pc_02 19 2009
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
4:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
William Changose
J. T. Ferstl
Troy Laha
Jerry Meyer
Bill Rector
Billy Rouse
Candice Smith
Jeff Yates
Members Absent: Obray Nunnley, Jr.
Chauncey Taylor
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2009 Meeting of the Little Rock
Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
FEBRUARY 19, 2009
4:00 P.M.
I. OLD BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
A. Z-1703-A Gary’s Plaza – Conditional Use Permit
3224 Mabelvale Pike
B. MSP2008 Master Street Plan Update – Adoption of Master Street
Plan for Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Item Number:
File Number:
Title
1. LU09-15-01 Land Use Plan Amendment – Geyer Springs West
Planning District
The north side of Baseline Road, east of Cloverdale Road
1.1 Z-8428 Rezoning from R-2 to O-3
7002 Baseline Road
2. LA-0018-A Cantrell Road Land Alteration Variance
16724 Cantrell Road
3. Z-4985-F Cia Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit
Time Extension
2407 S. Battery Street
4. Z-5805-A L.E.A.P. Day Care Center and Electrical Apprenticeship
Program – Conditional Use Permit
11820 Chicot Road
5. Z-8426 Ashcraft Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
1720 Walnut Grove Road
6. Z-8427 American Tower – Tower Use Permit
6208 Red Bud Lane
7. Z-8429 Duffy Event Center – Conditional Use Permit
5001 West 34th Street
8. LU09-01 Residential Land Use Category Amendment
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
NAME: Gary’s Plaza – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 3224 Mabelvale Pike
OWNER/APPLICANT: JP Mortgage and Investments/Gary Shorter
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow retail
sales and a special event center in the existing
building on this I-2 and C-4 zoned property.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the northwest corner of Mabelvale Pike and
West 33rd Street, one block south of Asher Avenue.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area of mixed residential, commercial and
industrial uses. Several auto service type businesses are located along
Asher Avenue to the north. A hotel is located across Mabelvale Pike to
the east. A plumbing supply company and a recently approved church are
located to the southeast. Single-family residences are located to the west
and southwest. A small commercial center containing a variety of uses is
located to the south. Although the use may be compatible with the uses in
the area, staff has concerns with the impact of the proposed special event
center on nearby properties due to the limited parking available on site.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the South of Asher and Curran
Conway Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The site has a driveway onto Mabelvale Pike and a loading area driveway
onto West 33rd Street. The property contains 7 paved parking spaces. A
gravel parking area is adjacent to the north. As many as 24 parking
spaces could possibly be constructed in that area. The use requires 43
parking spaces based on 1/300 square feet for the retail sales area and
1/100 square feet for the special event center.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Site Plan must comply with the City’s landscape and buffer ordinance
requirements.
Additional landscaping will be required in conjunction with any new
parking areas located on the site.
Depending upon rehabilitation costs associated with this project the
parking lot and property may have to be brought into full compliancy with
the City’s landscaping and buffer minimal ordinance requirements.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Mabelvale Pike is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A dedication of right-of-way forty-five (45) feet from centerline
will be required.
2. Due to the proposed use of the property, the Master Street Plan
specifies that West 33rd Street for the frontage of this property must
meet commercial street standards. Dedicate right-of-way to thirty (30)
feet from centerline. The centerline of West 33rd Street is not shown
on the survey. Provide the distance from centerline to the property line
as determined by a survey.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer is available to this property.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required.
Fire Department: Fire sprinklers may be required.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
3
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 31, 2008)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed on days and hours of operation, signage, dumpster
location and parking.
Public Works and Landscape Comments were noted.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by August 6, 2008. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The I-2 zoned property located at 3224 Mabelvale Pike is occupied by a 4,500
square foot, one-story metal building and a 7-space paved parking lot. The I-2
portion of the property consists of the south 70 feet of Lots 10, 11 and 12,
Block 1, Ruebel and Leymer Addition. The north 68 feet of the lots is zoned C-4
and is gravel-covered.
The applicant is proposing to utilize the building for retail sales and a special
event center. The retail sales will consist of items such as new and used
clothing, furniture, antiques or tobacco products. The special event center will
occupy approximately 4,000 square feet of the building and will be made
available for rent for events such as weddings, receptions, anniversaries,
birthday parties, baby showers, business meetings, conferences and church
functions. Hours of operation for the retail sales are Monday through Saturday,
11:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Hours for the special event center are 7 days a week,
8:00 p.m. – 1:00 a.m. Signage consists of an existing ground sign and wall
signage on the east and south facades. No dumpster is indicated. The applicant
states the Fire Marshall has set an occupancy limit of 85 persons for the special
event center.
Although the use appears to be compatible with most uses in the area, staff is
not able to support the application. It is apparent there is not enough parking
available to meet the requirements of the Ordinance for the special event center.
This use alone requires 40 parking spaces. There are 7 spaces on the site
where the building is located and the possibility of constructing 24 more on the
gravel area north of the building. When this building was constructed in 1968 for
an auto parts store, the 7 paved spaces were constructed. The gravel area north
of the store was not developed in conjunction with the store. Although the gravel
area could be developed for 24± more spaces, it is still less than required for the
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
4
use. Staff is concerned that the result could be that vehicles are forced to park
on the area streets, including in front of the residential properties to the west.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the C.U.P.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 21, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that on August 15, 2008 the applicant had requested deferral of
the item to the October 2, 2008 meeting to allow him time to address staff
concerns. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the October 2, 2008
meeting by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 2, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had not completed the notification requirement
and had not responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee regarding
parking. Staff recommended deferring the item to the November 13, 2008
meeting. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved for deferral to the
November 13, 2008 meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 13, 2008)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed
the Commission that the applicant had contacted staff and desired to continue
with the application. Staff informed the Commission that notification had not been
completed and the item needed to be deferred. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and deferred to the January 8, 2009
agenda with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 open positions.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
5
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted revised numbers for the square footage of the building to
be used for the various uses. The retail sales area is proposed to occupy 2,500
square feet of the building and the special event center is proposed to occupy
2,000 square feet. Based on those numbers, the required parking is 8 spaces for
the retail sales area and 20 spaces for the special event center for a total of 28
required parking spaces. Seven (7) parking spaces are located on site. The
gravel parking lot can accommodate 24± parking spaces.
Staff is still opposed to the use proposed by the applicant. The applicant is not
proposing to develop the gravel lot as a properly paved and landscaped parking
lot. Disorganized use of the lot could lead to an unsafe situation and could result
in vehicles parking on area streets. Staff is also concerned about the late hours
of activity and the possible impact on the residential properties to the west. The
applicant has conducted activities in the special event center without
Commission approval. The site has been monitored by the Fire Marshall’s Office
and Little Rock Police Department and activities were noted on more than one
occasion.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 8, 2009)
The applicants were present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Commission that proper notice had not been completed and the applicants
needed to request another deferral.
Tony Woods and Gary Shorter addressed the Commission and stated they had
done all that was necessary to move forward with the application. They stated
they had obtained an abstract company list of property owners and had mailed
the notices. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission that
the abstract list was dated January 7, 2009 and the notices were sent on
January 7, not 15 days prior to the meeting, as required.
Commissioner Rector asked the applicants why it had taken 7 months to get to
this point when all other applicants have “done it right.” Mr. Woods stated there
had been misunderstandings. He stated a third party had been involved with the
business who was no longer involved.
In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, the applicants stated
they had tried to address all staff issues. They assured the Commission that this
would be the past deferral request.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
6
Commissioner Meyer asked if the gravel parking lot would be paved. Mr. Woods
stated it would be paved in the future.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson asked the applicants if they understood that
they would have to do notices for the new meeting date, if the application were
deferred. Mr. Woods responded that new notices would be sent.
Vice Chair Yates asked what would happen if the deferral request were denied.
Ms. Dawson responded that the Commission could go ahead and hear the item.
There was then a discussion of due process and notification.
Commissioner Rouse asked if there were other outstanding issues. Ms. Dawson
responded that the primary issue was notification.
A motion was made to defer the item to the February 19, 2009 agenda. The
motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
Tony Wood and Gary Shorter were present representing the application. There
was one objector present. Dana Carney of the Planning Staff presented the item
and noted the applicants had submitted a plan whereby a 20 +/- space parking
lot could be constructed on the graveled property north of the building. He noted
the applicants were requesting a 12-18 month deferral of the requirement to pave
and landscape the parking lot. Mr. Carney stated staff was unable to support the
application. He noted staff’s continued concerns about the effect of the proposed
use on other area properties and the lack of adequate parking.
