The URL can be used to link to this page

pc_10 21 2004 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 21, 2004 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 Gary Langlais Norm Floyd Mizan Rahman Darrin Williams Bill Rector Robert Stebbins Fred Allen, Jr. Jerry Meyer Members Absent: Bob Lowry Chauncey Taylor City Attorney: Cindy Dawson III. Approval of the Minutes of the September 9, 2004 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING – REZONING – CONDITIONAL USE HEARING OCTOBER 21, 2004 4:00 P.M. I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Z-7620 Bubar Family Care Facility – Special Use Permit 3712 High Drive B. LU04-19-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning District on the southeast and southwest corners of Chalamont and Cantrell Road from Single Family to Commercial. C. Z-7623 Rezoning from R-2 to C-3 Southeast and Southwest corners of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive D. Z-7708 Wilborn Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit 3 Elrod Drive E. Z-7711 Little Rock Fire Department Station 16 – Conditional Use Permit 11000 Southridge Drive F. Z-7683 Baird Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit 3316 West 12th Street G. Ordinance Amending Section 36-556.(b) to add Kanis Road, Stagecoach Road and portions of Colonel Glenn Road and Financial Center/Chenal Parkway to the list of Scenic Corridors. H. Z-7677 Abraham Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit 8824 West 34th Street I. Z-7682 Goss Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit 6709 Lantana J. LU04-11-03 Amendment in the I-430 District from MOC to CS Between Shackleford Road and I-430 North of Old Shackleford Road J.1. Z-4923-B Rezoning from PCD to O-2 and C-2 Southwest corner of S. Shackleford Road and I-430 K. Ligniappe’ Addition Short-form PD-R (Z-7722), located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and “I” Street. Agenda, Page Two II. NEW ITEMS: 1. G-23-340 Gaines Street – Right-of-Way Abandonment Between West 4th Street and Capitol Avenue 2. Z-7727 Vaden Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit 7815 West 38th Street 3. Z-4343-O Rezoning from O-2 to C-3 Southeast corner of Chenonceau Blvd. and Ranch Drive 4. LU04-15-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District on Mabelvale West Road East of I-30 from Office to Commercial and Low Density Residential. 4.1. Z-4768-A Rezoning from O-3 to R-2 and C-3 North side of Mabelvale West Road, East of I-30 5. Z-7728 Rezoning from R-2 to O-3 11700 Kanis Road 6. LU04-21-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Burlingame Planning District west of Stewart Road between Kanis and Denny Roads from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial. 6.1. Z-7729 Rezoning from R-2 to C-1 18303 Denny Road and 18900/18904 Kanis Road 7. Z-5230-B Gibbs Elementary School – Conditional Use Permit 1115 West 16th Street 8. Z-6345-A Mulkey Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit 208 Rose Street 9. Z-7724 Mae-Mae’s Homecare Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit 3500 Zion Street 10. Z-7725 Black Community Developers Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit 4017 West 12th Street Agenda, Page Three II. NEW ITEMS: (Cont.) 11. Z-7726 Victory Outreach Church Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit 3401 West 12th Street 12. Z-6973-B Rezoning from R-2 to C-3 Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and David O. Dodd Roads 13. Bylaw Amendment – Special Use Permit Supplemental Notice October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-7620 Owner: Bubar Family Care Facility – Special Use Permit Location: 3712 High Drive Applicant: Dennis Bubar Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow for the operation of a Family Care Facility on the R-4 zoned property located at 3712 High Drive. A. Public Notification: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the South End, MLK and South End Neighborhood Developers Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. B. Staff Analysis: Dennis Bubar, owner of the single family residence located at 3712 High Drive, is requesting a special use permit to allow for the operation of a Family Care Facility at that address. All of the adjacent properties are zoned R-4, with the exception of the lot immediately to the north which is zoned I-3, and is undeveloped. There is additional I-3 zoned property further to the north and east, with PR zoning further west and south. There are single family residences located to the north, south and east. The property is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence, with four (4) bedrooms. The applicant is requesting a special use permit in order to provide a residence for four (4) to six (6) individuals who have a mental disability and may also have a substance abuse problem. The residents are involved in a program, where treatment and services are provided by Gain, Inc. A letter provided by Gain, Inc. notes that they have “determined that these individuals are stable and able to live in the community.” The goal in housing is to have the client be as independent as possible, without putting themselves at risk for destabilization, and a housing situation that is more structural and supportive provides them this opportunity.” Copies of the letters submitted by Dennis Bubar and Dr. Les Smith, Medical Director of Gain, Inc., are attached for Planning Commission review. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7620 2 The City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance defines a Family Care Facility as follows: “Family care facility means a facility which provides resident service in a family-like environment to six (6) or fewer individuals and not more than two (2) staff personnel. These individuals require a minimal level of supervision and are provided service and supervision in accordance with their individual needs.” Section 36-54(a) of the Zoning Ordinance provides the purpose of requiring a Special Use Permit for this type of use, as follows: “General purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a method of control over certain types of land uses which, while not requiring the full review process of the conditional use permits, do require some review procedure which allows for determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are proposed and for public comment.” Section 36-54(e)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and location criteria for Family Care Facilities as follows: a. This use may be located only in a single family home. b. Medical or counseling needs must be provided off-site. c. No physical changes in the residence are permitted which would provide other than sleeping accommodations. d. Drives and parking shall not exceed that required by ordinance for a single-family residence. e. This use shall not be permitted to run with the title to the land and not be transferable. f. The number and spacing of existing similar facilities in the neighborhood. g. Existing zoning and land use patterns. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7620 3 h. Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. i. Provision for readily accessible public or quasi-public transportation. The following additional site and location criteria was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2004 and the Board of Directors on March 16, 2004: “The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed family care facility.” To staff’s knowledge, there have been no special use permits issued for other Family Care Facilities in this neighborhood. Additionally, staff knows of no facilities providing this type of resident care in the immediate area. The site is located near CATA Bus Route #11 (M. L. King, Jr. Route), which runs south along M. L. King Drive to West 34th Street. The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood as part of the application process. The Bill of Assurance was recorded in 1955 and appears to still be in effect. It contains the following language: “(1) LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single family dwelling not to exceed 2 stories in height and a private garage or carport for not more than two cars.” Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports the applicant’s request for a special use permit. Subject to compliance with the site and location criteria, as noted above, Staff does not believe the level of activity generated by a Family Care Facility at this location would have any negative impact on the neighborhood. Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use. C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 15, 2004) Dennis Bubar was present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed family care facility. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7620 4 Dennis Bubar explained that the individuals who will live in the residence have mental disabilities, and some may also have drug or alcohol abuse problems. He noted that they do not have physical disabilities. In response to a question from staff, he noted that there would be no physical changes to the residence. Mr. Bubar also noted that none of the clients owned vehicles, therefore no additional parking was needed. Mr. Bubar explained that the individuals who live on the site will be picked up by Gain, Inc. each day between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m., and returned to the residence between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. He noted that counseling and treatment services are provided at the Gain, Inc. offices. He also noted that a doctor or counselor employed by Gain, Inc. will stop by the residence each day to inspect the premises. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Bubar noted that a few of the residents might have a part-time job. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for final action. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a Family Care Facility at 3712 High Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section 36-54(e)(2). 2. Compliance with the additional site and location criteria as approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2004 and the Board of Directors on March 16, 2004. 3. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones. 4. The Special Use Permit will be for Dennis Bubar only, and will not be transferable in any manner. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004) Cindy Dawson, City Attorney, informed the Commission that the application needed to be deferred to the June 17, 2004 agenda to allow staff time to research the Fair Housing Act with respect to this application. There were several persons present in opposition. They were informed of the deferral date. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7620 5 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 17, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 17, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the City Attorney’s Office had requested to defer the application to the July 29, 2004 agenda to allow additional time to research the Fair Housing Act with respect to this application. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 29, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the City Attorney’s Office had requested to defer the application to the September 9, 2004 agenda to allow additional time to research the Fair Housing Act with respect to this application. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the City Attorney’s Office requested the application be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Agenda, in order for the Transitional Housing Task Force to complete its work. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda, in order for the Transitional Housing Task Force to complete its work. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7620 6 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: LU04-19-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District Location: Southeast and Southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Chalamont Dr. Request: Single Family to Commercial Source: Brian Dale, White - Daters & Associates, Inc. PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from Single Family to Commercial. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesales sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant wishes to develop the property for commercial uses. Staff is not expanding the application since there is undeveloped land shown as Commercial located along Cantrell Road at the Chenal Parkway intersections and at the Ferndale Cutoff Road intersection. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant’s property consists of two pieces of vacant land along the south side of Cantrell Road at Chalamont Drive currently zoned R-2 Single Family with 3.8 acres ± east of Chalamont, and 5.7 acres ± west of Chalamont for a total area of about 9.5 acres ± in size. All of the surrounding property is zoned R-2. A vacant non-conforming car repair garage sits on the north side of the Cantrell / Chalamont intersection. The Robinson Elementary, Middle and High schools are located to the east of the application area. The property to the west along Cantrell Road consists of single-family housing built on large lots. Further to the west of the application area a dirt hauling business occupies a Planned Development - Industrial, which lies on both sides of Cantrell Road. The land to the south of the study area is largely vacant. However, a subdivision of single- family houses is in the process of developing and expanding towards the applicant’s property along Chalamont Drive. This area was preliminary platted on the October 15, 1998 planning commission agenda. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-19-02 2 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On February 17, 2004, multiple changes were made from Single Family, Multifamily, and Office to Office, Park Open / Space, Commercial, and Multifamily along Chenal Parkway north of Cantrell Road starting about 1 mile east of the applicant’s property to accommodate proposed development. On December 2, 2003, a change was made from Low Density Residential to Commercial on the southwest corner of Ferndale Cutoff and Highway 10 about 1 mile to the west for proposed commercial development. On January 2, 2002, A change was made from Single Family to Commercial, Suburban Office, and Park / Open Space near the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Road starting a little over one mile east of the application area to accommodate proposed development. On March 6, 2001 a change was made from Single Family to Commercial in the 19,900 block of Highway 10 about 2/3 of a mile to the east of the amendment area to accommodate proposed development. The applicant’s property and all of the surrounding land is shown as Single Family except for the Robinson schools, which are shown as Public Institutional. MASTER STREET PLAN: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and built as a rural two-lane road. At the area fronting the schools, Cantrell Road provides an additional center turn lane. Chalamont Drive and Morgan Cemetery Road are shown as Collector Streets. Chalamont Drive is built to Master Street Plan standards. Morgan Cemetery Road is built as a rural road with open drainage. A Class II Bikeway is shown on Cantrell Road from Ferndale Cutoff Road to Chenonceau Boulevard. Class II Bikeways do not require any additional Right of Way or paving and would be subject to any half street improvements made by the applicant. The applicant may be responsible for half street improvements along Cantrell Road. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 includes public school facilities within the Eight-block strategy of providing park and open space facilities within an eight-block walking distance of all City of Little Rock residents. The Robinson schools, which are east of the application area, are included in the plan’s Eight-block strategy. Additional park facilities may need to be developed in the future to serve a broader group of citizens. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-19-02 3 HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The east boundary of this amendment area is located about 1 mile to the west of the developing commercial node at the Chenal / Cantrell intersection. Cantrell Road / Highway 10 has been planned utilizing commercial nodes that are distinct and separate. Most of the Commercial nodes on Cantrell Road are located at intersections with Principal and Minor Arterials. The applicant’s property is located at an intersection with a Collector Street and a Principal Arterial. This action would add a commercial node in an area that has been shown as Single Family. The applicant has not shown a need to add Commercial to the plan in an area where Commercial has not been shown before. Staff has concerns that the length to depth ratio of the property in questions might result in strip commercial development rather than node commercial development. The potential for this area to develop as a Commercial node is limited by the presence of the schools that are located immediately to the east. Conflicts can arise between the intense uses of Commercial and schools. The location of the applicant’s property near the schools may cause traffic conflicts from both the loading and unloading of students and the commercial traffic throughout the day. At this location, there are three schools, a high school, a middle school and an elementary school. A change to Commercial may encourage developments that generate large volumes of traffic originating from a large market area. Any potential increase in traffic at this location may be incompatible with the neighboring Public Institutional uses. If Commercial was approved for this location, the close proximity of the two collectors (Morgan Cemetery Road and Chalamont Drive) that intersect Cantrell may encourage pressure for future non-residential development in the amendment area. The location of a collector intersecting an arterial in itself does not necessitate Commercial being shown on the land Use Plan. The Commercial development that is occurring nearest the applicant’s property is located about a mile to the east at the Chenal / Cantrell intersection. The October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-19-02 4 Chenal / Cantrell Commercial node contains land available for non-residential development that is not yet developed to its full potential. About 110.5 + acres of land shown as Commercial is located at the Chenal / Cantrell intersection with about 30.2 + acres being developed and about 80.3 + acres remaining undeveloped. The applicant’s property is also located to the east of the Cantrell / Ferndale Cutoff intersection. The 21.06 + acres of Commercial shown at the Cantrell / Ferndale intersection is between a Principal Arterial and a Minor Arterial. The applicant’s property is about halfway between the Chenal / Cantrell Commercial node and the Cantrell / Ferndale Cutoff intersection. Some changes have just occurred to the east at the Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 existing Commercial node. The changes include adding additional Commercial areas to areas of Commercial that are still vacant. With vacant Commercial land lying both to the east and to the west in existing commercial nodes, it is difficult to justify adding an additional commercial node. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, Carriage Creek Property Owners Association, Chenal Ridge Property, Du Quesne Place P.O.A., Eagle Pointe Property Owners Association, Glen Eagles Property Owners Association, Hillsborough Property Owners Association, Hunters Cove Property Owners Association, Hunters Green Property Owners Association, Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association, Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, Maywood Manor Neighborhood Association, St Charles Property Owners Association, Charleston Heights/North Rahling Rd N.A., and Margeaux Place Property Owners Association. Staff has received no comments from area residents at the time of writing. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Staff believes that it is not appropriate to create another commercial node along this stretch of Cantrell and have concerns on commercial activities abutting the school property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-19-02 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 17, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to wavier the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: On May 5, 2004, the applicant requested a deferral to meet with staff to discuss possible alternatives. No alternatives have been submitted nor have there been any meetings or communications to date on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has not submitted any alternatives or scheduled any meetings with staff regarding this application. The application remains unchanged. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-7623 Owner: Deltic Timber Corporation Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: Southeast and southwest corners of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive Area: 11.77 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 and OS Purpose: Future Commercial Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Single family residences on large lots and auto repair business (across Cantrell Road); zoned R-2 South – Undeveloped property (approved residential preliminary plat); zoned R-2 East – Joe T. Robinson High School; zoned R-2 West – Single family residences on large lots and commercial building; zoned R-2 and PD-I A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Highway 10 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline at all locations will be required. Note: According to map scale, the area west of Chalamont is deficient. Boundary Street improvements are required with future development. