HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8292 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-8292
NAME: The House of Vision Short -form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1921 Wright Avenue and 1853 Summit Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Dr. Emma K. Rhodes
8621 LaBette Drive
Little Rock, AR 72204
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.17 acres
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED ZONING:
PROPOSED USE:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
R-4, Two-family District
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
Single-family and Two-family residences
- We
0-3, General Office District uses and Activity Center
VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from R-4, Two-family District to
POD to allow the existing duplex to be renovated for the purpose of serving as an
activity center and private offices. The objective of the developer is to encourage
persons using the House of Vision, an office next door located at 1971 Wright
Avenue, as meeting room space to plan activities, extended business meetings,
private family gatherings and other small community meetings. The House of
Vision allows free office space for job development and placement of ex -felons;
stop the violence program, personal growth and development for targeted
populations and other community services. The desire of the developer is to
FILE NO.: Z-8292 (Cont.
allow this site to generate income to cover the expenses of this structures as well
as the adjoining property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing vacant duplex structure. The structure immediately
to the east is a two-story structure currently being used as an office use. The
area is a node of office and commercial uses located along Wright Avenue.
There is a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Alert Center located nearby. The
area to the east and south of the site is primarily residential in both single-family
and two family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the
Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations 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. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Wright and Summit Avenues.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Enerav: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #16, the UALR Route.
2
FILE NO.: Z-8292 (Cont.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Cep
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use. The applicant has applied for a rezoning
to Planned Office Development to allow an existing structure to be converted into
an office use and an activity center.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Wright Avenue is shown as a Minor Arterial with Reduced
Standards. 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 Wright since it is a Minor Arterial. Summit is shown as a
Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Local Streets, which are abutted by non-residential
zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes, are considered as
"Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector. 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 route is shown along Wright Avenue. A Class II
bikeway is located on the street as either a 5-foot shoulder or six foot marked
bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new onsite parking.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can
be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year -around
requirement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT
(November 29, 2007)
Dr. Rhodes was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development stating there were a few issues in need of
addressing prior to the public hearing. Staff questioned the proposed assembly
use. Staff stated based on typical parking demands the use could potentially
3
FILE NO.: Z-8292 (Cont.
I:I
generate a parking problem by spilling into
requested the applicant provide the days and
Staff questioned if there would be multiple office
the neighborhood. Staff also
hours of operation for the site.
users.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
would be required at the street intersection and any curb, gutter or sidewalk that
was damaged in the right of way would be required to be repaired or replaced.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a screening fence would
be required along the southern perimeter of the site in either a wood fence or
dense evergreen plantings.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
ANALYSIS -
A revised site plan was not required to address concerns raised at the November
29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided staff with
additional information concerning the proposed use of the property. The
intended use of the property is as office space for office uses, as allowed in the
0-3, General Office District designation. The office hours of operation are from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The structure contains three
bedrooms which each could potentially be leased by a small office user or the
entire space by a single office user. The other spaces within the structure will be
used by the House of Vision as meeting room space to plan activities, space to
allow for business meetings of the House of Vision, small wedding receptions
and other small community meetings. The office space will utilize 1,016 square
feet with the remaining area (693 square feet) to be used for meeting space.
The site plan indicates parking will be provided through the existing driveway.
The drive will allow for three (3) vehicles if the automobiles are stacked. Based
on the proposed use of the building staff feels the parking is adequate to serve
the office use. The parking typically required for an office and place of public
assembly would be eight (8) parking spaces. Three (3) vehicles may be parked
in the drive and the applicant has additional parking available on a nearby site to
allow parking for the community meetings and small functions such as wedding
receptions. According to the applicant, the community meetings will not cause a
parking problem within the neighborhood. The meetings will involve neighbors
within the area, most of whom will not drive to the site.
The site plan has not indicated signage. Staff would recommend signage be
limited to signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
sixty-four square feet in area. Building signage to be allowed with a maximum of
ten percent of the facade area along the street frontages.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the screening requirement along the
southern perimeter. The adjoining property has a six-foot wood fence in place
along the common property line. The applicant is requesting to use the existing
fence as screening and should the adjoining property owner remove the fence,
2
FILE NO.: Z-8292 Cont.
the applicant will then install the required screening fence. Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is located an existing commercial
node. Staff does not feels the rezoning of the site to POD to allow the use of the
existing structure as an office use and a small meeting facility will significantly
impact the area. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 signage be limited to signage as allowed in office zones.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the screening fence along
the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining fence is removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were 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. Staff presented a recommendation that signage be limited to signage as allowed
in office zones. Staff presented a recommendation of approval for a deferral request of
the screening fence along the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining
fence was removed.