Mr. Woods and Mr. Shorter addressed the commission in support of their
application. Mr. Woods stated they had provided a plan showing the construction
of a parking lot. He presented a letter from Nakia Preston, resident of 5420 W.
33rd Street, in which she stated she was not opposed to the use. Mr. Woods
stated there were only three (3) residences in close proximity and they were
surrounded by a variety of other uses, including industrial uses, commercial uses
and a nightclub. He noted there were no neighborhood residents in opposition to
the proposed event center. Mr. Woods stated insulation had been added to the
building to reduce noise and more insulation would be added. He stated the
parking lot could be completed in less than 12 months.
Ron Copeland, Director of the University District partnership and representing
UALR, spoke in opposition. He stated the District was committed to improving the
area around UALR and was opposed to the event center. Mr. Copeland stated
there were concerns about the lack of parking and the late hours of operation. He
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
7
stated those who rent the center could obtain a temporary liquor license and the
use would function much like a private club. He stated he was concerned about
the consumption of alcohol on the site and noted there were about a half-dozen
private clubs in the area.
Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Copeland if he would continue to object if no
alcohol was served. Mr. Copeland responded that he still had concerns about the
hours of operation, large crowds and the inability to monitor alcohol use on the
site.
Tony Woods responded that the site was not near UALR. Vice-chair Yates
commented that the site fell within the District’s boundary. Mr. Woods stated
there was a need for this size venue and there was no neighborhood opposition.
He stated he was unaware of the University District’s opposition until this
meeting. Commissioner Meyer responded that staff had been in opposition to the
use for several months.
There was then a brief discussion of the proposed site plan, including the need to
modify it to provide proper landscaping and buffers.
In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Mr. Woods stated they
could not afford to do the paving of the gravel parking area at this time.
Commissioner Meyer asked the applicants if they would restrict alcohol uses. Mr.
Woods responded that they would not but that they would put something in the
contracts with renters about alcohol. Commissioner Rector responded that there
were concerns about the use of alcohol and noted there needed to be some way
to address those concerns. He asked how many events there had been where
alcohol was sold. Mr. Woods responded there were none where alcohol was sold
but there had been events where alcohol was served. Mr. Shorter stated they did
not have an alcohol license. Commissioner Rector told the applicants they could
put language in their contracts prohibiting the serving of alcohol. Mr. Woods
stated they could not commit to that at this time. He stated they were blindsided
by this concern.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rector, staff noted there had been
concerns raised about “special event centers.” Staff stated some of these venues
were being rented by persons who would obtain a temporary alcohol permit from
the State ABC and were functioning as a private club. Commissioner Smith
asked if it was the City’s policy to deny those types of uses. Dana Carney
responded that the use would be permitted if the property was properly zoned
and had parking to comply with Ordinance requirements. He stated this site was
not zoned to allow the use by-right.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1703-A
8
In response to questions from Commissioner Rouse, Mr. Woods stated there
would be security provided on the site, that the hours of operation varied from
day-to-day and he was pursuing parking agreements with other area businesses.
Commissioner Rouse stated he had spoken with some area businesses that had
expressed concern about overflow parking coming from the event center.
Commissioner Laha noted the proposed hours of operation would not allow
Saturday afternoon birthday parties or Sunday church use. The applicants stated
they were amending the hours of operation to be from noon to 1:00 a.m. on
Saturdays and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m on Sundays.
Deputy City Attorney Cindy Dawson asked for clarification on the issue of
alcohol. Mr. Woods responded that they would require any person leasing the
event center to obtain an ABC permit.
In response to a question from Commissioner Laha, the applicants stated the
event center would be used by a church only on Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m.
A motion was made to approve the application, as amended, including all staff
recommendations and comments except the recommendation of denial. The
amendments were noted as follow:
1. Sunday hours are to be 8:00 a.m. – 1:00 a.m.
2. Church use only on Sundays from 8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
3. Saturday hours are to be noon – 1:00 a.m.
4. Anyone who serves alcohol has to obtain a State ABC permit.
5. Paving of the parking is to be deferred for 18 months.
The vote on the motion was 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (Smith).
The motion failed.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: MSP2008
Name: Master Street Plan
Source: Staff
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The City of Little Rock has the authority to adopt a Master Street Plan to set
guidelines for growth and function of the city’s street and highway pattern. The
current version of the Master Street Plan was adopted August 2, 2004 by
Ordinance 19,152. Since that time, there have been several small amendments
to the document. The Master Street Plan document as a whole needs to be
updated periodically to ensure the plan is current and up-to-date. The proposed
amendment is this type of update. Staff was asked in the fall of 2007 to review a
few issues in the Master Street Plan. Upon review, staff discovered several
omissions and typos that needed correcting. Over the winter of 2007-2008,
several meetings between Planning staff and Public Works staff were held to
address these issues. A new draft emerged from these meeting with several
changes to the current version. This new draft was posted on the City of Little
Rock’s website in the spring of 2008 and a letter with a list of proposed changes
and a link to the online draft was sent to approximately 50 people on the city’s
contact list.
Staff presented the new draft to the Plans Committee in June 2008. The Plans
Committee has no issues with this draft. A public meeting was held on August
14, 2008 at the Metroplan conference room to discuss these changes. Over 50
people were invited, but there were only about six attendees. Staff has received
calls from citizens regarding this new draft, but there was no opposition to the
amendment. These calls were mostly just clarification type questions.
Most of the changes presented in this new draft are “clean-up” type changes.
These changes are needed to ensure this document is consistent with previous
changes over the years and to ensure there are no omissions from previous
amendments. Following is a list of changes being considered. The first group of
changes are formatting issues.
1. Current Situation: existing graphics
Proposed Changes: modifying graphics for typical turn lane configurations.
Removed duplicate drawings.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
2
2. Current Situation: chart footnote currently says: "All minimum design standards
comply with the 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design Manual, Fourth
Edition."
Proposed Changes: Changed to state: "All Minimum design standards comply
with the latest version of the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design Manual."
3. Current Situation: organizational issues
Proposed Changes: rearrange order of book. Move glossary to end and bring
Authority to Section 1. Rearrange the design standards for each road
classification to group all like elements together. Added "from" and "to" on special
design standard listings.
4. Current Situation: The current Master Street Plan version does not include a
map for the bike routes.
Proposed Changes: Added another section to include bike route maps.
The second group of changes deals with errors in the existing document based
on research of all previous ordinances.
1. Current Situation: no definitions listed in glossary for these items
Proposed Changes: Added definitions for Collector, Commercial Street, Local
Street, Minor Arterial, and Principal Arterial.
2. Current Situation: no info on Minor Residential Street
Proposed Changes: add a page for Minor Residential streets with a new graphic
3. Current Situation: Rahling Road was listed as a Principal Arterial on the
special design standards
Proposed Changes: According to Ord. 17183 this section (from Taylor Loop to
Chenal Parkway) is a Minor. Move to correct section.
4. Current Situation: Under Principal Arterial special design standards, Chicot
Road is listed with reduced right of way from I-30 Interchange to
Taliferro/Hillsboro.
Proposed Changes: In 2001, we showed Chicot Road with reduced design
standards from Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff. In 2004, we listed it with reduced
standards from I- 30 to Taliferro/Hillsboro. We still show on the actual map that it
is only from Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff. This change would bring the reduced
standards back to Baseline to Mabelvale Cutoff only as was originally approved
by Ordinance 15964 on 11/20/90.
5. Current Situation: Under Minor Arterials with special design standards, Scott
Hamilton Road was shown with reduced right of ways from 65th street to
Baseline Road. Staff believes this stems back to Ordinance 17021 from
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
3
11/21/95. This Ordinance modified Scott Hamilton Road as a Minor Arterial. It
had been classified as a Minor from the I-30 interchange to Baseline Road. This
ordinance changed it to read “ from 65th Street to Baseline Road.” It did not say
anything about reduced design standards.
Proposed Changes: Remove Scott Hamilton Road from alternative design
standards listing.
6. Current Situation: West 36th is shown as a Minor Arterial with reduced design
standards for two separate sections. Staff feels this should be changed to only be
listed once.
Proposed Changes: remove West 36th street from under “Right of Way 70 feet
with a four-lane section, five lanes at major intersections with additional right of
way.”
7. Current Situation: Fawn Tree was accidentally left on the map as Collector.
Ordinance 17525 reduced it to a Local Street.
