support the request. She stated Mr. Ludwig had a site zoned appropriately for his office and had elected to not rebuild. She stated the proposed development resembled a business complex and not a law office. She stated she felt if the development were approved this would trigger additional rezoning in the area. Ms. Brenda Norwood addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the site plan had changed from an industrial site to a commercial site. She questioned if the applicant intended to live on the site. She stated Mr. Ludwig had stated he was a friend to the community but she did not feel he was treating the area as a friend would treat a friend. She stated there were three parks in the area which generated a great deal of out of town traffic. She stated the question visitors asked the most was when was the burned building going to be cleaned and replaced. She stated it was important to preserve the City's green space. Mr. Louie Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was north of the site and he did not feel the indicated location was appropriate for a commercial development. He stated he felt the former location of Mr. Ludwig's law office was an appropriate location for a non-residential use and felt he should rebuild on that site. Mr. Bianco stated he had talked to Mr. Aday and in his last conversation Mr. Aday was opposed to the request. He stated if Mr. Ludwig wanted a home and to run has law firm from his home then the residents would not be opposed to the request. D November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z-7771 -A Mr. Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she did not live in the area but did visit the area for recreation. She stated the area was an oasis and did not need to be ruined with commercialization. She stated recently she had heard Bob Whites in the park. She stated after research she found the Bob White population was down by 62 percent due to development. She requested the Commission deny the request. Ms. Nancy Lott addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated Mr. Ludwig should rebuild on the site he owned, which was currently zoned appropriately for a law office. She stated the neighborhood was currently preparing for a spring-cleaning and beautification. She stated the burned building was not a beautiful sight. She questioned why Mr. Ludwig had not removed the debris from the site. She stated she understood insurance claims but the building had burned in September of 2004. Mr. Bryan Dietz addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the area was a family community and should not become a commercial area. Mr. Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he wanted to second the previous comments. He stated his home was across from the new building and the proposed development was not appropriate for the area. Mr. Herb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated a 30,000 square foot building was one-half a city block. He stated the building would hold up to 210 workers. He stated this was not a typical law office. He stated the logical response was the development was not appropriate for the area. He stated if the Commission felt a change was necessary then they should review the Land Use Plan to determine where changes were necessary. He stated it was rare to find a delta area in such close proximity to an urban area. Mr. Ludwig stated he did intend to clean the site but was waiting until all claims were settled. He stated he did own other property in the area but the indicated location was the most desirable location for an office use. He stated his design plan was similar to current development patterns in the area. He stated there was more opposition to the previously approved sports complex than to his current request. He stated he was willing to limit the number of proposed signs. He requested guidance from the Commission concerning the total square footage that would be acceptable. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the total square footage. The Commissioners indicated the proposed square footage of the office in relation to the proposed residential square footage was not consistent. The Commission stated the previous proposal included the development of an 8000 square foot residence and a 9000 square foot office building. Mr. Ludwig questioned if the Commission would be willing to allow the residence on a separate location on the site at a later date. The Commissioners stated staff's concerns were that the development 10 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A proposed was an office development and not a mixed-use development with the office and residence complimenting each other. It was stated with the current proposal the development appeared to be an office development with the residence secondary. Mr. Ludwig indicated the allowable uses under AF zoned property. He stated a golf course, day camp, swimming pool were all allowable by right. He stated one proposal included the development of several five -acre lots. Mr. Ludwig stated his proposed use was not as intense as one of the by -right uses. He stated the current request included the development of 30,000 square feet of office space. He questioned if 20,000 square feet of office space was acceptable to the Commission. The Commission indicated the previous proposal included uses that complimented each other. It was stated if Mr. Ludwig proposed the construction of an equal residences then the development would not be out of character. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the character of the development.. It was indicated the proposed development was out of character with the area. Mr. Ludwig requested a deferral of his request to meet with staff to address their concerns. A motion was made to defer the applicant's request to the July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 7, 2005) Mr. Joe White and Mr. Gene Ludwig were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had revise the plan to include the development of a 9,000 square foot office building and an 8,000 square foot residence. Staff stated they were somewhat supportive of the proposed development but there were a few issues related to the proposed development. Staff stated the indicated signage was not given a total height or sign area. Staff stated they would recommend the sign area be limited to signage allowed in office zones or six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in sign area. Staff also questioned the proposed garages. Staff stated the applicant had also indicated attic space to be utilized as storage. Staff stated they were not supportive of allowing the attic space to be finished space only an area for file storage. Staff stated the applicant had not provided a revised site plan. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the building would be located in the same general location as the previous proposal with a reduced building footprint. Mr. Joe White addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the development was scaled down from the original request. He stated the development would be constructed of an architectural style that would match the neighborhood. He stated with the addition of the garages the total footprint would be 9,000 to 10,000 square feet. Mr. White stated with the reduced total office square footage the parking areas would also be reduced. Mr. White stated the applicant was requesting to be able 11 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7771 -A to move the residence away from the law office. He stated the applicant did not want the residence tied to the office. Mr. Hurb Rule addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he felt the Commission should defer the request to allow staff and the neighborhood time to review the indicated site plan. He stated he felt the applicant's request was too general and not specific to allow staff and the Commission the ability to enforce on the zoning at the time of construction. He stated the development lacked specifics which he felt was a requirement of the planned development process. Mr. Louis Bianco addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the neighborhood did not want commercial in the area. He stated he felt a 9,000 square foot office was too intense for the area. He stated with the late submission of the proposal he did not have the opportunity to publish a newsletter to let the residents know of the current, request. He stated of the residents he had talked to in the area all were opposed to the construction of a 9,000 square foot office building on the site. Ms. Polly Tanner addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she did not live in the area but did use the area for the parks and amenities the area had to offer. She stated the valley was not an appropriate location of an office building of the indicated square footage. She stated the area was rural in nature and the development of a commercial activity was not in keeping with the rural atmosphere of the valley. Ms. Rita Dyer addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she did not feel the indicated location appropriate for an office use. Mr. Tommy Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated if the development were approved it would change the nature of the valley. He stated the site was an agriculture site being used as pasture land. He stated he did not feel commercialization of the valley was an appropriate use. He stated the river valley area was being used for farming and residential homes which was the appropriate use for the area. He stated the site should be developed with homes similar to the development pattern in the area. Ms. Sandra Love addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the original office was 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. She questioned why Mr. Ludwig now needed such a large office. She stated the indicated development was out of character with the existing neighborhood. She stated once an area was developed for a commercial use the soil was no longer suitable for farming. Ms. Mariella Nowicki addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the valley was lovely and a commercial development would not be a positive addition to the area. She stated there was only one home with square footage similar to 12 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7771-A Mr. -Ludwig's proposal. She stated she felt the addition of a 9,000 square foot office building and 8,000 square foot residence would be out of character for the valley area. Mr. Gene Ludwig addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the proposal was reasonable. He stated Mr. Bianco did not speak for the entire association. He stated many of the neighbors he had spoken to did support the proposed development. He stated he had requested from staff to relocate his current commercial zoning. He stated staff was not supportive of this request. He stated the existing commercial site located on Beck Road only contained one acre and the possible future uses would be limited to relatively small developments. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the looseness of the current request. The Commission questioned if and when the phases would be constructed. Mr. Ludwig stated he was unsure. The Commission questioned if the home would be attached to the office or if it would be constructed at some other location on the site. Mr. Ludwig stated he was not sure. He stated he was requesting to keep all his options open. The Commission questioned at what point the home would be constructed. Mr. Ludwig stated he could not give a definite time frame for construction. The Commission requested Mr. Ludwig defer his request to tie down the lose ends of the proposal. They requested a revise site plan and cover letter be furnished to staff in time to take the item to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Ludwig agreed to this request. A motion made to defer the request to the August 18, 2005, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes 1 no and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff and the applicant met on August 4, 2005, to work to resolve issues raised at the Commission's July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. The applicant has indicated a revised site plan will be available for the Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8, 2005. Staff is requesting this item be deferred to the September 29, 2005, public hearing to allow the Subdivision Committee and staff additional time to review the proposed development plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 18, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated they and the applicant had met on August 4, 2005, to work to resolve issues raised at the Commission's July 7, 2005, Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had indicated a revised site plan would be available for the Subdivision Committee meeting on September 8, 2005. Staff requested the item be 13 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7771 -A deferred to the September 29, 2005, public hearing to allow the Subdivision Committee and staff additional time to review the proposed development plan. There was no further discussion of the item. 