Dr. Rhodes addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated the
request was to rezone an existing duplex to POD to allow an office use and a meeting
place. She stated the office space would be rented to generate an income to help off
set the cost of the House of Vision located next door. She stated occasionally meetings
would be held in the duplex to conduct business for the House of Vision. She stated the
primary meeting space would be neighborhood meetings, family meetings and wedding
receptions.
The Commission questioned Dr. Rhodes if the house would offer overnight stay.
Dr. Rhodes stated no overnight stay would be allowed. The Commission questioned if
the house would be used as a half -way house. Dr. Rhodes stated the use was office
and not a half -way house.
Ms. Mattye J. Willis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the House of Vision was a concern to the neighborhood. She stated she had nothing
but the up -most respect for Dr. Rhodes and felt anything she did would enhance the
neighborhood but her concern was with the clientele of the House of Vision. She stated
9
FILE NO.: Z-8292 (Cont.
the neighborhood was coming back and there were a number of families moving into
the area. She stated the neighborhood did not want to do anything to bring the area
down. She stated the neighborhood had a number of concerns and questions
concerning the services to be provided at the House of Vision.
Commissioner Rector stated the application request before the Commission did not
concern the House of Vision. He stated the request was to rezone the duplex property
to allow an office use and meeting facility on the site. He stated the House of Vision
was developed on properly zoned property and did not require approval from the
Planning Commission or Board of Directors.
Ms. Mae Nunn -Isom addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her home
was located across Summit Street and her concerns were with the House of Vision.
She stated the neighborhood was concerns with the background of the persons being
served by the House of Vision. She stated the area had enough commercial and office
uses.
Commissioner Rector stated once again the Commission was not being requested to
act on the House of Vision. He stated the House of Vision was developed on an
appropriately zoned parcel of property.
Ms. Leanna Godley addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated the
concerns were with the House of Vision and the services provided by the House of
Vision. She questioned if the structure would be used as a half -way house. She
questioned what the inmates were be there for.
Dr. Rhodes stated the House of Vision was to provide services to ex -felons such as job
counseling, job placement, health screening and educational opportunities. She stated
the House of Vision would also be used as office space for the Stop the Violence
programs and a number of other non-profit programs being offered in the area. She
stated the duplex structure if rezoned for an office use would hopefully generate enough
income to assist the House of Vision with maintenance, upkeep and utilities.
The Commission questioned the hours of operation for the site. Staff stated the office
hours were from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The Commission
questioned the hours of the activities such as wedding receptions or business meetings.
Dr. Rhodes stated the activities would end by 10:00 pm. She stated the activities would
potentially be held on weekend as well as weekdays.
The Commission questioned if Dr. Rhodes was willing to limit the approval to her
ownership. Dr. Rhodes stated she was willing to limit the use to her ownership.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item limiting the hours of operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm and limiting
the approval to the ownership of Dr. Rhodes. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
N
January 3, 2008
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-8292
NAME: The House of Vision Short -form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1921 Wright Avenue and 1853 Summit Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Dr. Emma K. Rhodes
8621 LaBette Drive
Little Rock, AR 72204
SURVEYOR:
Brooks Surveying
20820 Arch Street Pike
Hensley, AR 72065
AREA: 0.17 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CURRENT ZONING: R-4, Two-family District
ALLOWED USES: Single-family and Two-family residences
PROPOSED ZONING: POD
PROPOSED USE: 0-3, General Office District uses and Activity Center
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the site from R-4, Two-family District to
POD to allow the existing duplex to be renovated for the purpose of serving as an
activity center and private offices. The objective of the developer is to encourage
persons using the House of Vision, an office next door located at 1971 Wright
Avenue, as meeting room space to plan activities, extended business meetings,
private family gatherings and other small community meetings. The House of
Vision allows free office space for job development and placement of ex -felons;
stop the violence program, personal growth and development for targeted
populations and other community services. The desire of the developer is to
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z-8292
allow this site to generate income to cover the expenses of this structures as well
as the adjoining property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site contains an existing vacant duplex structure. The structure immediately
to the east is a two-story structure currently being used as an office use. The
area is a node of office and commercial uses located along Wright Avenue.