Proposed Changes: show Fawn Tree as Local Street on new map.
8. Current Situation: Taylor Loop Road is shown as a Collector on the MSP.
Proposed Changes: On Sept 18, 2001, Ordinance 18562 amended the MSP at
Taylor Loop. This ordinance changed four things:
"SECTION 1. That the Minor Arterial for an extension of Chenal Valley
Drive from Taylor Loop at Lucky lane to Chenal Parkway at the northern
intersection of Chenal Valley Drive be removed from the plan.
SECTION 2. That the Collector from the previous named Minor Arterial
eastward to connect with Rahling Road north of the Pebble Beach
intersection be removed from the Plan.
SECTION 3. That the La Marche Collector be realigned to intersect
Taylor Loop Road at Lucky Lane on the Plan. Curb cuts will be limited to
intersecting streets only. SECTION 4. That Taylor Loop Road from Lucky
Lane north to Cantrell Road be reclassified from a Minor Arterial to a
Collector. The design standard shall be a four-lane section with turn
lanes as appropriate with an 80' right of way.
This would require an addition of Taylor Loop Road on the Collectors with special
design standards page. Staff recommends keeping Taylor Loop Road as a
Collector with typical Collector design standards.
9. Current Situation: chart on page 2 of Section 3
Proposed Changes: Removed the row for “Minimum sight distance at crest of
vertical curve.” Rearranged and added a footnote for Minor Residential streets
requiring a parking restriction on one side of a street if only 24’ of pavement.
10. Current Situation: list of Collectors with special conditions
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
4
Proposed Changes: College Street added as per Ordinance 18838. Changed
“Unnamed Collector” to Sienna Lakes from Chicopee Trail to Crystal Valley
(ORD 19109).
11. Current Situation: University Avenue was shown as a Principal Arterial with
special design standards on the map, but it was not listed separately.
Proposed Changes: University Avenue from Lee to Markham listed as a Principal
Arterial with special design standards (“100’ with typical lane cross sections”) as
per the 2001 Master Street Plan listing. This listing was accidentally omitted in a
later version.
12. Current Situation: On the map section, River Mountain Road as still shown as
a Minor Arterial.
Proposed Changes: According to Ordinance 17891, River Mountain Road should
be shown as a Local Street. This has been corrected on the new map.
13. Current Situation: Goodson Road was shown as a Local Street on the
existing map section.
Proposed Changes: The new maps will show Goodson Road as a Collector as
per Ordinance 17303.
While the majority of these changes are very minor, there are three issues being
addressed that are more significant. The first of these changes addresses the
fact that Collectors are only required to have sidewalks on one side now. This
amendment would require all Commercial Streets to have sidewalks on both
sides. The Public Works Department has already been requesting Commercial
Streets to build sidewalks on both sides of the street and staff would like to see
this incorporated into the actual Master Street Plan to ensure consistency
between all developments. Residential Collectors would still only be required to
have a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Another more significant change addresses parking on Minor Residential Streets.
These streets currently allow a minimum pavement width of 24'. This amendment
would change the requirement to a minimum pavement width of 26' with no
parking restriction or a minimum of 24' with a parking restriction for one side. This
change is to make sure that these narrow roads are safe for parking and moving
traffic efficiently.
The last change was included to address traffic calming measures. Currently the
Master Street Plan does not address this topic at all, and this amendment would
insert a paragraph to include traffic calming requirements. This is found on page
7 of the new draft. This amendment is an effort to design streets that move traffic
efficiently without having to retrofit these streets after the fact.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
5
A few more substantial changes had been included, but these have been
removed from the package. Also, Staff understands from conversations through
the process that there are other changes some wish to see in the Master Street
Plan document. Staff also believes there might be some additional more
significant changes that should be considered for inclusion in the Master Street
Plan, but believes it would be better to hold these issues for a more thorough
discussion of each possible addition. The changes proposed now are intended
to make the document easier to use and to eliminate conflicts that were
discovered. Staff will develop a list of more significant possible changes for
consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors at a later date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
Commissioner Rector moved that the item be deferred to allow for additional
conversations on the proposal. By a vote of 8 for, 0 against the item was
deferred to the March 19, 2009 hearing.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
Name: Land Use Plan Amendment – Geyer Springs West Planning District
Location: The north side of Baseline Road, east of Cloverdale Road
Request: Single Family to Office
Source: Michael Hight
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The request is for a Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West
Planning District from Single Family to Office. Office represents services
provided directly to consumers as well as general offices that support more basic
economic activities. The applicant has requested a rezoning from R-2 Single
Family District to O-3 General Office. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment
request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include area to the
east and west of this property. With these changes, the Office that is currently
shown along Baseline Road would be expanded to include all of the property
owners’ properties. It is thought that the additional area would make the
boundaries more logical.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The amendment area is all zoned as R-2 Single Family District. The amendment
area is actually the northern portion of six separate parcels. These lots are
approximately 360 feet deep from Baseline Road and the structures are located
on the front half of the properties. The amendment portion is mostly backyard
and open space. Half of these properties are being occupied and the other half
are for sale or vacant. R-2 zoning surrounds this amendment on all sides. The
south side of Baseline Road is zoned O-3 General Office for Cloverdale Estates
apartment homes, a post office branch, and the Department of Human Services
office.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The amendment area is currently shown as Single Family on the Land Use Plan.
As stated above, this amendment is to bring the northern boundary of the Office
category further north to encompass the whole depth of these six parcels. A
section of Office runs along the north and south side of Baseline and beyond
those boundaries is mostly shown as Single Family. Commercial is shown along
Baseline to the west and southwest around the Baseline/Chicot intersection.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Plan. The primary function
of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
2
generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Entrances and exits should
be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Baseline
since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way
and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
BICYCLE PLAN:
There are no bike routes in this vicinity.
PARKS:
According to the Master Parks Plan, this area is within eight blocks of a park.
Ottenheimer Park is located to the northwest of this amendment area.
HISTORIC DISTRICTS:
There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this
amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This area is covered by the Cloverdale Watson Neighborhood Action Plan. One
of their Economic Goals states: “Encourage new businesses to locate in existing
vacant structures whenever possible.” Their Land Use and Zoning Goal states:
“Support non-residential changes in areas shown on Future Land Use Plan as
such.” This is applicable because the south portion of the applicant’s property is
already shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.
ANALYSIS:
This future land use plan amendment for this section of Baseline has been in
place for many years without any amendments. The plan has shown an
approximately 175’ deep strip of Office along the north side of Baseline Road
from the Pine Gardens Apartments on the east to the 7000 block of Baseline on
the west. About half of the structures in this strip of Office are used for general
office uses and the other half are either vacant or used for single family
residences. These residences are situated on lots that are approximately 360
feet deep from Baseline Road. The structures are located on the front half of the
properties in the area designated as Office on the Plan.
This amendment was originally filed because of a rezoning at 7002 Baseline
Road from R-2 to O-3 General Office. Staff expanded the land use plan
amendment to include the northern half of the parcels along the 7000 block of
Baseline Road. This amendment would simply expand the Office category to
include the northern portion of six separate parcels.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-15-01
3
This part of Little Rock has been developed for quite some time. The houses
along this portion of Baseline Road appear to be half unoccupied and in
substandard condition. While there is already a large section of Office shown
along this part of Baseline Road, all six of the parcels are still zoned R-2 Single
Family. In order for any of the property owners to be able to rezone to an office
use, the northern half of the properties must be shown as Office for any future
rezoning. There are not many areas available for Office development in this area
besides this section that is already shown as Office. There has been a recent
influx of new residents to this area and the change in population has created a
demand for services that are not currently being met in the area. New office
uses along Baseline Road could help meet some of these needs.
The south side of Baseline in this area is shown as Office on the Plan and is
used for the Department of Human Services, a Post Office and an apartment
complex. The north side of Baseline in the proposed amendment area has many
vacant and for sale residences that have been unoccupied for some time. This
area has been shown on the Plan for some time for Office and Staff feels this
category is still appropriate. Staff believes this is a minor amendment because it
is really just moving the line of the Office category to mirror that of the parcels
along Baseline Road.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Allendale, Chicot,
Cloverdale and SWLRUP. Staff has received two comments from area
residents: one in favor and one in opposition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval with the condition of adding a fifty foot Park/Open
Space buffer along the northern edge of Office to protect the residential to the
north.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The Item was placed on consent agenda for approval with a 50 foot OS around
the north, east and west boundaries. The consent agenda was approved by a
vote of 8 for and 0 against.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1.1 FILE NO.: Z-8428
Owner: Leo Kordsmeier
Applicant: Baptist Missionary Association of Arkansas
By Michael Hight
Location: 7002 Baseline Road
Area: 2.41 Acres
Request: Rezone from R-2 to O-3
Purpose: Church and Hispanic Outreach Center
Existing Use: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North – Undeveloped property and single family residences; zoned R-2
South – Multi-family residences, post office, single family residence and
mobile home park (across Baseline Road); zoned O-3 and R-2
East – Single family residences, ; zoned R-2
West – Single family residences; zoned R-2
A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT:
The site is located on CATA Bus Routes #17 (Mabelvale – Downtown
Route) and #17A (Mabelvale – UALR Route).
