HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7969-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -7969-C
NAME: Layla's Revised Short -form PCD
LOCATION: Located at 6100 Stones Road
DEVELOPER:
Doug Blanford
Southpaw Design
7720 Kling Road
Mabelvale, AR 72103
SURVEYOR:
Tim Tyler Surveying
240 HWY 65 N
Conway, AR 72032
AREA: 2.0 + acres
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES -
PROPOSED ZONING:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
PCD
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
Restaurant, Single-family and C-1 uses
PCD
PROPOSED USE: Allow the placement of an individual tenant sign within the front
landscaped area for the business located at 6100 Stones Road
VARIANCEMAIVERS: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,500 on March 21, 2006,
allowing a revision to the approved PCD for 18321 Cantrell Road by expanding the PCD
to the south to encompass an area containing six manufactured homes. The proposal
included the construction of a deck and parking facility in the expanded area. The deck
was attached to the existing restaurant with only one entrance to the restaurant. The
deck was proposed as wooden construction, following the style of the existing
restaurant facility.
FILE NO.: Z -7969-C
Fencing would be placed along the southern perimeter of the parking lot to screen the
adjoining residential property. Included in the request was the relocation of the
six manufactured homes on the rear portion of the site.
Ordinance No. 19,613 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 17,
2006, allowed a revision to the previously approved PCD to allow an existing residential
structure located on the site which was zoned R-2, Single-family to be included in the
previously approved PCD area. The applicant approval allowed C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the site. There were no other changes
proposed to the previously approved PCD.
Ordinance No. 20,319 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on September 21,
2010, allowed a revision to the PCD to allow the restaurant located at 6100 Stone Road
to add a drive-through window to the building. The drive through service was only
proposed from 6 am to 9 am Monday through Friday serving breakfast. Stacking was
proposed within the parking lot. The stacking would not impact parking for the adjacent
restaurant because the restaurant was not open during the early morning hours.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved PCD for the
6100 Stones Road restaurant location to allow the placement of a tenant
identification sign within the landscaped area along Cantrell Road. The sign is
proposed with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of
72 square feet. The signage as proposed is consistent with signage allowed per
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains a restaurant within a converted single-family structure. To the
west is a second restaurant located on an adjacent lot. To the south are several
manufactured homes located near the rear portion of this site owned by the
applicant. There is a daycare center located further west of the site on property
zoned PQ -O. To the north and east of the site are several properties zoned PCD
which were zoned to recognize uses which existed when the property was
brought within the City's Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. Other uses in the
area include, single-family homes located on large lots, a church and vacant 0-3,
General Office District zoned property.
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
Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
7
FILE NO.: Z -7969-C Cont.
D. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(January 7, 2015)
The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item stating there were no
outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated the
request was to allow the placement of a monument sign within the front yard
landscape area along Cantrell Road. Staff stated the sign was consistent with
the Highway 10 DOD. 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 technical issues associated with the request raised at the January
7, 2015, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant is requesting to amend
the previously approved PCD for 6100 Stones Road to allow the placement of a
tenant identification sign within the landscaped area along Cantrell Road. The
applicant has indicated the sign will have a maximum overall height of six (6)
feet. The sign is proposed as a backlit sign approximately 30 -inches by
73 -inches. The sign will be a two (2) sided backlit cabinet centered and mounted
back to back on two (2) four (4) inch pipes. The support pipes will have sheet
metal covering from the bottom of the cabinets to grade level to provide the
monumental structure required to meet the minimum standards of the Highway
10 Design Overlay District.
Staff is supportive of the request. The sign as proposed is consistent with the
minimum standards for a tenant identification sign per the Design Overlay
District. Staff does not feel the placement of the tenant identification sign within
the landscaped area as proposed by the applicant will have a significant impact
on the development or the Highway 10 Corridor.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the previously approved
PCD to allow the placement of a tenant identification within the landscaped areas
for the restaurant located at 6100 Stones Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JANUARY 29, 2015)
The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to amend the
previously approved PCD to allow the placement of a tenant identification within the
landscaped areas for the restaurant located at 6100 Stones Road.
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, 0 absent and 1 open position.
3