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus 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 DuQuesne Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7623 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for C -3 General Commercial for commercial development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Deltic Timber Corporation, owner of the 11.77 acre property located at the southeast and southwest corners of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family District to “C-3” General Commercial District and “OS” Open Space District. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial development of the property. The property is currently undeveloped and wooded. The general area along Cantrell Road contains a mixture of uses. There is an auto repair business and single family homes across Cantrell Road to the north, with Joe T. Robinson Elementary School located to the northeast. Joe T. Robinson Junior and Senior High School campus is located to the east. There are single family residences and a commercial building to the west along Cantrell Road. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the south. A preliminary plat has been approved for this area to the south for phases of the Chalamont residential subdivision. The applicant proposes to rezone 4.08 acres at the southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive from R-2 to C-3. The applicant is proposing to zone a 50 foot wide strip (0.80 acre) along its south boundary to OS. The applicant also proposes to rezone 5.73 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection from R-2 to C-3, with a 50 foot wide strip (1.16 acres) along its south boundary. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates the property as Single Family. The applicant has filed a Land Use Plan Amendment for a change to Commercial, which is a separate item on this agenda (Item 7.). October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7623 3 Staff does not support the requested C-3 zoning. Staff does not feel that there is currently a need for additional commercial zoned property in this general area. There is a large amount of undeveloped commercial zoned property to the east, at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Chenal Parkway, and to the west at the intersection of Cantrell Road and Ferndale Cut-Off. Both of these intersections are arterial/arterial intersections. The intersection of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive is an arterial/collector intersection. The Highway 10 Plan establishes commercial nodes at specific locations along the highway. This request does not adhere to that plan. Staff feels that C-3 zoning for the properties at the southeast and southwest corners of Cantrell Road and Chalamont Drive is premature at this time. Staff feels that the applicant should possibly look at other options for the property. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 6, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the June 17, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the applicant’s request for deferral, being less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 17, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 17, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the July 29, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7623 4 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 29, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the September 9, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was withdrawn, without prejudice. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-7708 Name: Wilborn Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit Location: 3 Elrod Drive Owner: Capital Partners, LLC Applicant: Mary Wilborn Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care Family Home to be operated in the single family residence located on the R-2 zoned property at 3 Elrod Drive. A. Public Notification: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Windamere, Cloverdale and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. B. Staff Analysis: 3 Elrod Drive is located on the west side of Elrod Drive, north of Baseline Road. Elrod Drive is a short, dead-end street with three (3) single family residences on its west side. There is vacant R-2 and C-3 zoned property to the east across Elrod Drive. There are two (2) commercial buildings to the south at the northeast and northwest corners of Elrod Drive and Baseline Road. There is a large commercial building immediately west at the northeast corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads. The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure, and is typical of those to the north and south. The rear yard is fenced and should provide a safe play area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted that she will have no employees. There is a two-car wide concrete drive from Elrod Drive, with parking for six (6) vehicles including the carport. On inspection of the site, one (1) vehicle was parked in front yard on the grass. The vehicle has since been removed. The driveway should allow sufficient space for drop-off and pick-up of children. Staff observed no vehicles on the site which were not operational. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7708 2 The applicant has noted that she has been licensed by the State for a day care family home at this location for three (3) years. The applicant is licensed for the care of up to 10 children. The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood, which was recorded in 1969 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance appears to address no use issues relevant to this property. The large commercial development immediately to the west is part of this same subdivision. Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows: Day care family home: a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the care giver and which is the full time residence of the care giver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees residing off premises. c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. f. After the effective date of this subsection, no Special Use Permit will be approved for a day care family proposed to be located within 300 feet of a licensed day care center or an operating day care family home for which a Special Use Permit has previously been approved. For the purposes of this subsection, the distance between properties shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects, from property line to property line. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7708 3 g. All day care family homes located in the City of Little Rock are required to obtain a City of Little Rock business license and to pay an annual business tax as specified in Chapter 17. of the Code. h. A copy of the day care family home’s current State of Arkansas license must be submitted to the City Collector’s Office each year at the time of payment of the annual business tax. i. All vehicles must be parked on an on-site paved surface. j. All vehicles located on the site must be operational. k. All pick-up and drop-off of children shall be on the property’s driveway and not on the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. l. Special Use Permits for day care family homes shall be reviewed by staff every three (3) years for compliance with the development criteria and Planning Commission approval. m. The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed day care family home. Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location will have no adverse impact on the general area. Based on information provided by the State, there are no permitted/licensed day care family homes or day care centers within 300 feet of the site. C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 19, 2004) Mary Wilborn was present, representing the application. Staff presented the application, describing the proposed day care family home. The specifics of the application were briefly discussed. In response to a question from staff, Ms. Wilborn noted that 3 Elrod Drive is her principal residence. Staff noted that the proposed day care family home use would conform to the requirements found in Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as noted in paragraph B. of this report. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7708 4 D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family home at 3 Elrod Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section 36-54(e)(3). 2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones. 3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to daylight hours. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to notify one (1) property owner within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended the application be deferred. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Troy Laha addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated that a rezoning of the property to commercial would be more appropriate than a special use permit. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7711 NAME: Little Rock Fire Department Station 16 – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 11000 Southridge Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock/Wittenberg, Delony and Davidson, Architects PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for expansion of the existing fire station on this R-2 zoned property. STAFF REPORT: On August 30, 2004, the applicant requested that this item be deferred for possible changes to be made to the plan. Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the October 21, 2004 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 21, 2004 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF REPORT: In late September, the applicant requested that the item be deferred to allow for further discussions with the Fire Department regarding potential changes to the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7711 2 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-7683 NAME: Baird Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 3316 West 12th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Gary Godley, Sr./Abraham Baird PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for use of the existing residence on this R-3 zoned property as a transitional housing facility for up to 10 men who are in transition from state incarceration and those who are currently attending drug treatment classes. STAFF REPORT: A task force appointed by the City Manager is currently studying the issue of transitional housing facilities in Little Rock. It is anticipated that the Task Force will complete its work in August. Staff believes this item needs to be deferred until after the task force has submitted its report. The applicant has agreed to defer the item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the September 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended that it be deferred to the September 9, 2004 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF REPORT: The Transitional Housing Facilities Task Force has not completed its work. It is hoped that the Task Force will complete its work in September. Staff believes this item needs to be deferred until after the Task Force has submitted its report. Staff has contacted the applicant and he has agreed to defer the item. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7683 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended that it be deferred to the October 21, 2004 meeting. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 21, 2004 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF REPORT: The Transitional Housing Facilities Task Force has not yet completed its work. It is believed that a report will be coming from that group soon; including proposed ordinance changes. Staff believes this item needs to be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda to allow that process to continue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the withdrawal request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was withdrawn. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Section 36-556.(b) of Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances to add Kanis Road, Stagecoach Road and portions of Colonel Glenn Road and Financial Center/Chenal Parkway to the list of scenic corridors. REQUEST: That the Planning Commission receives comments from interested parties and the Plans Committee and vote on a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Public Notice: Notice of the proposed Ordinance Amendment and of the Commission hearing was sent to the following: Billboard Companies Lamar Outdoor Advertising Arkansas Sign and Neon Cuerdon Signȱ Cynthia Neal, 361 LLC Custom Outdoors Advertising Affected Neighborhood Associations John Barrow Westwood Tall Timber Pecan Lake Stagecoach-Dodd Crystal Valley Otter Creek SWLR United for Progress PLANS COMMITTEE: (MAY 26, 2004) Staff presented the item. There was little discussion. The consensus was that the proposed amendment was a positive change. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 2 STAFF REPORT: On April 5, 1983, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 14,430 which designated I-430, I-630, I-440, Highway 10 and Rebsamen Park Road as scenic corridors for the purposes of billboard regulation. On July 7, 1992, Ordinance No. 16,244 was passed which established additional criteria for billboards and added Chenal Parkway from Kanis Road to Arkansas State Highway 300 to the list of scenic corridors. A scenic corridor is defined by Section 36-530. of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas as “a public right-of-way which, in the opinion of the board of directors, exhibits special aesthetic and visual characteristics worthy of protection through enhanced billboard regulation. Section 36-556.(b) of the Code states: “No billboard may be altered or erected within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of the scenic corridors.” Recently, development has started to increase in the general area along Stagecoach Road and Colonel Glenn Road, west of the Stagecoach/Colonel Glenn split. In conjunction with the increase in development, several permits have been issued for new billboards on those corridors. In response to concerns raised by citizens about the possible proliferation of billboards in those areas, staff is proposing adding those two streets to the list of scenic corridors. Any existing billboards along Stagecoach Road and Colonel Glenn Road, west of the Stagecoach/Colonel Glenn split will become nonconforming and no new permits will be issued. Staff believes the two roads in question meet the definition of “scenic corridor” and it is appropriate to add them to the designated scenic corridors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 17, 2004) Staff presented the item and requested that action be deferred to the July 29, 2004 meeting. There was no additional discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 29, 2004 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) Staff presented the item and requested that the item be deferred to the September 9, 2004 meeting to allow further study. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the September 9, 2004 meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: After further consideration and review of the issue, staff has determined that it is appropriate to add two additional streets to the list of designated scenic corridors, in addition to the previously suggested Colonel Glenn Road and Stagecoach Road. Staff believes it is appropriate to add Kanis Road, from 12th Street to the western boundary of the planning boundary, and Financial Center/Chenal Parkway, from Shackleford Road to Kanis Road. In staff’s opinion, Kanis Road clearly meets the definition of a scenic corridor. Much of the Kanis Corridor is still undeveloped and rural in nature. The new developments that have occurred along the corridor have been constructed with the newer landscape and buffer provisions. Staff also believes it is appropriate to “fill in the gap” along the I-630/Chenal Parkway corridor by adding that portion of the Financial Center/Chenal Parkway corridor between Shackleford Road and Kanis Road. Again, the development that has occurred in that area has been built with the newer landscape and buffer provisions. Portions of the Parkway are bordered by parks and park-like settings. Notice of the currently proposed Ordinance Amendment and of the September 9, 2004 Commission hearing was sent to the following: Billboard Companies Lamar Outdoor Advertising Arkansas Sign and Neon Cuerdon Signȱ Cynthia Neal 361, LLC Custom Outdoors Advertising Affected Neighborhood Associations John Barrow Westwood Tall Timber Pecan Lake Stagecoach-Dodd Crystal Valleyȱ Otter Creek SWLR United for Progress Birchwood October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 4 Affected Neighborhood Associations (cont.) Gibralter Heights-Pointe West-Timber Ridge Leander Parkway Place St. Charles Twin Lakes Staff subsequently met with a representative of the billboard industry. The industry has proposed segmenting the scenic corridors and removing the 660 foot prohibition in some areas. The proposal submitted by the industry is as follows: PROPOSED SEGMENTED AREAS AND 660’ ZONE REMOVAL (SEGMENTATIONS) Area 1 Colonel Glenn 600’ E/O Shackleford to 600’ W/O David O’Dodd. (Three units placed in this zone (1) 14’ X 48’ and (2) 12’ X 24’s) Area 2 Kanis Road from I-430 to 2500’ W/O Bowman Road. (Two unites placed in this zone (1) 14 X 48’ and (1) 12’ X 24’) Area 3 Highway 10 from I-430 to 600’ W/O Taylor Loop. (Three units placed in this zone (3) 12’ X 24’s) Area 4 I-430 from the Markham overpass to 600’ north of Rodney Parham Road. (Two units placed in this area (2) 14’ X 48’s) Area 5 Chenal 600’ E/O Bowman to the intersection of Markham. (Two units to be placed in this area, either 12’ X 24’ or 14’ X 48’) October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 5 (660’ ZONE REMOVALS) Area 1 Remove the 660’ zone exclusion from the I-630 and Rodney Parham intersection. (Two units placed in this area (1) 12’ X 24’ and (1) 14’ X 48’) Area 2 Remove the 660’ zone exclusion from the I-30 and 440 intersection. (One unit placed in this area (1) 14’ X 48’) Area 3 Remove the 660’ zone exclusion from I-630 and 430 intersection. (One unit to be placed in this area, either 14’ X 48’ or 12’ X 24’) Area 4 Remove the 660’ zone exclusion from the Chenal and Bowman intersection. (Two units to be placed in this area. (1) 12’ X 24’ and (1) 14’ X 48’) Area 5 Remove the 660’ zone exclusion from I-30 and 430 intersection. (Two units to be placed in this area. (2) 14’ X 48’s) Note: Number of permits used under this proposal totals 20. Remaining 3 permits shall be placed in C-4, I-1 or I-2 zoning. Other Suggested Changes: Any interstate location shall be built at a height no more than 50’, 12’ X 24’ poster sign can be built in C-2 as well as C-3 and Industrial, and no billboard shall be placed within 1,000’ of any residential subdivision entrance. Any nonconforming wood pole sign may be upgraded to a single pole sign as long as the upgrade does not exceed 250 square feet (small poster sign). The issue is scheduled to be discussed at the September 1, 2004 Plans Committee meeting. The Plans Committee report and staff recommendation will be presented at the September 9, 2004 Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Staff presented the item and recommended that it be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Commission meeting to allow time for further study. There was no additional discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 21, 2004 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 6 STAFF UPDATE: On September 14, 2004, the Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 11824 establishing a one hundred twenty (120) day moratorium on the issuance of billboard permits along the specific streets which are under consideration for inclusion in the list of designated scenic corridors. On October 7, 2004, the scenic corridor proposal was presented at the meeting of the City Beautiful Commission. Staff presented the proposal to add the four (4) new scenic corridors and answered questions from the Commission. Thomas Gibbens, of Lamar Outdoor Advertising, presented a proposal to place a limited number of billboards in specific sites along the proposed new scenic corridors and the existing scenic corridors. Staff voiced concern about the concept of segmenting the scenic corridors. Pete Rausch, the City’s Urban Forester, also voiced those same concerns. Nancy Clark, of the League of Women voters, stated the League had supported the scenic corridor concept for 25 years and supported the addition of the proposed new scenic corridors. Troy Laha, CBC member, presented a resolution stating the CBC favored the segmentation proposal for the proposed new scenic corridors. The motion failed by a vote of 3 ayes and 4 noes. Mr. Laha also presented a resolution stating the CBC found the moratorium to be inappropriate and the Commission supported continued dialogue between the City and the billboard industry. That motion also failed by a vote of 3 ayes and 4 noes. Staff informed the Commission that there would be a meeting with representatives of the billboard industry on October 13, 2004. The CBC was asked to provide comment on the proposed Ordinance Amendment by that date or, if that was not possible, by the October 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff recommended to the Commission that the proposed ordinance amendment be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) 7 that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The proposed ordinance amendment was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: Z-7677 NAME: Abraham Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 8824 West 34th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Scott Turner/Frederick Abraham PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of the existing residence on this R-3 zoned property as a day care center. 