C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Cloverdale, Allendale,
Chicot and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the rezoning request.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO: 1.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8428
2
D. LAND USE ELEMENT:
This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Office on the south side of the property and Single
Family on the north side of this property. The applicant has applied for a
rezoning from R-2 Single Family to O-3 General Office.
A Land Use Plan Amendment (LU09-15-01) is a separate item on this
agenda.
Master Street Plan:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Plan. 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 Baseline Road since it is a Principal Arterial. This street
may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements
for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan:
There are no bike routes in this vicinity.
Neighborhood Action Plan:
This area is covered by the Cloverdale Watson Neighborhood Action Plan.
One of their Economic Goals states: “Encourage new businesses to
locate in existing vacant structures whenever possible.” Their Land Use
and Zoning Goal states: “Support non-residential changes in areas shown
on Future Land Use Plan as such.” This is applicable because the south
portion of the applicant’s property is already shown as Office on the Future
Land Use Plan.
E. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Leo Kordsmeier, owner of the 2.41 acre property located at 7002 Baseline
Road, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family
District to “O-3” General Office District. The property is located on the
north side of Baseline Road, between Verbena Drive and Cloverdale
Road. The rezoning is proposed to allow the development of a Hispanic
outreach center, including a church and bible institute.
The 2.41 acre property contains a one-story single family residential
structure and two (2) accessory structures within the west half of the site.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO: 1.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8428
3
The east half of the property is mostly tree-covered. There is a one-car
wide driveway from Baseline Road near the southwest corner of the
property.
The general area contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There are single
family residences located east and west of the site along the north side of
Baseline Road. There is a multifamily development (Cloverdale Estates),
post office and other associated uses across Baseline Road to the south.
There is undeveloped property and single family residences to the north.
The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as office and
single family. Approximately the south 200 feet of the site is designated
as Office, with the northern portion being shown as Single Family. The
2.41 acre site is approximately 350 feet deep. A Land Use Plan
Amendment for the north portion of the property is a separate item on this
agenda.
Staff is supportive of the requested rezoning to O-3, subject to the north
50 feet of the property (0.344 acre) being zoned OS (open-space) and
maintained as an undisturbed buffer. Staff feels additional area is needed
within the northern portion of the property to help buffer the single family
properties to the north from the future development along Baseline Road.
Staff views the request to develop the property as a Hispanic resource
center and church to be reasonable. The properties to the east and west
are also designated as office on the City’s future Land Use Plan, as is the
property across Baseline Road to the south. Staff believes the rezoning is
appropriate and, with the OS strip along the north property line, will have
no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested O-3 rezoning, subject to the
north 50 feet of the property being zoned OS and maintained as an
undisturbed buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the application with a recommendation of approval.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the
Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: LA-0018-A
NAME: Cantrell Road Land Alteration Variance Request
LOCATION: 16724 Cantrell Road, northside of Cantrell Road and east of N.
Katillus Road
APPLICANT: William L. Adams
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Patricia Adams
AREA: Approximately 1.6 acres
CURRENT ZONING: R2
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance from the Land Alteration
Regulations to exceed the fill requirements of Sec. 29-190 with construction not
being imminent.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant is requesting a variance from the Land Alteration Regulations to
fill and grade approximately 1.6 acres of a larger tract of land with
construction not being imminent. The subject property is located on the
northeast corner of Cantrell Road and N. Katillus Road. The filled area is
approximately 450 ft north of Cantrell Road and approximately 300 feet east
of N. Katillus Road. The applicant desires to clear underbrush as allowed by
the code and then to fill the property with approximately 2500 cubic yards of
dirt which is in excess of the 1000 cubic yards as allowed by the Land
Alteration Regulations without the need for a grading permit to be issued.
The applicant has already cleared underbrush in the area proposed to be
filled and filled about 2000 cubic yards of dirt just south of the proposed fill
area closer to Cantrell Road. A variance was approved by the Planning
Commission on July 5, 2007 for this filling activity. The approval of the July
5, 2007 variance allowed for filling activities to continue until September 30,
2008. The applicant now desires to fill an additional 2500 cubic yards
without construction being imminent. The applicant is again seeking a
variance from the Planning Commission for issuance of a grading permit to
begin the filling activities.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This approximately 1.6 acre area is part of a larger tract of R2 zoned land
greater than 5 acres located on the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and
N. Katillus Road. Undeveloped R2 zoned property is located on the east
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0018-A
2
and used for pasture and a residence just east of the pasture. A preliminary
plat application was recently filed with the Planning Commission for the
pasture area but was withdrawn on February 5, 2009. To the north is
developed R2 zoned property. To the northwest is Leisure Arts, a planned
commercial development. To the west is N. Katillus Road and just west of
N. Katillus Road is a commercial strip center zoned C3. To the southwest of
the property across N. Katillus Road is a Shell gas station, a planned
commercial development. Directly south of the area proposed to be filled is
an area that has already been cleared and filled with approximately 2000
cubic yards with rental homes owned by the applicant. South of the rental
homes is Cantrell Road with planned office developments on the south side
of Cantrell Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Certified mail notices were sent by the applicant to neighboring properties
as per ordinance requirements. As of this writing, staff has received one (1)
telephone call from Mr. Gene Pfiefer stating his support of the filling project.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. No fill material can be added within the drip line of the trees. The drip
line of each tree must be bounded with orange protective fencing.
Orange protective fencing or silt fence should be installed along all
areas not to be filled.
2. A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved
prior to the start of construction. An erosion control plan will be
required to be submitted prior to issuance of grading permit.
3. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to
the start of construction.
4. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of filling and clearing activities.
5. Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted
stormwater.
6. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
7. Per Section 29-190(15) of the Little Rock code, a minimum strip of 25 ft
wide from the edge of streams shall not be filled. The 25 ft strip shall
be measured from the top of the bank.
8. At the completion of the fill project, the filled area should be graded to
maintain positive drainage.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0018-A
3
E. PLANNING COMMENTS:
1. With the Planning Commission approval of the property being filled,
does not allow additional rental structures to be constructed on the
property without a separate Planning Commission hearing on the
additions.
F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (January 29, 2009)
Patricia Adams, daughter of the applicant, was present representing the
applicant. Staff stated the comments as written above. Commissioner
Yates asked staff the proposed depth of the fill and how the filled area
would transition with the adjacent property to the east. Staff was unsure
of the depth of the fill but stated a drainage ditch is located between the
subject property and the property to the east and the drainage ditch is
required to be maintained. There was no further discussion of the item.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
G. ANALYSIS:
The applicant was previously granted a variance by the Planning
Commission on July 5, 2007 to fill an area on the subject property just
north of Cantrell Road with approximately 2000 cubic yards of dirt. The
Planning Commission conditioned the approval to fill the property until
September 30, 2008. The applicant filled the area and complied with all
requirements placed on the project by the Planning Commission and staff.
No complaints were received by staff during the filling activity.
With this application, the applicant is now requesting to fill an additional
2500 cubic yards of fill on an approximately 1.6 acre area just north of the
last area filled. To date the applicant has cleared underbrush from the
proposed area to be filled. The applicant has stated that fill will not be
placed within the drip line of the existing trees. The filling activity will raise
the grade of the subject area about 1 to 2 ft. The source of the fill is from
the new west Little Rock school being constructed on the southwest
corner of Taylor Loop Road and Cantrell Road which is very near the
applicant’s property.
The applicant states, he will maintain control over the access to the site to
prevent the property from becoming a dump site for fill material not from
the school site. Orange fencing should be installed around the drip line of
the trees and 25 ft from the top of bank of the stream or ditch adjacent to
the west to delineate the areas not to be filled prior to the start of filling
activities. The ditch or drainage path along the eastern property line
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LA-0018-A
4
should be maintained and not filled. Silt fence should be installed on the
downstream side of the filled area along the ditch and drainage paths on
the eastern and western side of the filled area. Silt fence should also be
placed on the northern side of the filled area. The filled area should be
graded to maintain positive drainage and vegetation established on
disturbed areas within 21 days of completion of filling activities.