There is a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Alert Center located nearby. The
area to the east and south of the site is primarily residential in both single-family
and two family homes.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All
owners of property located within 200 feet of the proposed site along with the
Central High and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations 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 CONDITIO
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the
intersection of Wright and Summit Avenues.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or
additional water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. Contact Little Rock Fire
Department for more information.
2
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-8292
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #16, the UALR Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use. The applicant has applied for a rezoning
to Planned Office Development to allow an existing structure to be converted into
an office use and an activity center.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Wright Avenue is shown as a Minor Arterial with Reduced
Standards. 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 Wright since it is a Minor Arterial. Summit is shown as a
Local Street. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to
adjacent properties. Local Streets, which are abutted by non-residential
zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes, are considered as
"Commercial Streets". These streets have a design standard the same as a
Collector. 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 route is shown along Wright Avenue. A Class II
bikeway is located on the street as either a 5-foot shoulder or six foot marked
bike lane. Additional paving and right of way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City recognized
neighborhood action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new onsite parking.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the
southern perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can
3
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14
G
H
FILE NO.: Z-8292
be given for existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year -around
requirement.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 29, 2007)
Dr. Rhodes was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development stating there were a few issues in need of
addressing prior to the public hearing. Staff questioned the proposed assembly
use. Staff stated based on typical parking demands the use could potentially
generate a parking problem by spilling into the neighborhood. Staff also
requested the applicant provide the days and hours of operation for the site.
Staff questioned if there would be multiple office users.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a 20-foot radial dedication
would be required at the street intersection and any curb, gutter or sidewalk that
was damaged in the right of way would be required to be repaired or replaced.
Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a screening fence would
be required along the southern perimeter of the site in either a wood fence or
dense evergreen plantings.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
ANALYSIS:
A revised site plan was not required to address concerns raised at the November
29, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided staff with
additional information concerning the proposed use of the property. The
intended use of the property is as office space for office uses as allowed in the
0-3, General Office District designation. The office hours of operation are from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The structure contains three
bedrooms which each could potentially be leased by a small office user or the
entire space by a single office user. The other spaces within the structure will be
used by the House of Vision as meeting room space to plan activities, space to
allow for business meetings of the House of Vision, small wedding receptions
and other small community meetings. The office space will utilize 1,016 square
feet with the remaining area (693 square feet) to be used for meeting space.
The site plan indicates parking will be provided through the existing driveway.
The drive will allow for three (3) vehicles if the automobiles are stacked. Based
on the proposed use of the building staff feels the parking is adequate to serve
the office use. The parking typically required for an office and place of public
assembly would be eight (8) parking spaces. Three (3) vehicles may be parked
N
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
in the drive and the applicant has additional parking available on a nearby site to
allow parking for the community meetings and small functions such as wedding
receptions. According to the applicant, the community meetings will not cause a
parking problem within the neighborhood. The meetings will involve neighbors
within the area, most of whom will not drive to the site.
The site plan has not indicated signage. Staff would recommend signage be
limited to signage allowed in office zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
sixty-four square feet in area. Building signage to be allowed with a maximum of
ten percent of the facade area along the street frontages.
The applicant is requesting a deferral of the screening requirement along the
southern perimeter. The adjoining property has a six-foot wood fence in place
along the common property line. The applicant is requesting to use the existing
fence as screening and should the adjoining property owner remove the fence,
the applicant will then install the required screening fence. Staff is supportive of
this request.
Staff is supportive of the request. The site is located an existing commercial
node. Staff does not feels the rezoning of the site to POD to allow the use of the
existing structure as an office use and a small meeting facility will significantly
impact the area. To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding technical issues
associated with the request.
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
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 signage be limited to signage as allowed in office zones.
Staff recommends approval of the deferral request of the screening fence along
the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining fence is removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2008)
The applicant was present. There were 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. Staff presented a recommendation that signage be limited to signage as allowed
in office zones. Staff presented a recommendation of approval for a deferral request of
the screening fence along the southern perimeter until such time the existing adjoining
fence was removed.
5
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
Dr. Rhodes addressed the Commission on the merits of her request. She stated the
request was to rezone an existing duplex to POD to allow an office use and a meeting
place. She stated the office space would be rented to generate an income to help off
set the cost of the House of Vision located next door. She stated occasionally meetings
would be held in the duplex to conduct business for the House of Vision. She stated the
primary meeting space would be neighborhood meetings, family meetings and wedding
receptions.