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located at the northeast corner of West 34th and Ludwig; one block west of John Barrow Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The site is located near the commercial node which extends along John Barrow Road, from 32nd to 36th Street. It is, however, within the residential neighborhood. Single family residences are located adjacent to the east and across Ludwig to the west. A church is located across 34th Street to the south. Along Barrow Road, one block to the east, a variety of smaller scale commercial uses extend from 32nd to 36th. Single family homes are located in the overall area around the site. Staff is concerned that allowing a commercial use of this intensity to be located out of the commercial node and in the residential neighborhood could have a detrimental effect on the nearby residences. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and Campus Place Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The site currently has a paved, single-wide driveway; typical of a single family residence in the area. The proposed day care center is to have a maximum enrollment of 50 children with a total of 6 employees, not counting the director. The day care is to operate with two shifts; with no more than 25 children present at any time. There will be 3 employees on each shift, not counting the director. The applicant has proposed to construct a 6-space, paved parking lot, utilizing the existing driveway off of 34th Street. This will satisfy the parking requirement for 4 employees and 25 children. Staff is concerned that the parking will prove inadequate when the shifts overlap; resulting in vehicles having to park on 34th and October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7677 2 Ludwig Streets. Very much congestion could result in vehicles stacking on 34th back to John Barrow Road. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Compliance with the City’s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The playground area must be screened from the adjacent residential properties to the north and east. This can be accomplished with a 6-foot high opaque wooden fence with its face side directed outward. If a parking area is to be developed, then it must be properly screened and landscaped according to ordinance standards. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Show the proposed location of all driveways and parking areas. Driveway width is limited to 36 feet for a commercial driveway. 2. Queuing of vehicles for pick-up and drop-off of children must be done in a manner that does not cause stacking of vehicles back to Barrow Road. 3. Ludwig and 34th Street are improved streets with curb and gutter. Sidewalk construction may be required to be included with future construction. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Age of children may require the building to be sprinkled; contact the Fire Marshall’s office at 918-3700. County Planning: No Comments. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7677 3 CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. The nearest route is located on 36th Street, two blocks to the south. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 8, 2004) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed regarding the number of children and employees, days and hours of operation, signage, fencing and site lighting. Staff stated screening needed to be installed on the perimeters of the playground area where the site was adjacent to residential properties and use of the playground should be limited to daylight hours. Staff noted there was no on-site parking shown on the site plan. The applicant responded that he intended to install parking. He was advised to meet with staff to devise a parking plan. Public Works, Landscape and Utility Comments were noted. The applicant was advised to contact the Fire Marshall’s office regarding the fire hydrant and sprinkler comments. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by Wednesday, July 14, 2004. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: The R-3 zoned property at 8824 West 34th Street is occupied by a one-story, brick and frame, single family residence that is typical of homes in the area. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of the residence into a day care center. The application is not for a day care family home where the care giver occupies the residence. The proposed day care center is to have two shifts; operating Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The maximum proposed enrollment is 50 children, with no more than 25 children present at any time. There will be 6 employees, not including the director. There will be 3 employees on each shift, plus the director. A single ground-mounted sign is proposed to be placed on the 34th Street frontage. The sign will measure 3’ X 4’ and will be 6 feet tall. A 6 foot tall, wood privacy fence will be erected on the east, west and north perimeters of the site. A playground will be located behind the building and will be used only during daylight hours. A single light will be placed to illuminate the parking lot. The light will be shielded downward and into the site. There is no valid bill of assurance. The applicant submitted a revised site plan and responses to issues raised at Subdivision Committee. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7677 4 While the applicant has done a good job of addressing most of the site plan related issues, staff does not support the proposed use. Staff’s concerns center around the intensity of the proposed use, the hours of operation and the proximity of the site to existing single family residences. The site is on the fringe of the commercial node that is located along John Barrow Road, between 32nd and 36th Streets. There is a clear delineation between those commercial uses and the surrounding residential neighborhood, of which the property is a part. Other than the church to the south, single family homes and properties comprise the majority of the neighborhood immediately around the site. The proposed day care is to operate from 6:00 a.m. until midnight. Staff feels that having this commercial activity and its related traffic extend past 6:00 p.m. will negatively impact the nearby residents. The applicant has proposed to operate the day care in two shifts, with no more than 25 children per shift. Staff does not see how this is workable. There is a likelihood that there will be a time at “shift change” when the number of children and vehicles at the site will exceed the capability of the site to handle them. This will result in vehicles being parked on the street, possibly impacting traffic one block to the east on John Barrow Road. A day care of this size needs to be located in an appropriate commercial location, not within a residential neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred to the September 9, 2004 meeting to allow him to meet with the neighborhood association. The deferral request had been made on July 28, 2004. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to waive the bylaws and to accept the late request for deferral. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has revised his application. The proposed maximum enrollment of the day care center is now 25 children. There will be three employees, plus the director. The days and hours of operation are now proposed as Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: Z-7682 Name: Goss Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit Location: 6709 Lantana Road Owner: Herbert and Eloise Goss Applicant: Eloise Goss Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care Family Home to be operated in the single family residence located on the R-2 zoned property at 6709 Lantana Road. A. 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 and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. B. Staff Analysis: 6709 Lantana Road is located on the south side of Lantana Road, east of Azalea Drive. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and contain single family residences. The applicant’s home is a one-story brick and frame structure, and is typical of those in the general area. The rear yard is fenced and should provide a safe play area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care family from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted that she will have no employees. There is a two-car wide concrete driveway from Lantana Road, with parking for six (6) vehicles (including the carport). On inspection of the site, staff observed no vehicles parked on unpaved area. The driveway should allow sufficient space for drop-off and pick-up of children. Staff observed no vehicles on the site which were not operational. The applicant notes that she has been licensed by the State and has operated a day care family home at this address since 2001. The applicant is licensed to care for up to 10 children. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7682 2 The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood, which was recorded in 1958 and appears to still be in effect. The Bill of Assurance contains the following language: “1. No lot shall be used except for single-family residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed 2 ½ stories in height and a private garage for not more than 2 cars.” Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows: a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the care giver and which is the full time residence of the care giver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees residing off premises. c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. f. After the effective date of this subsection, no Special Use Permit will be approved for a day care family home proposed to be located within 300 feet of a licensed day care center or an operating day care family home for which a Special Use Permit has previously been approved. For the purposes of this subsection, the distance between properties shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects, from property line to property line. g. All day care family homes located in the City of Little Rock are required to obtain a City of Little Rock business license and to pay an annual business tax as specified in Chapter 17. of the Code. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7682 3 h. A copy of the day care family home’s current State of Arkansas license must be submitted to the City Collector’s Office each year at the time of payment to the annual business tax. i. All vehicles must be parked on an on-site paved surface. j. All vehicles located on the site must be operational. k. All pick-up and drop-off of children shall be on the property’s driveway and not on the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. l. Special Use Permits for day care family homes shall be reviewed by staff every three (3) years for compliance with the development criteria and Planning Commission approval. m. The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed day care family home. Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location will have no adverse impact on the general area. Based on information provided by the State, there are no permitted/licensed day care family homes or day care centers within 300 feet of the site. C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 8, 2004) Eloise Goss was present, representing the application. Staff presented the application, describing the proposed day care family home. The specifics of the application were briefly discussed. Staff noted that the proposed day care family home use would conform to the requirements found in Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as noted in paragraph B. of this report. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family home at 6709 Lantana Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section 36-54(e)(3). October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7682 4 2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones. 3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to day- light hours. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the September 9, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Eloise Goss was present, representing the application. Ms. Goss requested the application be deferred to the October 21, 2004 Agenda, based on the fact that only seven (7) commissioners were present. The deferral was offered by the Commission. A motion was made to defer the application to the October 21, 2004 Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Herbert and Eloise Goss were present, representing the application. There were two (2) persons present in opposition. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Eloise Goss addressed the Commission in support of the application. She noted that she had been licensed by the State since 2001 for a day care family home at 6709 Lantana Road. She also noted that there was adequate parking to serve her day care use. Troy Laha addressed the Commission in opposition. He questioned the issue of Mrs. Goss having no employees. He noted that the land use plan showed residential for the area. He stated that the day care is a business and should be located elsewhere. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7682 5 Rosemary Walker also addressed the Commission in opposition. She explained that day care uses are businesses and should not be located in residential areas. Mrs. Goss further explained her day care use. She noted that her day care was closed on this date because she had to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Meyer asked about the condition of the property. Mrs. Goss stated that it looked like a single family home, and that there was no trash or debris in the yard. There was a motion to approve the application, as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 nays and 2 absent. The application was denied. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - I-430 Planning District Location: Between Interstate 430 and Shackleford Rd, north of Old Shackleford Rd Request: MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to CS (Community Shopping) Source: Joe White, White-Daters Engineers PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the I-430 Planning District from MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to CS (Community Shopping). CS (Community Shopping) provides for shopping center type development with one or more general merchandise stores. The applicant has indicated they intend to develop the property commercially using the site plan review process. Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use Plan in this area was reviewed within the last two years. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant and currently zoned PCD-expired (Planned Commercial District). The area requested is 63 acres ± in size. To the north the zoning is O3 (General Office) with office buildings, a hospital and two hotels. South of the subject property is zoned PCD-expired (Planned Commercial District) and R2 (Single Family) and generally vacant. The PCD-expired is the remaining portion of the PCD-expired involved in this change. The zoning has been requested to change to office, O2 (Professional Office). To the east is Camp Aldersgate, which is zoning OS (Open Space). West of the site, across Interstate 430 the land is developed as single-family homes and zoned R2 (Single Family). FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: September 19, 2000, A change was made from LDR (Low Density Residential) and MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to MX (Mixed Use) approximately a mile to the southwest on the west side of Interstate 430 at Bowman Road and 36th Streets. The proposal was to develop a church based campus with various non- traditional outreach programs on the majority of the site. July 17, 2001, A change was made from C (Commercial) to PR (Park) approximately a mile to the northwest, on the west side of Interstate 430 in the Birchwood Subdivision. This was part of a citywide classification of existing City parkland to a new Park zone. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 2 September 4, 2001, A change was made from PK/OS (Park/Open Space) to LDR (Low Density Residential) approximately half a mile to the east. The proposal was to expand a retirement community (Good Shepard) with the addition of duplex or attached housing. March 18, 2003, A change from SF (Single Family) to SO (Suburban Office) approximately a quarter mile to the northwest, along Aldersgate Road. The proposal was to develop the land to an office use. November 4, 2002, A change from SF (Single Family) to LDR (Low Density Residential) approximately a mile to the southeast. This change was part of a package of changes resulting from an overall Land Use Plan review for this area. The change was intended to more accurately reflect the current land use and zoning of the area. February 4, 2003, A change from MF (Multifamily) to MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) approximately a mile to the southwest, south of 36th Street along the west side of Interstate 430. The change was for an expansion of the proposed use area to the south for a large primarily commercial development. November 18, 2003, A change from MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) to STD (Service Trades District) approximately a quarter mile to the south at the northwest corner of Shackleford and 36th Street. The proposal was made as a result of a Planned Zoning District request for a service trades type of use in that general location. The application area is shown as MOC (Mixed Office Commercial) on the City Land Use Plan. To the east is shown as Park/Open Space, with Multifamily and Single Family beyond that. To the north, generally across Interstate 430 is shown as Office and Suburban Office. Across Interstate 430 to the west is shown for Single Family. To the Southwest across Interstate 430 is shown for Mixed Use while south of the site is shown as Mixed Office Commercial) and Office to the southeast. MASTER STREET PLAN: Shackleford Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan. The Standard is for a four or five lane road in a right-of-way of 90 feet. It is not built to standard. Shackleford Road is currently a two-lane road. Significant widening will have to be done along this frontage. There are no bikeways shown that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows this area to be within 8 blocks of a public or private recreation or outdoor space. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 3 HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: This application area is within the John Barrow Neighborhoods Plan area. That Plan recommends medical and other business uses in this general area. The Plan envisions employment and service opportunities to area residents from any businesses, which might occur in the north portion of their Plan area. ANALYSIS: This site became Mixed Office and Commercial on the City Land Use Plan in 1987. Prior to that it had been Major Office. The change was made as part of a larger review along Interstate 430, which had been started due to a rezoning request for a Mixed Use development for the site – a mall, hotel and office complex. The Plan was changed to Commercial/Office, which later became the Mixed Office Commercial classification on December 1, 1987. The Staff write-up indicates a “PCD recommended to assure high quality development and to minimize traffic flow problems on Shackelford and 36th Street.” Due to concerns about previous developments that had not materialized and the effects on Camp Aldersgate special requirements were made of the development through the Planned Development process. In the successive sixteen years no development has materialized and the City reviewed one alternative development proposal. After public hearings and Board of Director approval, the City was taken to court where much of the case was ruled in the City’s favor. However the applicant requested that the application be withdrawn and the Board of Directors granted this request. The site in question is heavily wooded and contains significant topographic change. The elevation change is from near 360 feet to over 510 feet a difference of 150 feet. There is a significant hilltop in the northeast section of the Plan amendment area, with a lower hilltop just off the amendment area at the southeast corner. Most of Little Rock’s development, both residential and nonresidential, has been to the northwest of this site. That is the site is on the southeastern edge of the major growth area of the City. Based on development, both subdivision and building activity, development is to the northwest of the site and has been for several decades. Most of the new office and commercial development in Little Rock has occurred along Markham, Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Roads west of October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 4 Interstate 430. To a lesser extend this development as occurred along Markham east of Interstate 430, Shackleford Road north of Interstate 430, and Kanis and Bowman Roads. Interstate 430 has for years been eyed as a potential Office and or Commercial corridor. In the 1970s and 1980s the City worked, through its Plans, for this to be an Office corridor with major commercial at Rodney Parham and Interstate 30 and a lesser commercial area at Colonel Glenn Road. During the 1980s and 1990s increased amounts of commercial development were shown at the two remaining un-developed or under-developed interchanges – Shackleford and Colonel Glenn Road. This was marked by the afore mentioned amendment in 1987. Over the last five to ten years the City has added significant amounts of commercial at the Colonel Glenn Interchange with Interstate 430. This addition has been in all four quadrants of the interchange. A small commercial center and multiplex theater as well as several freestanding commercial businesses have been developed. The City has approved a large commercial development in the last few months – a ‘Power’ Center. The concerns raised in 1987 about the development of this land still remain – effects on Camp Aldersgate, development of Shackleford Road to arterial standard and the ability of the Shackleford interchange to hand traffic volumes, which might be generated. Through the City’s actions over the last several years, the decision has been made to locate the Community Shopping area at the Interstate 430 – Colonel Glenn interchange. Large amounts of commercial zoning are in place and not development along Colonel Glenn Road. To the north while developed, the use pattern is more office and support commercial to the office developments. The need or desirability of another large commercial area at the Shackleford interchange is questionable. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: John Barrow and Sandpiper. As of this writing, no comments have been received. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. A development that includes or is predominantly commercial needs to be reviewed using the Planned Zoning District process to assure all issues and concerns are addressed. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. That motion was made and approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: On July 28, 2004, the applicant requested a deferral to meet with staff to discuss the application. A meeting was held with the applicant, but no changes to the Land Use Plan Amendment were discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff has received one neutral comment about this application. No meetings have been held with the applicant in regard to the Land Use Plan amendment nor have any changes been made to the application since the last planning commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-11-03 6 STAFF UPDATE: A meeting and amendment to the zoning application has occurred since the last planning commission meeting which has affected the Land Use Plan amendment. The amended zoning application “Conceptual PZD” is consistent with the Future land Use Plan since the entire site is included in the application and a mixture of office and commercial uses are included. That Planned Zoning District process can assure all development issues and concerns are addressed. Each phase of the PZD should be evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding uses and compatibility with the Future Land Use Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant requested the application be withdrawn. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was withdrawn. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 FILE NO.: Z-4923-B Owner: Summit Mall Co., LLC Applicant: Shackleford Crossings, LLC Location: Southwest corner of S. Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 Area: 97.446 Acres Request: Rezone from PCD to O-2 and C-2 Purpose: Future Office and Commercial Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Mixed Residential Office and Commercial uses (across I-430); zoned R-2, O-2, O-3 and C-2 South – Mixed Residential, Office and Commercial uses (along Old Shackleford and S. Shackleford Roads); zoned R-2, O-3, C-2, C-3 and PCD East – Camp Aldersgate (across S. Shackleford Road); zoned OS West – Single Family Residences (across I-430); zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Shackleford Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. With future development, provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Intersection improvements and freeway ramp improvements may also be required. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route 3 (Baptist Medical Center part-time route) runs along Aldersgate Road to the east. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 2 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 John Barrow and Sandpiper Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for O-2 and C-2 zoning for future office and commercial development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Community Shopping for the area to be zoned C-2 is a separate item on this agenda. The request for the O-2 area does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Shackleford is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Currently, Shackleford Road is built to a two-lane standard. Dedication of right-of-way and street improvements may be required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/O-2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall – Long-Form PCD. The approved site plan included a shopping mall, office buildings, hotel, restaurants and associated parking. Over the years, the PCD received several time extensions from the Planning Commission. On April 3, 2001, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 18,456, the Summit Mall – Revised PCD, as approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2000. Residents filed suit challenging the Board’s April 3, 2001 decision. The court ruled in the City’s favor. On February 24, 2004, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance NO. 19,057 which revoked Ordinance No. 18,456 (Summit Mall – Revised PCD). The City’s official zoning maps currently designate the property as PCD – expired. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 3 Shackleford Crossings, LLC (agent for Summit Mall, LLC) prospective owner of the 97.446 Acre property at the southwest corner of S. Shackleford Road and I-430, is requesting to rezone the property from PCD-expired to “O-2” Office and Institutional District and “C-2” Shopping Center District. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 62.443 acres to C-2 and the south 35.003 acres to O-2. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial and office development of the property. The O-2 and C-2 zoning districts are site plan review districts, and future development of the property will require Planning Commission review and approval. The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by this 97 acre property. The general area contains a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses and zoning. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Mixed Office Commercial. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Community Shopping for the north 62.443 acres is a separate item on this agenda (Item #2). Staff does not support the requested O-2 and C-2 rezoning. Staff feels that it is not appropriate to establish a zoning pattern for this large acreage tract without first reviewing a site plan for the property’s development. The concerns raised over the years regarding the development of this property are still valid. These include traffic volume, street improvements, excavation, tree preservation, retaining walls and the effects of a large development on the surrounding properties, including Camp Aldersgate and Comcast. Therefore, staff feels that the proposed rezoning is premature. Staff would prefer to see a proposed PCD or POD development for the property, so the development issues associated with the property can be discussed simultaneously with a zoning/use plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested O-2 and C-2 rezoning. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 29, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the September 9, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 9, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 9, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the October 7, 2004 Agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 7, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. The application was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and requested that it be deferred to the October 21, 2004 meeting to allow for further review. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to staff’s deferral request. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 21, 2004 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: On October 11, 2004 the applicant amended the application from a proposed rezoning from PCD to O-2/C-2 to a rezoning from PCD to “Conceptual PCD”. The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan for the property, showing the north 62± acres being developed with C-2 permitted uses, the south 20± acres October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 5 being O-2 permitted uses, and the middle 15± acres being a transition area where O-2 or C-2 permitted uses will be allowed. The plan also shows four (4) out parcels along the Shackleford Road frontage, with three (3) main entry drives from Shackleford Road to serve the entire development. The total project will not exceed 1,000,000 square feet of gross building area. The applicant has noted that the commercial building area will not exceed 750,000 square feet, with office uses occupying a minimum of 25% or 250,000 square feet of the total gross floor area of the project. There will be a maximum of 25,000 square feet of restaurant use within the out parcels and 35,000 square feet of restaurant use within the interior commercial development, with the total gross floor area for restaurant uses not exceeding 50,000 square feet. The applicant has noted that a hotel/convention use may occupy up to 10 acres of the overall site. The development of the overall property will be done in phases. With the Conceptual PCD plan, each phase of development, beginning with Phase I, will require review and approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. As part of the Conceptual PCD proposal, the applicant submitted a three-page list of development criteria to be placed on the property. The development criteria, along with possible other conditions, will be used as a guide when reviewing each phase of the property’s development. The development criteria list is attached for Planning Commission review, and includes conditions related to right-of-way improvements, grading/excavation, landscaping/buffers, public transportation, signage, outdoor speakers, site lighting, dumpsters, building design/orientation, as well as other issues. Another condition included in the development criteria is compliance with a written agreement between the developer and Camp Aldersgate. As of this writing, staff does not have a copy of the final draft of that agreement. Staff hopes to have a copy of the final draft to forward to the Planning Commissioners prior to the public hearing. As noted in the development criteria, the site will be allowed up to 400,000 square feet of commercial building area with the existing I-430 entry/exit ramps and overpass conditions. Prior to additional building area being constructed, the City’s Traffic Engineer and the applicant’s traffic engineer will review the traffic volume in the area. If this study indicates failure in the existing entry/exit ramps or overpass, the applicant will install necessary improvements as agreed between the applicant and the City, prior to any additional building area being constructed. Also noted in the development criteria, all Shackleford Road boundary street improvements will be made with Phase I development, including the Comcast frontage. Prior to Phase I development, the applicant must submit a written agreement with Comcast for dedication of right-of-way and construction of improvements. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 6 The applicant has noted that because of the site’s topography, site work for the entire 97+ acres will be done with Phase I development. As noted in the development criteria, an overall grading/excavation plan will be provided with Phase I site plan review. North/south and east/west sections and elevations must be provided, addressing retaining wall construction details and areas within the site where trees will be preserved. A grading permit for the site will not be issued until a building permit for Phase I construction is issued. Staff is supportive of the proposed “Conceptual PCD” zoning. Staff feels the list of development criteria, including the additional conditions as noted in the following “Staff Recommendation”, adequately addresses the future development of the site. Staff feels that review and development of each phase adhering to these conditions/criteria will assure orderly development of this 97+ acre site. Staff believes that a Conceptual PCD is a good option for development of this property and, although not a much used process, has worked well in the past. A good example of a Conceptual PCD is “The Village at Rahling Road”. This development had an initial commercial phase, with additional office and commercial uses being phased in. Each phase of development is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. Staff feels that the proposed “Conceptual PCD” zoning will have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties or the general area. The Public Works Department is in the process of reviewing the development criteria/conditions as proposed by the applicant. Additional comments from Public Works may be forthcoming regarding several of these issues. Revised Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested “Conceptual PCD” rezoning, subject to the following conditions: 1. Each phase of development, beginning with Phase I, will require Planning Commission and Board of Directors approval. 2. Compliance with the attached development criteria/conditions as proposed by the applicant and dated October 14, 2004. 3. Compliance with the Public Works conditions as noted in paragraph A. of the staff report. 4. Cross access must be provided between the commercial and office components of the overall site development. 5. The proposed out parcels are to have no direct access to Shackleford Road. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: J.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4923-B 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Hank Kelley was present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present with concerns. Staff presented the revised application (Shackleford Crossings – Conceptual PCD), with a recommendation of approval. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns. She noted that the proposed Conceptual PCD was better than the previously requested O-2/C-2 rezoning and the previously approved Summit Mall PCD. She expressed concern with grading the entire site with Phase I development. She stated that she wanted to be sure that areas of the site graded with Phase I development and not in Phase I would not be unsightly. Hank Kelley addressed the Commission in support of the application. He briefly explained the Conceptual PCD, noting that the approved use of the property would be established, which would allow him to market the property. He noted that the Highway Department would not allow any work in the right-of-way until a development plan for the property is approved. He explained that the site needed to be graded at one time and that buffers and screening would be maintained as required. He also noted that Camp Aldersgate had submitted a draft of conditions to him and he had agreed to them. He explained that the conditions as proposed should assure orderly development of the property. There was a motion to approve the “Conceptual PCD”, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application, as revised to a “Conceptual PCD”, was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K FILE NO.: Z-7722 NAME: Lagniappe Addition Short-form PD-R LOCATION: Located on the Northwest corner of Walnut Street and “I” Street DEVELOPER: Lagniappe Addition, LLC 2106 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 1.0 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential – currently six platted lots PROPOSED ZONING: PD-R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential – four lots proposed VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variance – 1. A variance to allow the development of pipe stem lots and a variance to allow a reduced width of a pipe stem lot. 2. A variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2 (15-feet). 3. A variance to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. 4. A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for Lots 1 – 4 (5-feet). A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot and two tract development through a PD-R. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from “I” Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated the October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 2 minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. A fifteen foot building line is being requested along “I” Street, which will act as the side yard for Lot 1. The side yards within the development are proposed as five feet. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The screening fence will add privacy for the future homeowners as well as the existing homeowners in the area. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to “I” Street with 16-feet of pavement and a 30-foot access and utility easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single family home located on six previously platted lots abutting “I” Street to the south and Alsop Park to the north. “I” Street is a narrow roadway along the southern perimeter of the site. The area is characterized by single-family homes located on 50-foot by 150-foot lots; many of the homes sitting on two lots. Immediately adjacent to the site, to the east, is a single-family home located on a large tract abutting Alsop Park. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. The Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association, all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site and all residents located within 300- feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provide a waiver of damage claims for operation or private property. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 3 2. With subdivision construction, repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalks that is damaged in the public right-of-way of “I” Street prior to occupancy. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186(c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Storm water diversions will be required along the east property boundary. 4. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808 for additional information. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact the Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property including off site improvements to allow for adequate fire protection. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: No comment received. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 4 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Heights-Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for the construction of four single-family homes on four lots. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: ‘I’ and Walnut Streets are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements at the entrance to the development. Any proposed street extension accessing the development will need to be built to Local Street standards. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not located in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan. The Zoning and Land Use goal listed several objectives relevant to this case. The first objective is that “overall development goals should be used to direct specific policy for preserving the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood.” The second goal is: “the city's land- use and zoning policies should be enforced to preserve Hillcrest's unique neighborhood scale “ and the third goal is “Advance the possibilities of the Hillcrest community, and prevent the deterioration of midtown Little Rock.” New development in the area needs to reflect characteristics of the existing neighborhood to preserve the community scale and show investment in the area. Showing investment in the Hillcrest area will reduce the possibility of neighborhood deterioration. The Public Infrastructure goal states “…Hillcrest should be adequately and regularly maintained in order to ensure the minimum long-term cost to the public and in order to retain and enhance the value in and desirability of the neighborhood.” A primary objective of this goal is: “Street geometric design standards should be appropriate to a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and should be specific to and typical of the geometric design of the original neighborhood.” This goal is supported by numerous action statements: “The City should adopt new street standards for Hillcrest based on the following principles… 1) Streets should be narrow and curb radii small, giving priority to the pedestrian over the automobile. 