If the application is approved by the Planning Commission, a grading
permit is required to be issued by Public Works to the applicant or a
representative of the applicant prior to filling activities beginning.
Finally, the approval of the variance for the filling activities does not allow
additional rental structures to be constructed on the property without a
separate approval from the Planning Commission.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the variance request subject to
compliance with the Public Works and Planning comments found in
paragraphs D and E of the write-up.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item
with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraph D and E of the above agenda
staff report.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
NAME: Cia Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit
Time Extension
LOCATION: 2407 Battery Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Monica Cia
PROPOSAL: One year time extension of previously approved
conditional use permit to allow use of this existing
structure as a day care center.
STAFF REPORT:
The lot located at 2407 Battery Street is occupied by a one-story, frame,
residential-style structure and a concrete-paved parking lot. The property was
previously zoned PCD and was part of a larger PCD located to the east. At one
time, this structure was physically attached to the larger PCD. This structure was
subsequently separated from the larger structure and the property was sold. On
January 19, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit
to allow use of this building as a day care center and also voted to recommend
revocation of the PCD zoning for this lot. On February 21, 2006, the Board of
Directors passed Ordinance No. 19,488 which revoked the PCD for this lot and
restored the previous R-4 zoning.
Section 36-108.(c ) of the code sets a three year time period for activation of an
approved conditional use permit. Failure to obtain required permits within three
years of approval results in the C.U.P. being voided.
During the three years since approval of C.U.P., the applicant has had several
parties interested in the building for use as a day care center. For a variety of
reasons, each has chosen not to use this site. The applicant is continuing to
market the site for rent as a day care. In addition, she is considering renewing
her own day care licensing so that she may operate the day care. The applicant
has requested a one-year extension of the C.U.P. approval.
Since the date of approval, only one significant change has occurred in the
immediate neighborhood. The former Mitchell School property located across
Battery Street to the west has been rezoned to PCD for a mixed use
development.
Staff is supportive of allowing a one-year time extension, subject to compliance
with all previously required conditions. A copy of the January 19, 2006
Commission minute record is attached for the Commission’s information.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a one-year time extension until January 19, 2010,
subject to compliance with all previously required conditions as attached in
zoning case file Z-4985-F.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
January 19, 2006
Attachment to Item No.: 3
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
NAME: Cia Day Care Center - Conditional Use Permit and
PCD Revocation
LOCATION: 2407 Battery Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Monica Cia
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of
this existing structure as a day care center. The
property is currently zoned PCD. The applicant is
requesting approval of the revocation of the PCD
zoning and restoration of the previous R-4 zoning.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the east side of Battery Street; ½ block north of
Roosevelt Road.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site is located in an area that has a mixture of residential and
institutional uses. A church is located one lot to the south. The large,
PCD zoned building to the east has gone through several use proposals
and revisions. The most recent, in 2002, allowed its use as a day care.
The former Mitchell School is located to the west. This building is now
being proposed for redevelopment as housing for unwed mothers. Single
family and two family homes are located in the general vicinity
surrounding the site. Use of this structure for a relatively small day care
should be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents
within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Southend
Developers and Southend and Wright Avenue Neighborhood Associations
were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The entire front yard of the lot is paved; a vestige of its previous use as a
day care. A day care center for 18 children with 4 employees requires
5 parking spaces. A day care center for 12 adults with 3 employees
requires 4 parking spaces. There is space to park 2-3 vehicles on the site
so that they do not back into the street. The applicant has committed to
leaving parking on the site for patrons. The employees will park on the
street. There is adequate on street parking since the school across the
street closed. The applicant will also continue to try to obtain parking from
the church located to the south.
January 19, 2006
Attachment to Item No.: 3
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
2
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
All improvements and parking area are existing. Screening should be
installed along the north and south perimeters of the site.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. With the current location of the driveway and parking area, vehicles
back onto Battery Street and create unsafe driving conditions.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Entergy: No Comments received.
CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell: No Comments received.
Water: No objection to use as daycare center. Contact Central Arkansas
Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are needed.
Fire Department: Five sprinklers may be required; fire hydrant may be
required. Contact LRFD Fire Marshall at 918-3710.
County Planning: No Comments.
CAT A: The site is located on a CAT A bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 2005)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional
information was needed regarding days and hours of operation, signage, site
lighting and dumpster location. Staff asked the applicant to provide a parking
plan. Staff noted that approval was being sought for either a child day care for
18 children or an adult day care for 12 adults.
Utility, Public Works and Landscape Comments were noted. The applicant was
advised to contact those individual agencies.
Staff noted that the property was currently zoned PCD and the applicant needed
to request revocation of the PCD.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday,
December 28, 2005. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
January 19, 2006
Attachment to Item No.: 3
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The lot located at 2407 Battery Street is occupied by a one-story, frame,
residential style, structure and a concrete-paved parking area. The property is
zoned PCD and is part of a larger PCD that includes the property to the east. At
one time, this structure was physically connected to the larger structure to the
east. The connection has been removed. The overall PCD has a lengthy history,
which included the use of the buildings for a variety of uses; including
day care, duplex residence plus a fairly lengthy list of 0-1 uses. In 1999, the
PCD was revoked. In 2002, the then-owner requested renewal of the PCD,
which included the full range of previously, approved uses. The Commission
denied the request, while stating the property was more appropriate for use as a
day care. The Board also denied the applicant's request and approved the PCD
for day care only. The record is somewhat unclear about the specific approved
use of this lot; whether duplex or day care. In any case, the PCD approved was
over three years ago and the structure on this lot has now been physically
separated from the larger building. Staff believes it is appropriate to revoke the
PCD zoning for this lot, restoring the R-4 zoning and then approving a C.U.P. for
the proposed day care use.
The applicant is requesting approval of the PCD revocation and of a conditional
use permit to allow a day care center. The applicant proposes to have either a
day care center for 18 children with 4 employees or a day care center for 12
adults with 3 employees. The use will be either one or the other, not both at the
same time. Days and hours of operation are proposed as Monday through
Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Signage will consist of a 3' X 8' wall sign on
the front façade of the structure. There will be no dumpster. The applicant
proposes to utilize trash cans and private pick-up. No changes are proposed in
site-lighting, which currently consists of security lighting on the perimeter of the
site. Privacy fencing is located on the north and south perimeters of the site. The
1890 bill of assurance does not address use issues.
The entire front of the lot is paved and has been used for parking. Staff does not
support allowing vehicles to back into the street. Parking needs to be designed,
perhaps with the use of striping, so that vehicles enter and exit the site in forward
motion. There is parking on the site to accommodate 2-3 vehicles. The
applicant has stated the on-site parking will be reserved for patrons. Employees
will utilize on-street parking. There is sufficient on-street parking available since
the elementary school located across the street closed.
Staff believes the proposed day care is an appropriate use for this site. To
staff's knowledge, there are no other outstanding issues.
January 19, 2006
Attachment to Item No.: 3
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4985-F
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. and PCD revocation subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. All outdoor activities are to be limited to daylight hours.
3. Compliance with all applicable fire code and building code requirements for
conversion of this structure into a day care center.
4. Parking is to be designed so that vehicles enter and exit the site in a forward
motion. There is to be no backing into the street.
5. The PCD must be revoked for the C.U.P. to be valid.
Staff recommends approval of the parking variance to allow some on-street
parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 19, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff also
recommended approval of the parking variance. Staff had earlier informed the
Commission that the City's Traffic Engineer had agreed that the "no parking"
signs on the west side of Battery Street could now be removed since the Mitchell
School was closed. There was no further discussion.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by
staff, including all comments and conditions. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-5805-A
NAME: L.E.A.P. Day Care Center and Electrical
Apprenticeship Program Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 11820 Chicot Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronnie Wells/Arleshia Jones
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of
the existing building on this R-2 zoned, 4.25 acre tract
for a day care center and an electrical apprenticeship
program class.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the west side of Chicot Road, between Claybrook
and Hillsboro Roads.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The site fronts onto an arterial street in an area of mixed uses. A closed
car wash is located adjacent to the north of the building and parking lot. A
vacant, wooded, R-2 zoned tract is located across Chicot Road to the
east. A vacant tract is adjacent to the south. Further south are a couple
of non-residential buildings and C-3 zoning. Single family residences and
undeveloped property are located to the north and west of the rear portion
of the tract. This property has an established history of non-residential
use. The small day care and school are compatible with uses in the area.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the tract, all residents
within 300 feet who could be identified and the South West Little Rock
Upper Baseline, Legion Hut, Oxford Valley and Deer Meadow
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site is via a paved driveway off of Chicot Road. The
driveway is shared with the tract to the north which contains an old
carwash building. There is a recorded, 30 foot, ingress/egress drive
easement which is shared between the two properties. This site contains
16 paved parking spaces with additional area available for more parking, if
needed.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5805-A
2
The day care is proposed to have an enrollment of 20 children with a total
of 5 employees, requiring 7 parking spaces. The electrical apprenticeship
program will have up to 8 students per class. The on-site parking is
sufficient to meet the needs of either use.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Any expansion of the building or vehicular use area will require a
corresponding upgrade in landscaping.