The Commission questioned Dr. Rhodes if the house would offer overnight stay.
Dr. Rhodes stated no overnight stay would be allowed. The Commission questioned if
the house would be used as a half -way house. Dr. Rhodes stated the use was office
and not a half -way house.
Ms. Mattye J. Willis addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
the House of Vision was a concern to the neighborhood. She stated she had nothing
but the up -most respect for Dr. Rhodes and felt anything she did would enhance the
neighborhood but her concern was with the clientele of the House of Vision. She stated
the neighborhood was coming back and there were a number of families moving into
the area. She stated the neighborhood did not want to do anything to bring the area
down. She stated the neighborhood had a number of concerns and questions
concerning the services to be provided at the House of Vision.
Commissioner Rector stated the application request before the Commission did not
concern the House of Vision. He stated the request was to rezone the duplex property
to allow an office use and meeting facility on the site. He stated the House of Vision
was developed on properly zoned property and did not require approval from the
Planning Commission or Board of Directors.
Ms. Mae Nunn -Isom addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated her home
was located across Summit Street and her concerns were with the House of Vision.
She stated the neighborhood was concerns with the background of the persons being
served by the House of Vision. She stated the area had enough commercial and office
uses.
Commissioner Rector stated once again the Commission was not being requested to
act on the House of Vision. He stated the House of Vision was developed on an
appropriately zoned parcel of property.
Ms. Leanna Godley addressed the Commission with concerns. She stated the
concerns were with the House of Vision and the services provided by the House of
Vision. She questioned if the structure would be used as a half -way house. She
questioned what the inmates were be there for.
0
January 3, 2008
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8292
Dr. Rhodes stated the House of Vision was to provide services to ex -felons such as job
counseling, job placement, health screening and educational opportunities. She stated
the House of Vision would also be used as office space for the Stop the Violence
programs and a number of other non-profit programs being offered in the area. She
stated the duplex structure if rezoned for an office use would hopefully generate enough
income to assist the House of Vision with maintenance, upkeep and utilities.
The Commission questioned the hours of operation for the site. Staff stated the office
hours were from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. The Commission
questioned the hours of the activities such as wedding receptions or business meetings.
Dr. Rhodes stated the activities would end by 10:00 pm. She stated the activities would
potentially be held on weekend as well as weekdays.
The Commission questioned if Dr. Rhodes was willing to limit the approval to her
ownership. Dr. Rhodes stated she was willing to limit the use to her ownership.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
approval of the item limiting the hours of operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm and limiting
the approval to the ownership of Dr. Rhodes. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent.
7
ITEM NO.: 14.
NAME: The House of Vision Short -form POD
LOCATION: located at 1921 Wright Avenue and 1853 Summit Avenue
Planning Staff Comments:
Z-8292
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. The notice must be mailed no later than December 19, 2007. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than December
28, 2007.
2. Provide the total square footage of the structure, the total square footage proposed
for office use and the total square footage proposed for the meeting facility.
3. The development is proposed as an office use and meeting facility. Staff has some
concerns with the available parking and the potential required parking. The parking
requirement for a meeting facility could potentially generate parking which would spill
into the neighborhood and impact the area.
4. Provide the days and hours of operation for the facility.
5. Will there be multiple office users?
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
Public Works Conditions:
1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-
of-way prior to occupancy.
2. A twenty (20) foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of
Wright and Summit Avenue.
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional
water meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire hydrant may be required. Contact Little Rock Fire Department
for more information.
Item # 14.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #16, the UALR Route.
Planning Division: This request is located in the Central City Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Mixed Use. The applicant has applied for a rezoning to Planned
Office Development to allow an existing structure to be converted into an office use and
an activity center.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Wright Avenue is shown as a Minor Arterial with Reduced
Standards. 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 Wright since it is a Minor Arterial. Summit is shown as a Local Street.
The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local
Streets which are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than
duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". These streets have a design
standard the same as a Collector. 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 is shown along Wright Avenue. A Class II bikeway is located
on the street as either a 5' shoulder or six foot marked bike lane. Additional paving and
right of way may be required.
Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood
action plan.
Landscape:
1. The site plan must comply with the City's minimum landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
2. Landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new onsite parking.
3. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the southern
perimeter of the site. Credit towards fulfilling this requirement can be given for
existing trees and undergrowth that satisfies this year -around requirement.
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include
the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.
Item # 14.