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 and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a request dated September 1, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November 10, 2005, public hearing. Staff is supportive of the applicant's deferral request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 29, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a request dated September 1, 2005, requesting this item be deferred to the November 10, 2005, public hearing. Staff stated they were supportive of the applicant's deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not contacted staff regarding the application. The planned office development application remains unchanged. Due to the inactivity of the part of the applicant, staff is requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 10, 2005) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had not contacted staff regarding the application and the requested revised site plan. Staff stated the planned office development application remained unchanged. Staff stated due to the inactivity of the part of the applicant, staff was requesting the item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice. 14 November 10, 2005 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A.1 FILE NO.: Z -7771-A There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 15 ITEM NO.: 6.1 NAME: Ludwig Complex Long -form POD FILE NO.: Z -7771-A LOCATION: located on the Northwest corner of County Farm Road and Pinnacle Valley Road Plannina 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 total square footage of the office in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. 3. Provide a dedication of right-of-way for the entirely of the property frontage not just the office portion. 4. Provide the proposed building lines for Lots 1 — 7 on the proposed preliminary plat. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified as a Minor Arterial, which would typically require a 35 -foot building line on residential lots. Non-residential development would typically require a 45 -foot building line. 5. Will there be a dumpster located on the office site? If so locate the proposed dumpster along with a note concerning the required screening (height/area/location). A note indicates garbage collection will be provided by the City of Little Rock. There will not be garbage collection for the proposed development provided by the City of Little Rock. Please revise the general note. 6. There is also a note concerning proposed wastewater. The site plan indicates wastewater will be provided by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility or by septic. There will not be sewer service provided by Little Rock Wastewater unless the development is annexed into the corporate limits of Little Rock. Please revise the general note. 7. Provide certification from the Arkansas Department of Health concerning the proposed wastewater collection and treatment system. 8. Will the office development be gated? If so indicated the location of the proposed gate, key entry pad and turn -around. 9. No handicap parking has been indicated on the proposed site plan. Please make allowances for the number of required spaces based on the total square footage of the office. 10. Will the office buildings be one or two stories in height? The site plan indicates a total building height of 35 -feet but not the number of stories proposed. Variance/Waivers: 1. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot with an increased depth of the pipe stem. 2. A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of lots with private streets. 3. A five year deferral of the required street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road and County Farm Road. Public Warks Conditions: 1. Pinnacle Valley 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. A 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Pinnacle Valley and County Farm Road. 3. Provide design of the street conforming to Master Street Plan standard. Construct one-half street improvement to the street, including a five foot sidewalk, with the planned development. Special design standards apply to Pinnacle Valley Road north of County Farm Road consisting of a two lane road with paved shoulders and open ditches. For the east -west leg of Pinnacle Valley Road, add an additional travel lane per standard details. 4. This property is outside the corporate limits, but within the extraterritorial boundary. No grading permit or storm water detention facilities are required by the City. 5. Obtain flood hazard permits from Pulaski County. The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on the plat for flood hazard areas. 6. Public Works would support a five —year deferral of street construction of the office development site, but not for final platting of the residential lots. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Outside the service boundary. No comment. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection based on hydraulic modeling to be performed by Central Arkansas Water. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This 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: Outside the service boundary, submit comments from local volunteer fire department which serves this area. County Planning: 1. A driveway permit should be obtained from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department (340-6800). 2. A Permit for Development in the Floodplain and an Engineering "No Adverse Impact" Certificate should be obtained from Pulaski County Planning and Development (340- 8260). 3. Show all proposed and exiting drainage structures on the proposed site plan. 4. Provide copies of NPDES Permit and Clearing Permit for the County's records. 5. Indicate owners and uses of adjoining parcels. 6. Show the boundary of the development. 7. Indicate the limits of the floodway in relation to the parcel. 8. Delineate wetland areas; if none exist, so state. 9. Provide construction details for proposed fencing. A variance will be required for the construction of fencing located in the floodplain/floodway. 10. Provide the finished floor elevation for all proposed structures. 11. Provide an erosion control plan. 12. Contact the Corps of Engineers, if you have not done so. 13. Show all building setback lines. 14. The survey must meet minimum standards. 15. Note: "Development shall meet the standards of the City of Little Rock and Pulaski County." 16.All work in the right-of-way will require a permit from Pulaski County Road and Bridge Department. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Plannina Division: Landscape: In addition to the proposed interior landscaping, a small amount of building landscaping between the proposed public parking areas and buildings (or in the general areas) will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern and western perimeters. 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, March 30, 2005.