Any outdoor playground area should be screened from adjacent
residential property through use of a six (6) foot tall, wood privacy fence or
dense evergreen plantings.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Chicot Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal
arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to fifty-five (55) feet from centerline
will be required. This will result in the loss of at least one (1) parking
space.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water
meter(s) are required. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of
an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly
(RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must
be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water
(CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of
the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester
licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test
results must be sent to CAW’s Cross Connection Section within ten
days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross
Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow
prevention requirements for this project. The Little Rock Fire
Department may require an additional public fire hydrant in conjunctin
with this development. The fire hydrant could be installed by Central
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5805-A
3
Arkansas Water’s forces at Developer’s expense, but would need to be
coordinated with the contractor for this project.
Fire Department: No comment received.
County Planning: No comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009).
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted some additional
information was needed. Staff asked the applicant to provide a signage plan, to
locate and describe any fencing, to locate the dumpster/trash collection area and
screening and to locate playground screening. Staff noted this property shared a
driveway with the property adjacent to the north. The applicant was asked to
provide proof of a cross-access easement. Staff asked when the property was
last occupied by a non-residential use.
Public Works, Utility and outside agency comments were noted.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 4, 2009. In
response to a question from the Committee, the applicant stated she was going
to meet with area neighborhood associations.
The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The R-2 zoned, 4.25 acre tract located at 11820 Chicot Road is occupied by a
one-story, brick, block and frame building and a paved parking lot. The building
and parking lot are located on the front (east) portion of the tract. A portion of the
property behind the building is cleared and mowed. The rear (west) portion of
the property has some wooded area. The building has a history of occupancy by
non-residential uses; most recently, a sign company.
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow use of
the building for a day care center and for an electrical apprenticeship program.
The daycare is proposed to have an enrollment of 20 children with five
employees including a director, 3 childcare providers and a receptionist. The
daycare will operate Monday –Friday, 6:30 A.M. – 5:30 P.M. The anticipated
ages of the children is 6 months – 4 years. A playground will be constructed
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5805-A
4
behind (northwest) the building. The electrical apprenticeship program will
operate Monday – Friday, 6:30 P.M. – 9:30 P.M. The classes will have up to 8
students. A master electrician will teach the courses. No electrical contractor’s
business will be conducted on site.
Staff is supportive of the request. The property is appropriately located for the
proposed uses. The applicant responded to issues raised at subdivision
committee. A copy of a warranty deed was provided showing a shared
driveway/access easement with the property to the north. There is no bill of
assurance for the tract. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing ground
sign. Evergreen vegetation will be planted along the north fence line where the
property abuts the homes in Oxford Valley. The playground itself will be located
70-80 feet away from that property line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4.5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. The applicant may use the existing ground-mounted sign. Any new signage
must comply with signage allowed in office and institutional zoned.
3. There is to be no electrical contractor’s business on the site, including storage
of materials or equipment.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-8426
NAME: Ashcraft Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 1720 Walnut Grove Road
OWNER/APPLICANT: Michael Ashcraft/Marlor Engineering
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of a
portion of an accessory building on this 12.73 acre,
AF zoned tract as an accessory dwelling.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located at the corner of Kanis and Walnut Grove Roads.
The property is outside of the city limits but within the City’s zoning
jurisdiction.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in a rural area characterized by homes and farms
on large tracts and large areas of undeveloped, wooded properties. The
large tract contains a single family residence and several accessory
buildings, including the one proposed for use as an accessory dwelling.
The applicant proposes to use 900 square feet of the existing 3,000
square foot building as the accessory dwelling. The proposed use should
be compatible with the neighborhood.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, and all
residents within 300 feet were notified of the proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Both the single family residence and the proposed accessory dwelling are
served by separate driveways off of Walnut Grove Road. Both driveways
are paved and provide parking well in excess of the one (1) space per
dwelling requirement of the code.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No Comments.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8426
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1. Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial
with a proposed ninety (90) foot right-of-way. This street is planned to
be constructed with five (5) lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalks and a
potential of 18,000 vehicles per day.
2. Walnut Grove Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as an
principal arterial with a proposed one hundred ten (110) foot right-of-
way. This street is planned to be constructed with five (5) lanes, curb,
gutter and sidewalks and a potential of 18,000 to 25,000 vehicles per
day.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Central Arkansas Water does not have water service available in
this area.
Fire Department: Outside of service boundary. Contact local Volunteer
Fire department and provide statement indicating ability to provide
service and any comments.
County Planning: Approved as submitted.
CATA: Outside of service boundary.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009)
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and asked the applicant to
provide additional information on the proposed accessory dwelling, including
square footage, other uses in the structure, whether separate utilities were
requested and who would be occupying the dwelling.
Public Works staff noted the master street plan projection for Kanis and Walnut
Grove Roads as information for the applicant.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8426
3
Staff noted the utility and fire department comments and requested the applicant
provide a statement from the local volunteer fire department.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 4, 2009. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The AF zoned, 12.73 acre tract located at 1720 Walnut Grove Road is occupied
by a large, single family residence and several accessory buildings. One of the
accessory buildings, a one-story, 3,000 square foot, metal building, is located on
the eastern portion of the property. The applicant is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit to allow use of 900 square feet of the 3,000 square foot
structure as an accessory dwelling. The remaining 2,100 square feet of the
structure is a garage/storage/shop area. The property is located outside of the
city limits, within the City’s zoning jurisdiction.
Staff is supportive of the requested Conditional Use Permit. The 12.73 acre tract
is more than large enough to support both the principal dwelling and accessory
dwelling. The property owner could divide the tract into two parcels, each
exceeding 5 acres, and two dwelling would be allowed without any approval from
the City. The 900 square foot accessory dwelling will contain a one-bedroom
efficiency apartment and will be occupied by family and friends of the property
owner as a “guesthouse.” The remainder of the 3,000 square foot structure will
be used as garage/storage/shop area. There will be no commercial use of the
garage portion of the structure. This is important because, in the recent past, the
applicant’s son has conducted some auto repair business in the building. He
was notified by the City that auto repair is not permitted and the activity has
ceased. The building already has separate utilities.
To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues. There is no bill of
assurance for this acreage tract. The applicant responded to issues raised at
Subdivision Committee as noted in the analysis above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the
agenda staff report.
2. There is to be no commercial use of the accessory building or the property
other than those uses permitted in the AF zoned.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8426
4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. There was no further
discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as
recommended by staff. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8427
NAME: American Tower – Tower Use Permit
LOCATION: 6208 Red Bud Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: Andrew and Amber Cates/American Tower
PROPOSAL: A tower use permit is requested to allow for
construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless
communication facility support structure on this R-2
zoned, 8.2+ acre tract.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The site is located on the east side of the dead-end of Red Bud Lane,
south of Chicopee Trail. The property is outside the city limits, but within
the City’s zoning jurisdiction.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area characterized by single family homes on
large tracts, agricultural uses and tracts of undeveloped, wooded land.
The tower is proposed to be located within an 8+ acre tract. Tracts of
similar size or larger are located to the north, south and west. The nearest
residences on the single family lots to the east and further north are
located over 700 feet from the proposed tower site. Much of the area
immediately around the tower site is heavily wooded.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the 8+ acre parent tract,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the South West
Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Association were notified of
this request.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the tower site will be from an access easement off of the end of
Red Bud Lane. A gravel base will be installed within the enclosed tower
compound to provide an area for any technicians or service persons to
park. No additional parking is required.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Landscaping and screening of WCF site must comply with standards
outlined in Section 36-593(c ).
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427
2
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Central Arkansas Water does not have water service available to
this tract.
Fire Department: Outside of service boundary. Contact local Volunteer
Fire department and provide statement indicating ability to provide
service and any comments prior to any site work.
County Planning: Approved as submitted.
CATA: Outside of service boundary.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009).
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional
information was needed. The applicant was advised to provide an ERP
statement as well as a statement clearly indicating collocation would be
permitted. Staff had asked the applicant to provide justification for the increased
tower height and the applicant provided copies of propogation maps showing
coverage differences based on varying tower heights.
Utility and Fire department comments were noted. The applicant was advised to
provide a statement from the local volunteer fire department.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 4, 2009. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427
3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
American Tower Corporation is requesting approval of a tower use permit to
allow construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless communication
facility support structure (tower) on this R-2 zoned, 8+ acre tract. The tower is to
be erected on a slight knoll located near the middle of the tract. The tower will be
designed to accommodate up to 4 carriers. The initial carrier on the tower will be
AT&T.
The tower will be located in a 100’ x 100’ lease area within the 8+ acre tract.
Access will be via an access and utility easement off of Red Bud Lane. The
proposed tower site complies with all aspects of the City’s regulations covering
WCF’s with the exception of the tower height. Since the tower exceeds the
height of 150 feet, a tower use permit is required.
The tower site will contain a 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip as specified by
the code. An 8 foot tall wood privacy fence will be constructed within the
landscape strip. A gate in the fence will allow access to the tower. American
Tower will construct the facility and lease space to various providers. The
applicant has stated colocation of other providers will be vigorously marketed.
At staff’s request, the applicant provided justification for the requested tower
height. Propogation maps were provided showing a substantial gap in area
coverage. The coverage is barely enhanced by a 150 foot tower due to the
rolling terrain in the area. The coverage area is greatly enhanced under the
increased tower height. No other options are available such as an existing tower
or tall building.
A separate WCF application will be submitted for staff review as each individual
carrier proposes to locate on the tower. At that time, the carrier will have to
provide information on the measurement of effective radiated power of the facility
to assure compliance with FCC standards.
The tower will have setbacks from the parent tract’s property lines of 460’ on the
east, 720’ on the west, 90’ on the north and 130’ on the south. The nearest
residence, other than the home on the subject tract, is located over 700 feet from
the proposed tower site. The tower is to be 300’ from the home on the subject
tract.
There is no bill of assurance for this acreage tract. Written approval from the
local volunteer fire department will be provided prior to construction of the tower.
To staff’s knowledge there are no outstanding issues.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427
4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Tower Use Permit subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6
of the agenda staff report.
2. A separate WCF application must be submitted to staff and approved for each
carrier to locate on the tower.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
Laura McAnear and Lanny Shepherd were present representing the application.
There were several objectors present. Several letters and e-mails of opposition
had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commissioners. Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the
conditions outlined in the “staff recommendation” above. Vice-chair Yates noted
there were only 8 Commissioners present and asked Ms. McAnear if she wished
to defer the item. Ms. McAnear responded that she wished to proceed.
Ms. McAnear addressed the Commission and explained the 300 foot tall tower
was needed due to the surrounding terrain. She passed out copies of area
propogation maps showing the coverage provided by existing towers in the area.
She stated AT & T had received complaints from customers regarding a lack of
complete coverage in the area. Ms. McAnear stated a proposed tower site had to
meet three (3) criteria; it had to be a leaseable site, it had to meet the City’s
ordinance requirements and it had to meet the cellular carriers’ RF requirements.
She reserved the remainder of her time to respond to objectors’ issues.
Susan Boyle, of 57 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke in opposition. She voiced
concern about the proposed height of the tower and stated it was the wrong
location for such a facility. She stated she had AT & T service and it was “ok.”
Elaine Burks, of 76 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke next in opposition. She stated the
site was in a residential zone surrounded by single -family residences. She
stated other locations should be considered. Ms. Burks stated American Tower
had been fined in the past for violations.
Sam Cooper, of 67 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the proposed tower would be an
eyesore.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427
5
Wally Johnson, of 15004 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition and stated the
tower would have an impact on the view he has from his property. He also stated
other sites should be considered.
Andrew Lachowsky, of 15012 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition. He noted the
number of homes in the area that he felt would be impacted by the tower.
Janet Lanza, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the tower would extend above the
tree line and would be visible from her home. She stated there was industrial
property in the area, along Lawson Road, that would be better suited for the
tower.
Bob Petrick, of 44 Belle Meadow Lane, presented a petition signed by area
residents in opposition to the propose tower.
Nancy Pruitt, of 15523 Chicopee Trail, stated her home would look over the
tower. She voiced concerns about radiation from the tower and decreased
property values. She stated there were better sites in the area.
Joel Schmidt, of 71 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he wanted to echo his neighbors’
concerns.
Jim Winter, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he was opposed to cellular towers
being located in any residential area. He commented that the tower could be
located elsewhere, such as on one of the ridges in the area, outside of the
neighborhood. He asked the Commission to make the applicant prove that this
was the only site and tower height that would work. He stated the tower would
interfere with television signals both over the air and on satellite.
Robert Watts, of 4524 S. Lookout, stated he owned property adjacent to the
south of the proposed tower site. He stated the only buildable site on his property
was within 250 feet of the tower site.
Laura McAnear responded that the tower site would comply with all City codes
other than the height. She reiterated the three site requirements and stated this
site met all qualifications. She acknowledged that there were many homes in the
area and stated that was the reason increased service was needed. She referred
to the propogation maps and stated there were gaps in coverage in the area. Ms.
McAnear stated the tower would be designed to collapse in on itself, not fall over.
Lanny Shepherd, RF engineer for AT & T, stated there had been several
complaints about lack of coverage in the area. He stated a lower tower height of
150 feet would require putting in more than one tower. He stated other carriers
would also need coverage and they would have to erect even more towers. Mr.
Shepherd stated they had looked at other alternatives and none would work.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427
6
Ms. McAnear commented that the tower site would be kept clean and there
would be very little traffic to the site once the tower was built.
In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Shepherd stated the
company was hoping for 98% coverage and it was less expensive to build a
single 300 foot tower than two 150 foot towers.
Commissioner Smith asked if the only two options were to build a single 300 foot
tower or two 150 foot towers. Mr. Shepherd said those were the two options.
Commissioner Rector commented that the propogation maps did not seen to
indicate that much coverage improvement between a 150 foot tower and a 300
foot tower. Mr. Shepherd responded that there was a difference in coverage and
the expanded coverage would help to “hand off” calls from one tower to the next.
It said the tower would also help to increase signal strength so that calls would
reach into homes better.
In response to a question from Commissioner Changose, Ms. McAnear stated
the tower would be designed to accommodate up to four (4) carriers where a 150
foot tower might only accommodate two (2) carriers.
Commissioner Smith asked what was the boundary of the search area for the
new tower site. Mr. Shepherd responded that the search area was within a one-
half mile radius. He stated moving the tower outside of the half-mile radius would
do very little to no good.
Commissioner Smith asked the residents present if they would prefer one 300
foot tower or two 150 foot towers. Several responded that they did not want any
towers.
A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff
recommendations and conditions. The vote was 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent.
The motion failed.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-8429
NAME: Duffy Event Center
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION: 5001 W. 34th Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Elizabeth Fortner/O.C. Duffy, Jr.
PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of a
portion of the existing building on this I-2 zoned property for
an event center.
1. SITE LOCATION:
The property is located on the south side of W. 34th Street, east of its intersection
with Mary Street.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is located in an area that is primarily light industrial in use and
zoning. Numerous light industrial uses, including a food service distributor, are
located on I-2 zoned properties in the general vicinity. Non-conforming single
family residences are located on I-2 zoned properties to the east and across 34th
Street to the north east. I-2 zoned warehouse properties are located to the west
and north. A small area of occupied single family residences are located to the
west, along 34th and Anna Streets. Staff feels the proposed event center is not
compatible with uses zoning in the area. The property is “tucked” back in behind
an area that contains small industrial uses and single family residences. The
level of traffic, activity and noise generated by the proposed use is of concern.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300
feet who could be identified and the South of Asher and Curran/Conway
Neighborhood Associations were notified of this proposal.
3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
Access to the site is via two driveways off of W. 34th Street. The site contains 19
paved parking spaces. The applicant submitted a plan showing an additional 7
spaces but those spaces do not comply with minimal ordinance standards and
cannot be counted. The applicant has submitted a letter from the owner of the
property located across W. 34th Street. The owner of that property has given
permission for this applicant to park on his property. He indicates up to 25
vehicles may park on that site. Staff believes the number is substantially less.
The building contains an office, storage space and the proposed event center.
The event center is to contain 2500 square feet, requiring 25 parking spaces.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8429
2
The applicant states most of the gatherings at the facility, will have less than 75
attendees but the facility is being designed to accommodate up to 150 persons.
4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Any expansion of the vehicular use area will require compliance with the City’s
Landscape and Buffer Ordinance.
5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS:
Wastewater: Sewer available to this project.
Entergy: No comment received.
CenterPoint Energy: No comment received.
AT&T (SBC): No comment received.
Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meters
are required.
Fire Department: No comment received.
County Planning: No comments.
CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. A bus route is located north of the
site, on Asher Avenue.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009).
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and requested additional
information on signage and hours of operation. Staff requested the applicant provide a
parking plan and specify what other uses would occupy the remainder of the building.
Utility and Fire department comments were noted.
The applicant was advised to respond to staff comments by February 4, 2009. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8429
3
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The I-2 zoned property located at 5001 W. 34th Street is occupied by a 10,600 square
foot metal building and a 19 space parking lot. The applicant is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit to allow use of 2,500 square feet of the building as an event
center (banquet room for rental for birthday parties, family reunions, wedding receptions
and other gatherings). The applicant has been under enforcement by the City for
operating the use without proper zoning approval.
The event center (banquet room) is to occupy 2, 500 square feet of the building.
Approximately 2,000 square feet of the building is office space. The remainder of the
building is used for material storage for the applicant’s construction company which also
occupies the building.
The applicant states most of the gatherings at the facility will have less than 75
attendees but he is designing the facility to accommodate up to 150 persons. Hours of
operation are proposed as 8:30 P.M. – 2:00 A.M. with most use being on Saturday
nights. The applicant proposes to place a dumpster in front of the building, adjacent to
34th Street. Signage will consist of a wall sign on the building. The applicant has
presented a letter from the owner of the property, located across W. 34th Street allowing
use of that site’s parking lot. The bill of assurance does not address use issues.
Staff is not supportive of the proposed use. This property is “tucked in” behind a small
neighborhood of small industrial uses and single family residences.
There is insufficient parking on the site which results in parking on adjacent properties
and in the street. Staff does not believe this is the appropriate location for this level of
traffic and activity. Staff does not support placement of the dumpster within the front
yard setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
The applicant was present. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of denial. Vice-chair Yates noted there were only eight (8)
Commissioners present and asked the applicant if he wished to defer. Mr. Duffy
responded that he wished to proceed.
O.C.Duffy addressed the Commission and stated he wanted a venue that would meet
the needs of persons over 40 years old. He stated he understood the City’s concerns
with “event centers.” He admitted that he had used the building for events without prior
City approval. Mr. Duffy noted the other uses in the area and stated his use would not
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8429
4
create noise or traffic problems. He stated he did not sell alcohol, did not intend to sell
alcohol and would not allow others to sell alcohol in the building.
Nola Ballinger, of 5121 W. 34th Street, spoke in opposition. She asked what restrictions
would be placed on use of the building and how the City would enforce those
restrictions.
She made reference to a party at the facility in December 2008 that resulted in loud
noise, much traffic and even gunfire. She stated persons attending the facility had
parked on the street as far down 34th Street as past her property. Ms. Ballinger stated
the facility would operate like a private club and would create traffic issues.
Ron Copeland, Director of the University District Partnership and representing UALR,
spoke in opposition. He voiced concerns about alcohol use in the facility, late hours of
operation and the proliferation of private clubs in the area.
Mr. Duffy responded that there had been few events at the facility that had generated
any traffic issues. He reiterated that he intended to focus use of the facility on an older
crowd. He stated he would provide any needed parking and would not serve alcohol. He
stated he would say “no alcohol will be allowed in the place period, if necessary.” He
said he was trying to provide a safe venue for a quiet, older crowd. Mr. Duffy stated no
other uses in the area would be affected by his business.
In response to a subsequent discussion, Mr. Duffy stated he was amending his
application to limit the hours of operation to Thursday-Sunday, 10:30 a.m.-1:00 a.m.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rouse, Mr. Duffy stated he had insulated
the building and would add more if needed to assure that noise from the facility is not a
problem.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rouse, Ms. Ballinger stated not all events
at the facility had created parking problems.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended subject to all staff
comments and conditions except the recommendation of denial. It was noted that the
amended application included no alcohol would be served at the facility either by the
applicant or by those leasing the facility and the hours of operation would be Thursday-
Sunday, 10:30 a.m.-1:00 a.m. Staff questioned if that meant persons could bring their
own alcohol to the facility. Mr. Duffy stated no alcohol consumption would be allowed in
the building, period.
The vote on the motion was 7 ayes, 1 noe and 3 absent. The motion was approved.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: LU09-01
Name: Residential Land Use Plan Category Amendment
Source: Staff
PROPOSAL / REQUEST:
The Planning and Development Staff was asked by the Board of Directors to review the
residential categories of the Future Land Use Plan. The categories did not match the
zoning categories very well, and this amendment is an effort to make them more
compatible. The currently adopted residential land use categories and definitions are as
follows:
Single Family Residential – SF
This category provides for single family homes at densities not to exceed 6
dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized
by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes
and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
Low Density Residential – LDR
This category accommodates a broad range of housing types including single
family attached, single family detached, duplex, townhomes, multi-family and
patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing
types may fall in this category provided that the density is between six (6) and ten
(10) dwelling units per acre.
Multi-Family Residential – MF
Multi-Family Residential - The multi-family category accommodates residential
development of ten (10) to thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre.
Mobile Home Park – MH
This category accommodates an area specifically developed to accommodate
mobile homes.
The Planning Staff is proposing the following definitions and category names as a direct
result of this request:
Residential Low Density- RL
This category provides for single family homes at densities not to exceed
6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically characterized
by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or garden homes
and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than 6 units per acre.
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-01
2
Residential Medium Density – RM
This category accommodates a broad range of housing types including single
family attached, single family detached, duplex, town homes, multi-family and
patio or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing
types may fall in this category provided that the density is between six (6) and
twelve (12) dwelling units per acre.
Residential High Density – RH
Multi-Family Residential - The multi-family category accommodates residential
development of twelve (12) or more dwelling units per acre.
Mobile Home Park – MH
This category accommodates an area specifically developed to accommodate
mobile homes.
These residential land use category changes will help citizens differentiate between
zoning categories and future land use categories because the names will be less
similar. Residential Low Density will be the new name for Single Family Residential.
There is no change in the density allowed for this category; it will still only allow up to six
units per acre.
Residential Medium Density will replace Low Density Residential. Low Density
Residential calls for density between six and ten dwelling units per acre, but Residential
Medium Density will allow for density between six and twelve units per acre. This
change was made to allow up to MF-12 Multi Family District in the Medium Density
category.
Multi Family Residential will be replaced by Residential High Density. The current Multi
Family category allows densities of ten to 36 units per acre. The new category of
Residential High Intensity will change the density to 12 or more units per acre. This
change was needed because the zoning classifications allow for up to 72 units per acre
(R-6 High Rise Apartment District). While most developments with this kind of density
are located downtown in the Urban Use land use category, this residential category will
accommodate higher zonings that had not previously been represented.
The Mobile Home Park category will remain the same.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
February 19, 2009
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU09-01
3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the requested changes to the Land Use Plan,
Residential Use definitions. First is a change in the allowed densities - with the middle
residential category going from 6 – 10 to 6 - 12 units per acre and the highest density
currently with a top limit of 36 units per acre would not have a top limit expressed. This
is to move the MF-12 zoning to the middle density and to recognize there are zoning
classifications with greater than 36 units per acre. The second change is to the names
– Single Family becomes Residential Low Density, Low Density Residential to
Residential Medium Density and Multifamily to Residential High Density. This change is
proposed due to recent confusion between the Land Use Plan and Zoning Classification
names and is intended to reduce future confusion.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters addressed the Commission. The League has
concerns about the open-ended density for the Residential High Density. She indicated
that maybe an additional category was needed. In addition there could be unintended
consequences by using these proposed definitions. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director
indicated that Staff felt that the changes would reduce confusion and needed to include
all the possible residential densities in the Little Rock Zoning Code.
A motion was made to approve the requested definition changes. By a vote of 7 for and
0 against the amendment was approved.