2) Sidewalks and a continuous sidewalk network are integral parts of the transportation system.” Also the Public Infrastructure goal addresses new construction standards. “The following street standards are recommended for Hillcrest ... 1) Usual and Customary to the Neighborhood: In all cases where improvements are made to street segments, October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 5 the cross section should be consistent with the existing street and like streets in its vicinity. 2) Street Width: Local streets should be either 24 feet (inside of curb to inside of curb) with parking on one side of the street or 28 feet with parking allowed on both sides. 3) Curb Radii: A neighborhood-wide standard on both sides of a street except a lane (see lane recommendation below). Sidewalks shall be at least five feet wide and separated from the back o of the curb by a greenway of varying widths but no less than two feet unless terrain or lack of right-of-way require otherwise. Handicapped access shall be provided at all designated pedestrian crossings. 4) Design Speed: The design speed for all local streets shall be twenty (20) miles per hour, except a lane, which shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour. Design speed on collectors shall be twenty-five (25) miles per hour and thirty-five (35) miles per hour on minor arterials.” All streets affected or created by this development will need to meet the criteria of the Neighborhood Action Plan. This style of development has the potential to fit the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan goals if designed with respect to traditional Hillcrest streets and homes. This development will place four homes on six previously platted lots keeping building massing similar to the surrounding neighborhood and have an access drive to serve the new homes. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 16, 2004) Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated they had received several phone calls from area residents indicating concern with the proposed development; both minimum and maximum square footages of the proposed homes. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed construction materials, a typical building footprint, building elevations and proposed roof pitch. Staff also stated the garbage collection containers would not be allowed in the public right- of-way. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated garbage collection would not be provided on the indicated private street. Staff also stated the street should be designed to a standard 80-foot cul-de-sac or tee-type turnaround. Mr. White stated the desire of the development was to develop the homes in a low scale development and not to construct a major street into the proposed lots. He stated the indicated drive would be adequate to serve four lots with fire protection. Mr. White stated all other services would be received at “I” Street. Staff questioned detention. Mr. White stated an in-lieu contribution was being requested. Staff stated based on the size of the site, this would be considered. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 6 There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the impact on traffic in the area. It was stated “I” Street was a narrow roadway and currently it was impossible to pass on “I” Street when trucks were parked. Mr. White stated the developer would widen the street adjacent to his property per Master Street Plan requirements. Staff noted comments from the other reporting agencies and departments suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff indicating the proposed minimum square footage of the indicated homes. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to set a maximum square footage of the homes since there are creative ways to gain additional space and not increase the massing of a home. The applicant has also indicated the proposed construction materials, roof pitch and a typical building footprint on the proposed site plan. The applicant has indicated the minimum square footage of the homes will be 2500 square feet with a 10 in 12 pitched roof. The applicant has indicated the construction materials will be compatible with existing exteriors in the area. The applicant has indicated stone, brick, stucco, cobblestone, cypress wood siding, antique cypress and pine beams will be added to the new homes. All windows and doors will be wood and the roof will be constructed of asphalt shingles, wood shingles or clay roof tiles. Possible features of the new construction are antique gates, wrought iron railings, antique doors and windows and clay chimney caps. The applicant has indicated the proposed drive as 16-feet of pavement and a 30- foot access and utility easement. The applicant has contacted the fire department concerning access to the site and has received approval of the indicated design. The applicant has also indicated no City services (garbage collection) will take place on the proposed driveway. The site plan includes the placement of trash receptacles near the drive on proposed Lot 2. The applicant has indicated the cans will remain in this area and will be screened with evergreen screening and decorative fencing. On trash day, the residents will roll their container to the street for collection and return the container to the receptacle location once emptied. The applicant has indicated mail will be handled in a similar manner with a mail kiosk located on “I” Street for all four proposed lots. The kiosk will be constructed of materials similar to those proposed in the new home construction. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 7 The applicant has indicated the minimum lot size will be 7450 square feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a fifteen foot building line along “I” Street. The applicant has indicated the side yards within the development as five feet. The subdivision ordinance typically requires a twenty-five foot building line adjacent to a street and side yard setbacks of ten percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s requested reduced setbacks. The indicated setbacks are consistent with setbacks of existing homes in the area. The developer is also requesting an eight foot screening fence at the rear and side yard of each of the indicated lots. The ordinance typically allows a maximum fence height of six feet. The applicant has indicated the screening fence will add for privacy of the future homeowners as well as the existing home owners in the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to place an eight foot fence in the indicated area. Staff is supportive of the proposed request. The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the site, previously platted as six lots, with a four lot development and two tracts through a PD-R. There are two tracts proposed within the development. These two tracts will be maintained by the property owners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. The applicant has indicated the lots will be served by a private drive extending from “I” Street near the intersection with Walnut Street. The applicant has indicated two of the proposed lots will be pipe stem lots. The ordinance for a pipe stem lot typically requires to width of the stem to be 30-feet. The indicated 10-foot pipe stem would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the pipe stem to develop with a reduced width. Staff is supportive of this request. The stems are proposed as ten feet adjacent to “I” Street with 16-feet of pavement and a 30-foot access and utility easement. Staff feels this adequate to access the indicted lots and provide emergency service to the lots, if required. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to place an eight foot fence along the side and rear property lines of each of the indicated lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested plat variance to allow the creation of a pipe stem lot and the requested variance to allow a reduced width of the pipe stem. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 8 Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the proposed lots. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requested variance to allow a reduced building line for Lots 1 and 2. Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to allow the development of lots with a private access drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) Mr. Joe White and Ms. Kathy Purcell were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff noted additional comments from the Parks Department including a request to meet with the Parks Department prior to development to allow the development to be sensitive to the area. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had met with the neighbors on several occasions to discuss possible alternatives to the plan. She stated the plan had been revised four or five times to take into consideration the suggestions of adjoining property owners. She stated all the significant trees had been located on the site and if possible they were to be saved. She stated the materials in the existing house would be reused where possible. Ms. Purcell stated there had been concern with parking. She stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and two car driveway. Mr. White stated the original submission to staff included the placement of five lots on the site. He stated from there the development had been refined to include four lots and two tracts to satisfy the adjoining property owners. He stated the development fit well with the neighborhood and he felt the development a nice in-fill development. Ms. Sally Rector addressed the Commission in support of the request. She stated she was not excited about the development and had only recently became supportive of the development. She stated if the area were to develop the proposed development was best due to the developers working with the neighbors and trying to save the existing trees. She stated she did have concerns with an eight-foot fence being placed on the property line. She stated she was not aware of this being requested. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing area property owners in their opposition of the proposed development. He stated the concern with the proposal was the intensity. He stated his clients did not expect the property to not develop but the development of four homes on the site was too intense. He stated his clients felt two possible three homes was more acceptable. Mr. Giles stated the development was an in-fill development which typically did not meet all the perimeters of the ordinance. He stated the scale of the project was October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 9 over-fill. He stated the existing street did not have the capacity to handle the traffic from the proposed development. He stated the proposed development did not meet the intent of the PZD ordinance with regard to development. He stated there were concerns with the proposed driveway and the capacity to handle the proposed cars of the residents. He stated his request was a deferral request to allow additional time for the developers to meet with the neighbors and the residents association concerning the proposed development. Ms. Carol Ramsey addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated four homes was too intense. She stated currently exiting her driveway was dangerous at best due to the location of an existing utility pole. She stated with the development of four additional homes this would only increase the traffic on “I” Street. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was at 4305 “I” Street and his desire was to preserve the neighborhood. He stated the developers were motivated by profit and not the good of the neighborhood. He stated the developers did not live in the area and were not aware of the current traffic concerns of area residents. He also stated the new development would only increase the traffic noise and congestion. He stated “I” Street was currently 22 feet from curb to curb. He stated with cars parked on each side of the street there was only 8 feet of pavement to travel. He stated the property needed to be developed but with 2 homes, not 4 homes. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he loved Hillcrest the way it was. He stated the eight foot fence was out of character for the neighborhood. He stated homes in the area were thirty-five feet apart not the ten feet being proposed. He stated with reasonable requirements redevelopment could occur. He stated with the indicated development traffic would double on “I” Street. He stated the site would lend itself to the redevelopment with two homes and not the four being proposed. He stated the reasonable redevelopment would include the placement of a 1600 square foot footprint on the lot, fifteen foot side yard setbacks and a maximum building height of 32-feet. He stated the developers have given the residents a “kinda looks like” but no assurance of how the development would be constructed. He also requested the fence be eliminated. Mr. Borne stated the proposed driveway would have a 28 percent grade. He questioned fire protection on such a grade. He stated there was a 40-foot drop from the front to the rear of the site. He stated Walnut Street was much steeper than Ash Street and felt this was the reason it was not constructed. He requested the Commission defer the request until the Hillcrest Residents Association could meet with the developer. Mr. Gary Wheeler addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the developers were only interested making a profit. He stated to make a profit the developers would be required to put boxes on the lots which would be out of October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 10 character with the neighborhood. He stated the street infrastructure was not in place to handle the additional traffic the development would generate. He requested the Commission deny the request for development as proposed. Ms. Carol Young addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated there was an alternative proposal to rebuild the existing home and construct one home on the rear of the site. She requested the Commission deny the request as proposed. Mr. Tony Woodell addressed the Commission on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association. He stated the association had not met since staff informed them of the request. He stated the association did have a meeting on Monday, October 11, beginning at 7:00 pm. He requested the Commission defer the item until after the meeting to allow the association to take a formal stand. Mr. Joe White stated parking concerns had been raised. He stated each of the homes would have a two car garage and a driveway. He stated the development was platted as six lots previously and the request to allow four homes to be developed. He stated the four lots met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. White stated the developers had met with Commissioner Rector six weeks ago and with other area residents to obtain input. He stated the site had been on the market for four years. Ms. Beverly Darwin stated she had lived in the house previously. She requested a deferral until additional information could be obtained. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request and the notification of property owners and the neighborhood association. Mr. White stated the developers would be willing to take a two week deferral. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request for deferral to the October 21, 2004, Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented an update to the Commission indicating the applicant had met with the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association as requested by the Commission at their October 7, 2004, Public Hearing. Staff stated the residents association had voted to not support the proposed request and a letter from the President of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association had been included in a package give to the Commission at the agenda meeting. Staff also stated since the previous meeting they had received numerous e-mails and phone calls in opposition of the proposed request. Staff stated October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 11 there were a few e-mails and phone calls in support of the proposed request as well. Staff noted the e-mails had also been give to the Commission in the package at the agenda meeting. Staff stated the developer had since withdrawn their request for the reduced side yard setback and the eight-foot fence. Staff noted a fifteen-foot building line along I Street was still being sought to allow the new homes to remain in keeping with the exiting residents in the area. Staff stated they continued to support the proposed development. Staff stated they felt the development was in keeping with the neighborhood and the project a quality in-fill development. Ms. Kathy Purcell addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. She stated the site had been on the market for years and had been marketed for development and not restoration. She stated the price of the land and home did not lend itself to restoration. She stated three builders had looked at the home for restoration and determined the cost was not feasible. She stated the request was for a PRD to allow the redevelop of six lots with four homes. She stated she and her partners had met with the residents and made several concessions. She stated the original proposal included the development of five homes. She stated the proposal was now for four homes. She stated the building height was also a concern of neighbors and the partners had agreed to limit the structures to two stories with the second floor in the roofline. Ms. Purcell stated the net effect of the development would be two new homes. She stated the property owner to the south had removed a structure to add a garden and the existing home on the site would be removed, allowing for the net of two homes. She stated parking was also a concern of the neighborhood. She stated the development was providing parking on-site for the new homes. She stated in addition one-half street improvements would be added to the property frontage allowing for additional paving. Ms. Purcell stated the developers had located all the significant trees and the design had been created to save as many existing trees as possible. She stated the drive had been relocated to accommodate the home to the south to lessen the impact of headlights shining into the home. Ms. Purcell stated the development would limit the building height to 32 feet and provide a maximum building coverage of 32 percent including the garage. She stated the homes would be limited in square footage to 3200 square feet for the homes along I Street and 4500 square feet on the rear two homes. She stated the typical minimum side yard setback would be adhered to as required by the Zoning Ordinance and fencing would not exceed the typical maximum fence height per the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the development did include two tracts to protect adjoining property owners and allow for additional privacy. She stated these tracts would be retained by the homeowners association or conveyed to adjoining property owners. She stated to October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 12 relocate the drive to the east would not allow the development to meet the required grades per City ordinance. She stated Mr. Joe White could address this issue for the Commission. Ms. Purcell stated the developer’s first desire was to develop the homes compatible to the existing neighborhood. She stated the intent was not to construct new homes in the same manner as the new homes in the Heights. She stated based on architectural design of the existing neighborhood the new homes would be constructed to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Joe White, project engineer, addressed the Commission concerning the development and street grades. He stated the grade of the proposed driveway was consistent with grades currently allowed by City Ordinance or 18 percent. He stated if the driveway was moved to the east the grade would be 20 to 25 percent, which far exceed the allowable limits of City Ordinances. Mr. Scott Smith addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a member of the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. He stated the meeting held on October 11th between the developers and the neighborhood was an informative meeting but in the end the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association Board of Directors had elected to not support the development. He stated the Board felt the development to intense for the site and out of character with the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood was looking for a development that adhered to standard lot sizes, typical setbacks and separated by minimal distances. He stated the development would change the face of the block along I Street by allowing a street midway of the block. He stated the development would allow a block within a block. He stated the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association supported redevelopment in their area when consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Newbern addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was a member of the Historic District Commission and preservation was the key. She stated preservation should be the highest priority rather than demolition. She stated the development was out of character with the neighborhood and did not conform to the existing design of the neighborhood. Mr. David Rozas addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated I Street would not handle the additional traffic the new homes would generate. He stated currently there were residents who parked on I Street leaving a very narrow travel lane. He stated the development would add a new street mid-block on I Street changing the face of the neighborhood. Mr. Robin Borne addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he lived in the neighborhood and he had been an architect for 30 plus years. He October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7722 13 stated he did not feel the development could meet the required street grade. He stated the drive should be relocated to the east and off-set with Walnut Street. He stated he also felt four homes was too intense for the site. He stated if the drive were relocated to the east the developers could add three homes to the site; two along I Street and one home in the rear. He stated the foot print of the homes along I Street could be 1650 square feet and the rear home could be as much as 6000 square feet. He stated he did support redevelopment in the area, just not this proposal. Mr. Paul Zander addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had a secondary offer on the site and his desire was to restore the existing home. He stated his desire was to add a second home on the site at some point in the future but to maintain the block face of I Street. Mr. Gary Darwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he had lived in the area for 30 plus years and he felt the development too intense. He stated two homes was sufficient redevelopment. Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the site had several constraints limiting the buildability. He stated his clients felt the development ill placed and was too much on the existing acreage. He stated the intent of the PZD ordinance was to allow development of a site with the zoning and platting process being carried out simultaneously. He stated in the ordinance under the purpose and intent the development was to be compatible with the area and the existing pattern of development. He stated the ordinance was not created for the sole benefit of the developer. Mr. Giles stated the development was being constructed with a private street, which would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated if the street was constructed to public street standard then a private street was acceptable. He stated the indicated drive did not meet current ordinance requirements with regard to grade or minimum pavement width. He stated the development would generate a great deal of traffic and the street would become a collector street and not a local street. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development how the property was currently platted and the footprint of homes that could be constructed on each of the six lots. Chairman Rahman stated he lived in a historic neighborhood and he would welcome new housing stock. He stated it was important to have new homes as well as older homes to further a neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the request as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Bill Rector). October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: G-23-340 Name: Gaines Street – Right-of-Way Abandonment Location: Between West 4th Street and Capitol Avenue Owner/Applicant: United States Government, General Services Administration Request: To abandon the one block section of the 60 foot wide Gaines Street right-of-way between West 4th Street and Capitol Avenue. Purpose: To create a plaza area which will provide secure access to the federal complex for pedestrian use only, with access available for emergency vehicles only by way of a guard gate along the West 4th Street entrance. STAFF REVIEW: A. Public Need for this Right-of-Way As noted in paragraph G. of this report, several of the public utility companies request to retain all or part of the area of abandonment as a utility easement. All of the public utility companies consent to the right-of- way abandonment. The Public Works comments are as follows: 1. Other than drainage from the existing curbing, Public Works maintains no public drainage facilities in the Gaines Street right-of- way at that location. However, there are two curb and grate inlets at 4th and Gaines that may need to be reconstructed with future construction. 2. For any future construction, plans of all work in right-of-way should be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). B. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan classifies Gaines Street as a local road. Abandonment of this right-of-way will not adversely affect the Master Street Plan, as it is not classified as a collector street or higher. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-340 2 C. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain This one block section of Gaines Street is paved, with curb and gutter. It is currently barricaded and closed to through traffic. D. Development Potential Once abandoned, the applicant proposes to create a plaza area, with some security parking. The area will be for pedestrian use only, with emergency vehicle access only by way of a guard gate along the West 4th Street entrance. E. Neighborhood and Land Use Effect All surrounding property is developed and zoned UU (Urban Use), with a variety of uses. Abandoning this portion of Gaines Street right-of-way should have no adverse impact on the general area. A one block section of Arch Street, between West 4th Street and Capitol Avenue, was previously abandoned to allow expansion of the Federal Courthouse building. F. Neighborhood Position All abutting property owners and the Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the proposed abandonment. Staff has received no negative feedbacks as of this writing. G. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Wastewater: Existing sewer mains located in right-of-way. Right-of-way must be retained as easement. Entergy: No objection to abandonment. Retain as an easement for existing electric facilities. CenterPoint Energy: No objection to abandonment. Retain area as utility easement. Southwestern Bell: No objection to abandonment. Central Arkansas Water: Central Arkansas Water has a 12-inch cast iron main on the westerly side of right-of-way as well as service line(s) and meter(s). We have no objection to the closure of this street right-of- way; however, we request that the entire right-of-way be retained as a utility easement. Central Arkansas Water will need access to this area on a regular basis to read meter(s) and maintain facilities. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-340 3 H. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the United States government, as owner of the property along the east and west sides of the right-of-way. I. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this street right-of-way should have no adverse effects on the public welfare and safety. The Little Rock Fire Department submitted no comments to the proposed abandonment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004) Chris Hinebaugh and Tom Norman were present, representing the GSA. Staff presented the item and noted the Public Works and Utility Comments. The applicants responded that they had no problem complying with those comments. They presented a drawing showing the area of Gaines Street being redesigned as a plaza between the two Federal buildings. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Gaines Street right-of-way abandonment, subject to the area of abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-7727 Name: Vaden Day Care Family Home – Special Use Permit Location: 7815 West 38th Street Owner: Julia Arline Vaden Applicant: Julia Arline Vaden Proposal: A Special Use Permit is requested to allow a Day Care Family Home to be operated in the single family residence located on the R-3 zoned property at 7815 West 38th Street. A. Public Notification: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the John Barrow and Westwood Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. B. Staff Analysis: 7815 West 38th Street is located on the south side of West 38th Street, between Wynne and Katherine Streets. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2 and R-3, and are occupied by single family residences. The applicant’s home is a one-story frame structure, and is typical of those in the general area. The rear yard is fenced and should provide a safe play area. The applicant proposes to operate the day care from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted that she will have no employees. There is a one-car wide concrete drive from West 38th Street, with parking for three (3) vehicles including the carport. On inspection of the site, staff observed no vehicles parked on unpaved area. The driveway should allow sufficient space for drop-off and pick-up of children. Staff observed no vehicles on the site which were not operational. The site is not currently being used as a day care family home. The applicant notes that she is in the process of being licensed by the State, for care of up to 10 children. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7727 2 The principal use of the property will remain single family residential. No signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant submitted a copy of the Bill of Assurance for this neighborhood, which was recorded in 1902. The Bill of Assurance is handwritten and is not legible. Staff doubts if the Bill of Assurance addressed any use issues. Section 36-54(e)(3) of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance establishes the site and location criteria for day care family homes as follows: Day care family home: a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the care giver and which is the full time residence of the care giver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. State regulations shall control the number of employees residing off premises. c. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. f. After the effective date of this subsection, no Special Use Permit will be approved for a day care family proposed to be located within 300 feet of a licensed day care center or an operating day care family home for which a Special Use Permit has previously been approved. For the purposes of this subsection, the distance between properties shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects, from property line to property line. g. All day care family homes located in the City of Little Rock are required to obtain a City of Little Rock business license and to pay an annual business tax as specified in Chapter 17. of the Code. h. A copy of the day care family home’s current State of Arkansas license must be submitted to the City Collector’s Office each year at the time of payment of the annual business tax. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7727 3 i. All vehicles must be parked on an on-site paved surface. j. All vehicles located on the site must be operational. k. All pick-up and drop-off of children shall be on the property’s driveway and not on the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. l. Special Use Permits for day care family homes shall be reviewed by staff every three (3) years for compliance with the development criteria and Planning Commission approval. m. The Fire Marshall must approve use of the residence for the proposed day care family home. Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner. Permits cannot be transferred from owner to owner, location to location or use to use. To staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this application. Staff feels that the proposed day care family home at this location will have no adverse impact on the general area. Based on information provided by the State, there are no permitted/licensed day care family homes or day care centers within 300 feet of the site. C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004) The applicant, Ms. Vaden, was present. Staff presented the item and described the proposal. Staff noted that the day care family home was not yet in operation and the site was not within 300 feet of a licensed day care family home or day care center. In response to a question from staff, Ms. Vaden stated this was her only residence and she did not reside at any other address. Ms. Vaden stated she had met with the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and she thought the association supported her application. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. D. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit to allow a day care family home at 7815 West 38th Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the site and location criteria established in Section 36-54(e)(3). October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7727 4 2. There is to be no signage beyond that permitted in single family zones. 3. Outdoor activities, including playground use, are to be limited to daylight hours. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-4343-O Owner: FCC Tract D Partnership Applicant: Boen Enterprises, LLC Location: Southeast corner of Chenonceau Blvd. and Ranch Drive Area: 1.73 Acres Request: Rezone from O-2 to C-3 Purpose: Future Commercial Development Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Office/Commercial development (across Ranch Drive); zoned PCD South – Undeveloped; zoned C-3 East – Undeveloped; zoned C-3 West – Undeveloped (across Chenonceau Blvd.); zoned C-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #25 (Highway 10 Express Route) runs along Cantrell Road to the south. 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 River Valley and Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-O 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Pinnacle Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows MOC for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from O-2 Office to C-3 Commercial for future development. The request is consistent Little Rock Ordinance #18,106 agreement for Commercial and Office development and will not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Chenonceau Boulevard and Ranch Drive are shown as Local Streets on the Master Street Plan. The function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent property and the movement of traffic is considered a secondary purpose. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: FCC Tract D Partnership, owner of the 1.73 acre property at the southeast corner of Chenonceau Blvd. and Ranch Drive, is requesting to rezone the property from “O-2” Office and Institutional District to “C-3” General Commercial District. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial/retail development of the property. The property is currently undeveloped and grass-covered. The property sits slightly below the grade of Chenonceau Blvd. and Ranch Drive. A drainage ditch is located along the north property line. Undeveloped C-3 zoned property is located immediately south and east of the site, with additional undeveloped C-3 property to the west across Chenonceau Blvd. An office/commercial development (zoned PCD) is located across Ranch Drive to the north. The Arkansas Baptist High School development is located to the northeast along Ranch Blvd. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4343-O 3 The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Mixed Office and Commercial. The requested zoning change to C-3 does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested C-3 zoning. Staff feels that the rezoning request is reasonable. As noted previously, the adjacent undeveloped property to the east and south is also zoned C-3, as is the large acreage tract across Chenonceau Blvd. to the west. Therefore, staff feels that it is appropriate for this 1.73 acre tract to also be zoned C-3 and incorporated into the adjacent property. Staff believes the proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact or the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Geyer Springs -West Planning District Location: North side Mabelvale West Road, half mile west of I-30 Request: Office to Commercial and Low Density Residential Source: Charlie Best PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs -West Planning District from Office to Commercial and Low Density Residential. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The Low Density Residential 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. The applicant wishes to construct a fast food restaurant and other unspecified uses on the south portion of the property and single family homes on the rest of the property. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant, partially cleared of trees, and currently zoned O-3 Office and is 20.99 acres ± in size. North of the property is a large industrial operation in an area zoned I-2 Light Industrial District. Further north is additional I-2 land hosting industrial operations. Northeast and east of the site is an area zoned R-2 Single Family District consisting of the River of Life Church at the northern end, and single family homes on large lots paralleling the site’s eastern edge. The homes at the east vary in age and size ranging from early 1900’s construction to larger 1970’s era construction. About a quarter mile east of the site is a single family subdivision not accessible from the immediate area. East of the site and along Mabelvale West Road are parcels zoned O-3 General Office District occupied by a Jehovah Witness Freedom Hall, R-2 land with a Missionary Baptist Church, additional R-2 land with an in-house daycare operating under a CUP, undeveloped O-3 and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, an I-1 Industrial Park District for a chemical business, and vacant I-1 land. Additionally there is a tract of undeveloped land paralleling the local creek zoned OS -Open Space. Immediately south is zoned C-3 General Commercial District partially developed with a Post Office and remaining mostly vacant. Diagonally southwest of the property is R-2 occupied by the Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, and further south and west is undeveloped I-2 land. Also to the west are multiple vacant C-3 Commercial parcels and developed I-2 along Otter Creek East Boulevard. West of the property is a large area October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 2 of R-2 remaining mostly undeveloped, and O-2 developed with the 30-acre Southwest Regional Medical Center. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: August 4, 2003, a change was made from Light Industrial to Commercial about three quarters of a mile northeast of the property at the southwest corner of I-30 and Mabelvale Pike for proposed and future development. April 2, 2002, a change was made from Single Family to Public/Institutional about a half mile to the west at the southeast corner of Mann Road and Cochran Street to recognize existing conditions. On September 19, 2000, a change was made from Mixed to Commercial about one quarter of a mile east north of Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Main Street to recognize existing conditions and allow for future development. The applicant’s property is shown as Office. To the north is Light Industrial and northeast of the property is Public / Institutional. Immediately east of the property is a strip of Park / Open space to recognize the floodplain along the adjacent creek. Further to the east is land shown as Single Family, Mixed, and Public / Institutional. Southeast and south of the property is shown as Mixed Commercial and Industrial. Also south and southeast of the property are Public/Institutional to recognize a Post Office and Magnet Middle School, and an area shown as Commercial. To the west of the property is land shown as Public / Institutional and Office. Northwest of the property is an area shown as Commercial fronting the I-30 Frontage Road. MASTER STREET PLAN: Mabelvale West Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The Little Rock 2004 Master Street Plan shows the proposed South Loop, a Principal Arterial with special design guidelines, immediately adjacent to the western edge of the property. The development of the South Loop section adjacent to the applicant’s property is not seen in the immediate future. Funding sources and design have not been identified. The section extending south from Mabelvale West Road to Alexander Road is funded and construction is anticipated to begin in 2006. Construction of this portion of the South Loop will create a two lane road with wide shoulders build to Principle Arterial standards. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 3 PARKS: The property is about a quarter mile west of Pinedale Cove Park, a five acre neighborhood park featuring a playground and picnic area. However, accessibility is limited to this park do to the street patterns in the adjacent area. Walking distance to the park from the site is over one mile. Morehart Park is located about a half mile to the southeast of the site and is a 43 acres Community park with a variety of amenities including basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, a pavilion, playground, picnic areas, and restrooms. Due to the street patterns in the area walking access to this park is just under a mile. The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 show a “potential greenbelt” along the flood plain of the creek adjacent to the property’s eastern edge. Development of the study area will need to respect the integrity of the drainage system located in the 100-year flood plain of the creek as well as the integrity of the “potential greenbelt” shown in the plan. The applicants addition of residential will be able to utilize the existing greenbelt keeping it consistent with the Parks Master Plan 8-block strategy. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West / I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure goal is to “have an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems, within the area, which is designed, and works to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment.” The plan listed several objectives to support this goal: “Provide sidewalks on major roads near schools and “Construct the proposed South Loop.” Since this development is adjacent to the proposed south loop and kitty corner to a junior high school additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks may be required. Furthermore, the Traffic and Transportation Goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, around, and through the area,” with an action statement: “Install a caution light on Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Jr. High.” The additional traffic added to Mabelvale West by the addition of R-2 and C-4 may warrant this type of traffic mitigation. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal indicates a desire for “new single-family growth.” Several housing objective related to this case is to “Encourage the construction of new single family housing. Site built homes are preferable to manufactured homes,” and “Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized northern portion of the study area.” The action statement, “Encourage the City of Little Rock to provide incentives to spur private investment in the single-family residential October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 4 market,” indicates a high desire for new single family housing in the area. Development of single property homes on this site would be consistent with the housing aspect of the neighborhood action plan. The Economic Development goal states: “Provide a mixed commercial/residential environment that will promote the safety, attractiveness, and value of the area while creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that encourages investment and diversity of employment opportunities.” Several objectives are relative to this case: “1) Attract better restaurants. (There is a need for sit-down restaurants.) 2) Attract neighborhood oriented businesses. 3) Attract a grocery store to the area.” The change to Commercial could be utilized for these types of businesses. ANALYSIS: The area is developed in both the rural and urban context. Various properties alongside Mabelvale West Road have developed with intense uses while other properties have lower intensity uses or remain vacant. In the area new construction has been minimal. Within the last five years new development has occurred about a half mile east on Mabelvale West Road in the Commercial area adjacent to the Mabelvale town center for a car wash. However, recently completed is the area is the a new Interstate 30, Mabelvale West Road, and Otter Creek Road Interchange about a half mile to the west which could serve as a catalyst for new development in the area. The City of Little Rock Public Works has noted that land east of the applicant’s property will facilitate the proposed “South Loop,” consistent with the City of Little Rock 2004 Master Street Plan. The City has purchased the right of way on both sides of Mabelvale West Road at the proposed intersection and has a long term goal of securing additional land to the north. The design guidelines for the South Loop will have it intersecting with I-430 less than a half mile northwest of the development. Special design guidelines for this Principal Arterial have been adopted to regulate construction of the South Loop that will limit access to development adjacent to it (City of Little Rock Ordinance # 17,183) and create an elevated roadway alongside part of the applicant’s property. Presently the City has some property set aside for the portion of the South Loop between Mabelvale West Road and I-430 and lacks funding for further land acquisition, design, and construction for this segment of the proposed South Loop. The design of the South Loop from Mabelvale West Road south to Alexander Road is anticipated to be complete in 2005 with construction beginning in 2006. This section of the South Loop will be designed to Principal Arterial Standards and be constructed as a two-lane road with wide shoulders. An elevated crossing is anticipated at the nearby railroad tracks possibly making this a preferred route for area residents, and could also absorb traffic from nearby Alexander Road since an elevated crossing will provide faster movement from Saline County to Interstate 30. With the completion of the South Loop from Mabelvale West Road to Alexander Road additional area traffic will be likely. At the present time 15 acres ± of land zoned Commercial exists at the southeast intersection of the proposed South Loop and Mabelvale West Road. This land is also shown on the Land Use Plan as Mixed Commercial and Industrial. Furthermore, less than one tenth of a mile west is an October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 5 additional 10 acres ± zoned C-3 and partially shown as Commercial. At this time both areas remain mostly vacant with the exception of a Post Office at the corner of Mabelvale West Road and the proposed South Loop. The Land Use Plan shows the northern half of Mabelvale West Road as Mixed and Public Institutional Offices with the southern half Commercial and Public Institutional. Adding Commercial to this area could create commercial strip development alongside Mabelvale West Road near the South Loop intersection jeopardizing pedestrian and traffic flow while conflicting with adjacent Public/Institutional and Mixed Uses. Furthermore, the Mixed Use designation makes developments utilize a Planned Zoning District process bringing all development to both staff and public review minimizing any negative design impacts. Immediately southwest of the property is the Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, which serves over 600 students between the sixth and eight grades, and to the east and west of the site are multiple churches. The introduction of a Commercial area adjacent to several churches and a large school could lead to uses of conflicting interests. Generally, the Planning Staff’s philosophy is to separate uses of low and high intensity with uses of medium intensities and not place Commercial adjacent to areas shown as Public/Institutional or Single Family. In this area the current Land Use Plan has created a Park Open Space buffer that separates the Single Family at the east from the current Office area. Office is considered a medium intensity use and protects the existing Single Family from the nearby Commercial and Light Industrial, while also not jeopardizing the adjacent Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Furthermore, properties fronting Mabelvale West Road in the immediate area have been identified primarily as Mixed Use and Public/Institutional to minimize contrasting intensities, recognize existing densities, and provide a buffer from the Mixed Commercial Industrial on Mabelvale West Road’s south side. A Residential use immediately adjacent to Light Industrial is a Land Use practice that is not commonly accepted by the Planning Staff. However, the applicant has asked for a change to Low Density Residential, which is a higher intensity use than the traditional Single Family area nearby. The Low Density Residential area would also be immediately adjacent to the proposed Commercial adjacent to Mabelvale West Road. The Commercial category could lead to intense future uses that might not be compatible with adjacent homeowners, and the nearby middle school. Recently nearby homeowners in the area shown as Single Family to the east have voiced objection about activities in the Industrial area to the property’s north. Placing Low Density Residential immediately adjacent to what some locals call a nuisance would lead to more complaints both because of their close proximity and the addition of residents. Furthermore, the future construction of the South Loop will be adjacent to this development and will surround three sides of this development with noisy higher intensity uses. In the Mabelvale West area, there are numerous properties both zoned and shown as Commercial that could facilitate the type of development the applicant is requesting. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-15-02 6 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Oxford Valley Homeowners Association, Yorkwood Neighborhood Association, West Baseline Neighborhood Association, Cloverdale Neighborhood Association, Pinedale Neighborhood Association, Santa Monica Neighborhood Association, Allendale Neighborhood Association, Town & Country Estates Neighborhood Association, Shiloh Homeowners Association, Chicot Neighborhood Association, Rob Roy Way Neighborhood Association, Legion Hut Neighborhood Association, Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association, and Deer Meadow Neighborhood Association. Staff has received one neutral comment from an area resident. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate because of the surrounding Industrial and Public/Institutional uses and the availability of undeveloped Commercial land in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the withdrawal request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was withdrawn, without prejudice. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4.1 FILE NO.: Z-4768-A Owner: Taurusland Partnership Applicant: John Williams and Charlie Best Location: North side of Mabelvale West Road, East of Interstate 30 Area: 20.99 Acres Request: Rezone from O-3 to R-2 and C-3 Purpose: Future Commercial and Residential Development Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Industrial uses along I-30; zoned I-2 South – Post office, middle school and undeveloped property (across Mabelvale West Road); zoned R-2 and C-3 East – Single Family Residences on large lots and churches; zoned R-2 West – Church, single family residence, hospital and undeveloped property; zoned R-2, O-2 and C-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. The proposed right-of-way dedication for Mabelvale Pike meets Master Street Plan requirements. 2. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. 3. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Sec. 8-283 prior to any land clearing or grading. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-A 2 B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is located on a CATA Bus Routes 17 and 17A, the Mabelvale- Downtown and Mabelvale-UALR Routes. 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 Pinedale, Mavis Circle and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the rezoning request. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from O-3 Office to R-2 Residential and C-3 Commercial to facilitate proposed commercial and residential development. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial and Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda. Master Street Plan: Mabelvale West Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Chicot West/I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure goal is to “have an adequate infrastructure network, including roadways and drainage systems, within the area, which is designed, and works to produce a safe and attractive neighborhood environment.” The plan listed several objectives to support this goal: “Provide sidewalks on major roads near schools and Construct the proposed South Loop.” Since this development is adjacent to the proposed South Loop and diagonally adjacent to a middle school, additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks may be required. Furthermore, the Traffic and Transportation Goal is to “Ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic in, October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-A 3 around, and through the area,” with an action statement: “Install a caution light on Mabelvale West and Mabelvale Jr. High.” The additional traffic added to Mabelvale West by the addition of R-2 and C-4 may warrant this type of traffic mitigation. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal indicates a desire for “new single-family growth.” One housing objective related to this case is to “Encourage the construction of new single family housing. Site built homes are preferable to manufactured homes.” The action statement, “Encourage the City of Little Rock to provide incentives to spur private investment in the single-family residential market,” indicates a high desire for new single family housing in the area. Development of single property homes on this site would be consistent with the housing aspect of the neighborhood action plan. The Economic Development goal states: “Provide a mixed commercial/residential environment that will promote the safety, attractiveness, and value of the area while creating a competitive and adaptable economic climate that encourages investment and diversity of employment opportunities.” Several objectives are relative to this case: “1) Attract better restaurants. (There is a need for sit-down restaurants.) 2) Attract neighborhood oriented businesses. 3) Attract a grocery store to the area.” The change to Commercial could be utilized for these types of businesses. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Taurusland Partnership, owner of the 20.99 Acre tract on the north side of Mabelvale West Road, east of Interstate 30, is requesting to rezone the property from “O-3” General Office District to “R-2” Single Family District and “C-3” General Commercial District. The north 14.8 Acres is proposed to be zoned R-2, with the south 6.19 Acres, fronting Mabelvale West Road, proposed for C-3. The rezoning is proposed for future residential and commercial development of the property. The property is located on the north side of Mabelvale West Road, approximately 0.66 mile east of Interstate 30. The property is currently undeveloped. The front (south) portion of the property is grass-covered, with the rear portion being wooded. The general area along Mabelvale West Road contains a mixture of uses and zoning. There are single family homes on large lots to the east along Nash Lane, with two (2) churches along Mabelvale West Road. There is another church, a single family residence and a hospital to the west. Industrial uses exist along I-30 to the north. A post office and undeveloped C-3 property is located to the south across Mabelvale West Road, with a middle school located to the southwest. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 4.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4768-A 4 The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Office. A Land Use Plan Amendment for a change to Low Density Residential and Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. Staff is not supportive of the requested zoning, specifically the proposed change to C-3. With the abundance of undeveloped C-3 and I-2 zoned property in this general area along Mabelvale West Road, staff feels that the requested C-3 zoning is not appropriate at this time. However, staff would be willing to entertain a request for a Land Use Plan Amendment to “MOC” Mixed Office and Commercial or “MX” Mixed Use, with a Planned Zoning Development for a Mixed Office/Commercial development or a mixed residential/office/commercial development similar to the “Stagecoach Village” development along Stagecoach Road, which contains a mixture of patio homes, office and commercial uses. Staff believes a Land Use Plan designation which requires a Planned Zoning Development could be a much better alternative for the property. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested R-2/C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn, without prejudice. Staff supported the withdrawal request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the withdrawal request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was withdrawn, without prejudice. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-7728 Owner: Central Arkansas Land Development, LLC Applicant: Central Arkansas Land Development, LLC Location: 11700 Kanis Road Area: 1.19 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to O-3 Purpose: Office Development Existing Use: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Office uses and mini-warehouse development; zoned O-3 and POD South – Mixed Office and Commercial uses (across Kanis Road); zoned R-2, O-3, POD, PCD East – Vacant Office Building; zoned POD West – Single family residences and contractor’s maintenance yard; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. The proposed right-of-way dedication meets Master Street Plan requirements. Signed and notarized dedications should be furnished with final Board approval of the rezoning request. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #5 (West Markham Route) runs along Chenal Parkway to the north. 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 John Barrow and Gibralter Heights/Pointe West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7728 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from R-2 Residential to O-3 Office to facilitate proposed development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Kanis Road may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The property is only accessible from Kanis Road, a Minor Arterial, so curb cuts should be minimal. Existing or proposed Class I, II or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant’s property lies in the area covered by the Birchwood-Walnut Valley Neighborhood Action Plan. The Infrastructure goal is to “Maintain the public right-of-way and streets to assure a safe and pleasurable use.” This goal listed one objective relevant to this case, “Bring all streets up to standard.” This site is on a section of Kanis Road that is presently a rural two-lane road. Half road improvement to Minor Arterial Standards would help this development cater towards the neighborhood’s Infrastructure goal. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Central Arkansas Land Development, LLC, owner of the 1.19 acre property at 11700 Kanis Road, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family District to “O-3” General Office District. The rezoning is proposed for future office development. A multiple building site plan for office use was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2004 (S-1096-E). A condition of the site plan approval was rezoning this property to O-3. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7728 3 The property is located along the north side of Kanis Road, approximately 300 feet west of Autumn Road. The property is currently occupied by a one-story frame single family structure. There is a gravel driveway from Kanis Road which serves as access to the property. The general area contains a mixture of zoning and uses. There is an office development (also owned by Central Arkansas Land Development, LLC) to the north along Autumn, with a mini-warehouse/office development to the northwest. There is a mixture of office and commercial uses across Kanis Road to the south. A vacant office building is located to the east, at the northwest corner of Kanis and Autumn Roads. Office and commercial uses exist across Autumn Road further to the east. Single Family structures and a nonconforming contractor’s maintenance yard exist on the R-2 property to the west, with a mix of office and commercial uses further west along Bowman Road. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Mixed Office and Commercial. The requested zoning change to O-3 does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested O-3 zoning. Staff feels the request is reasonable. Staff feels that future office development of the property in conjunction with the Central Arkansas Land Development, LLC office development to the north will prove to be a good use of the property. Staff believes the proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested O-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: LU04-21-01 Name: Land Use Plan Amendment - Burlingame Valley Planning District Location: 18303 Denny Road, 18900 and 18904 Kanis Road Request: Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial Source: White, Joe PROPOSAL / REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Burlingame Valley Planning District from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial. The Neighborhood Commercial category includes limited small scale commercial development in close proximity to a neighborhood, providing goods and services to that neighborhood market area. The applicant wishes to utilize existing houses for office uses. Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request, the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include area the entirety of the land between Denny and Kanis Roads. With these changes, the entirety of the Single Family would be eliminated. It is thought that the additional area would make the boundaries more logical. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is developed with several single family homes currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is 2.3 acres ± in size. Immediately north of the property is land zoned R-2 which remains rural and is developed with several single family homes. Less than a quarter mile to the north is the backside of a suburban single family subdivision not accessible from Denny or Kanis Roads. Immediately to the west is mostly vacant land zoned R-2 with a couple of single family residences on large lots. On the opposite side of Denny Road is an area zoned C-1 Commercial with two established business, one for the resale of clothing and the second is a hairdresser. These businesses have different roadway setbacks and share a common wall. Southwest of the area is an area zoned R-2 occupied by the Hebron Baptist Church, a church accessory building, and several single family homes on large country lots. Also to the south west of the property is a parcel zoned C-3 Commercial occupied by a Plantation Services business that specializes in household and workplace plant leasing, maintenance, and sales. Immediately south is the intersection of Kanis and Stewart Roads with all corners vacant and zoned R-2. A single family home on a multiple acre lot occupies R-2 land on the southwest and multiple single family homes line the north side of Kanis Road immediately west of the property. The land to the northwest is also zoned R-2, consists of several small homes on rural lots, and further to the northwest is a CUP consisting of an area of land October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-21-01 2 developed with Pulaski Academy’s new sports complex. Eventually the land around the Ballfields will develop into the Pulaski Academy Campus. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: April 17, 2001, A change was made from Multi Family, Park/Open Space, and Single Family to Community Shopping at the southwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway to recognize existing zoning after the revocation of a Planned Commercial Development. On May 6, 1997 multiple changes took place on the east side of Chenal Parkway and along Rahling Road within a one mile radius of the property. The applicant’s property lies in unincorporated Pulaski County in Little Rock’s Extraterritorial Planning District. The property is shown as both Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family. The Single Family Residential category provides for single family homes at densities not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Predominately the area surrounding the property is shown as Single family with the exception of Neighborhood Commercial following Kanis Road from Denny Road to just past Stewart Road. Just east of the property is an area shown as Public Institutional recognizing an existing church. MASTER STREET PLAN: Kanis, Denny, and Stewart Roads are all shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Kanis Road has Special Design Standards from Burlingame Road to Stewart Road, which consists of a two-lane road with a twenty-two foot paved with and four-foot shoulders. This alternative standard has been imposed to protect the areas rural and scenic atmosphere. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. PARKS: There are no parks located in the area and the 2000 Parks Master Plan does not indicate any specifics on the future parks in the area. The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan identifies this area as the “West District” which mainly consists of private neighborhood parks. In this area a private neighborhood park is not located nearby due to the rural character. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-21-01 3 However, recently constructed are new ballfields for the Pulaski Academy, which are for private use, and the YMCA has purchased land nearby for new facilities which will be available for a usage fee. Also the Wildwood Park for the performing Arts complex and a proposed Elementary school are located just over a mile northwest of the site. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The area is located just outside of city limits in unincorporated Pulaski County. Suburban single-family developments complete with curb and gutter are occurring about a quarter mile northeast of the site backing towards Denny Road. The new single family subdivision is approximately 160 feet from Denny Road at it closest point and is screened by dense trees and bushes. Access to the nearby neighborhood is predominately from nearby Chenal Valley Drive and secondary access from Denny Road at Gordon Road a half mile northwest and Wildwood Lane one and a half miles northwest of the site. At the present time Wildwood Lane is built to Collector Standards and Gordon Road is not. Gordon Road is a winding narrow road that connects with Chenal Valley Drive. Gordon Road’s intersection is somewhat hidden and it’s connectivity to the nearby subdivision is not apparent. Most traffic for this neighborhood utilizes Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal Parkway to exit the development. Wildwood Lane was recently constructed linking the Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts with the nearby subdivision Currently 7.3 acres ± of land in this area is shown as Neighborhood Commercial and about 25% of the land is being utilized by commercial uses. This change in the Land Use Plan would result in an addition of 33% more Neighborhood Commercial bringing it to a total of about 10 acres ±. At the present time the amount of Neighborhood Commercial shown seems sufficient, but may not be sufficient for future development. Along with the Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts, additional developments will change the development pattern and character of development along Denny Road in the near future. First is the recent construction of the Pulaski Academy ballfields and their intent to develop a campus. Secondly is the recent purchase October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-21-01 4 of land for a new YMCA facility. Also property at an undisclosed location near Wildwood Park was recently donated to the Pulaski County Special School district for construction of an 800-student elementary school. With these developments, more trips are anticipated along this section of Kanis, Stewart, and Denny Roads in addition to the trips already generated by the Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts. Furthermore, the 2004 Master Street Plan identifies Gordon Road connecting Denny Road with Chenal Valley Drive at Collector standards. Presently a connection exists that is sub-standard. The improved connection and new activity centers in the area could generate a need for additional Neighborhood Commercial in the area. The improved connection will link the existing neighborhoods to the YMCA, the Pulaski Academy, the elementary school, Wildwood Park, and the Neighborhood Commercial area. The overwhelming presence of numerous institutional facilities will help maintain the area’s low intensity character. The expansion of the Neighborhood Commercial at Kanis, Denny, and Stewart Roads should satisfy the need for low intensity commercial development serving local demand. Immediately east of Stewart Road, Kanis Road has a special design standard stretching four miles west to Burlingame Road. This is design standard is intended to preserve the scenic character of Kanis Road through the rural natural environment. Adding the Neighborhood Commercial alongside Denny Road might reduce demand for expansion west on Kanis Road protecting the scenic corridor. Showing this land as Neighborhood Commercial also could lead to commercial development on Denny Road’s east side, in turn, creating a small Neighborhood Commercial node at the intersection. This type of Neighborhood Commercial might be discouraged because of the adjacent Public/Institutional and Single Family uses in the area. About a half mile east the Master Street Plan shows a Principal Arterial, Rahling Road, intersecting Kanis Road near Edswood Road. An area of land predominantly undeveloped is shown as Commercial at this intersection. Showing the applicant’s property as Neighborhood Commercial will bring the total acreage of Neighborhood Commercial to about ten acres. This should be identified as the limit of Neighborhood Commercial at the Kanis and Denny Roads intersection due to the institutional and single family uses in the area. Additional room for Commercial growth can be focused at the proposed Rahling Road intersection with Kanis Road or at the Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway intersection. Limiting expansion of the Neighborhood Commercial and directing additional Commercial east will preserve Denny Road’s character of low intensity and institutional uses. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received one neutral comment from an area resident. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU04-21-01 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate due to development trends in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6.1 FILE NO.: Z-7729 Owner: John Sewall Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: 18303 Denny Road and 18900/18904 Kanis Road Area: Approximately 2.2 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-1 Purpose: Future Commercial Development Existing Use: Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Single family residences on large lots and undeveloped property (across Denny Road); zoned R-2 and C-1 South – Single family residences on large lots and undeveloped property (across Kanis Road); zoned R-2 East – Undeveloped property; zoned R-2 West – Single family residences on large lots; zoned R-2 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Kanis Road and Denny Road are classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterials. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Furnish signed and notarized dedications with final Board approval of the rezoning request. B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. C. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing. There was no nearby established neighborhood association to notify. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7729 2 D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the Burlingame Valley Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Neighborhood Commercial for a portion of this property. The applicant has applied for a zoning change from R-2 Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial to facilitate proposed development. A staff driven land use plan amendment for a change to Neighborhood Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. Master Street Plan: Kanis, Denny, and Stewart Roads are all shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. Kanis Road has Special Design Standards from Burlingame Road to Stewart Road, which consists of a two-lane road with a twenty-two foot paved with and four-foot shoulders. This alternative standard has been imposed to protect the areas rural and scenic atmosphere. These streets will require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: John Sewall, owner of the 2.2 Acre property at 18303 Denny Road and 18900/18904 Kanis Road, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family District to “C-1” Neighborhood Commercial District. The rezoning is proposed for future commercial development of the property. The property is located several hundred feet west of the Kanis Road/Denny Road intersection. There is one (1) single family residence located on the property which fronts Denny Road and two (2) single family homes on the property fronting Kanis Road. There is a nonconforming small office use located in an accessory building along Denny Road. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 6.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7729 3 Single family residences on large lots are located to the north (across Denny Road), south (across Kanis Road) and to the west. There is undeveloped property immediately east of the site, at the intersection of Kanis and Denny Roads. There is undeveloped C-1 property located to the northeast as well as undeveloped R-2 zoned property in the general area. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates the portion of the property fronting Kanis Road as Neighborhood Commercial. The portion which fronts Denny Road is designated as Single Family. A staff-driven Land Use Plan Amendment to change the northern portion of the property to Neighborhood Commercial is a separate item on this agenda. Staff is supportive of the requested C-1 zoning. Staff feels that the request is reasonable. The City’s Future Land Use Plan currently shows Neighborhood Commercial at the intersection of Kanis Road and Denny Road, as well at the intersection of Kanis Road and Stewart Road. Expanding the Neighborhood Commercial to include the northern portion of this property is a fairly minor change. A rezoning of this property to C-1 will allow the continued use of the property as single family residential, as well as legitimizing the nonconforming small office use along the Denny Road frontage. Staff believes the proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C-1 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5230-B NAME: Gibbs Elementary School – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1115 West 16th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: LRSD/Fred Perkins PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an addition onto the existing school on this R-4 zoned property. 1. SITE LOCATION: The school is located on the southeast corner of West 16th and Cross Streets. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The school has been a component of this neighborhood for many years. No expansion of the school property is proposed. Removal of the portable buildings and construction of the addition as proposed will only positively affect the school’s continued compatibility with the neighborhood. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Downtown and Central High Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The property has no on-site parking. Typically, the school would be required one space per classroom plus one space for every teacher, administrator and employee. The school has 45 employees and currently has 20 classrooms, plus 3 portable buildings containing a total of 6 classrooms. The proposed addition is to contain 6 classrooms plus an activity room. The portable buildings will be removed. The school district has an agreement which allows use of 46 spaces in the 69 space parking lot located on the property of the Dunbar Community Center, adjacent to the east. No changes are proposed to the existing bus loading/unloading area which is located in front of the school. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The proposed expansion does not exceed 10% of the existing building area. No landscape upgrade is required. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5230-B 2 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. With construction repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required in accordance with Section 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan for Cross Street. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Please submit four copies of the plans for modification of the fire protection system to Central Arkansas Water for review. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for extension of the fire service to this facility. Fire sprinkler systems which do not contain additives such as antifreeze shall be isolated with a double detector check valve assembly. If additives are used, a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer will be required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. Nearby routes are located on West 14th Street, Wright Avenue and Chester Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004) Doug Eaton and Fred Perkins were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted additional information was needed, including the number of teachers, administrators and employees; signage; new fencing; new site lighting and building design. The applicant was directed to provide a copy of the bill of assurance. It was noted that the site contained no parking; that parking was shared with the adjacent community center. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5230-B 3 Public Works, Utility and Landscape Comments were noted. Staff explained the need for a sidewalk on the Cross Street perimeter. It was noted that the applicant might have to address stormwater detention. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues no later than October 6, 2004. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: Gibbs Elementary School is located on the R-4 zoned property at 1115 West 16th Street. The school is built in a horseshoe design. The building contains 20 classrooms, offices and cafeteria. Three portable classroom buildings, containing two classrooms each, are located in the courtyard area within the “horseshoe”. The school district proposes to remove the portable buildings and to replace them with a new building addition containing 6 classrooms and an activity room. Counting the activity room, there will be a net gain of one classroom. The proposed addition will not exceed the existing building height which is 18 feet for the classroom wings and 21’ for the cafeteria. The new addition will have a brick exterior, to match the existing building, with a low slope modified bitumen roof. The site has one existing ground-mounted sign which is 32 square feet in area. No changes in signage are proposed. The playground area on the south side of the building is enclosed by a chainlink fence. No additional fencing is proposed. The only new site lighting will be wall-mounted security lighting in the interior of the courtyard formed by the existing classroom wings and the new addition. The dumpster is located at the front of the building, at the entrance to the kitchen. As a part of this C.U.P., the dumpster will be screened to comply with the Code. The property is within the Original City of Little Rock, and there is no bill of assurance issue. The total number of employees is 45. With 27 classrooms, the typical parking requirement is 72 spaces. The property contains no on-site parking. The district has an agreement to use 46 spaces on the adjacent Dunbar Community Center property. With removal of the portable classroom buildings, there is only a net gain of one classroom type space. Staff is supportive of allowing the existing parking arrangement to continue. There is no change proposed to the bus loading/unloading area located at the front of the school. On October 4, 2004, the applicant responded to issues raised at Subdivision Committee and reflected in the analysis above. The district has also agreed to construct a sidewalk along the Cross Street frontage, from West 16th Street to the south property line. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5230-B 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the staff report. 2. The dumpster is to be screened to comply with code requirements. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow all parking to remain off-site, on the Dunbar Community Center property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6345-A NAME: Mulkey Accessory Dwelling – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 208 Rose Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Lila Mulkey PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for construction of a two-story, accessory dwelling on this R-3 zoned lot. 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Rose Street; 1 ½ blocks north of West Markham Street. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in an area of mixed residential uses; including single family, duplexes and multifamily. Staff believes the proposed use is compatible with uses and zoning in the area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The existing house and proposed accessory dwelling require one on-site parking space each. The applicant proposes to extend a driveway beside the house and to have 4 parking spaces located between the structures. The parking and drive will be paved. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No Comments. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-A 2 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer not available for accessory dwelling. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s) are required. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. A route is located two blocks to the south, on W. Markham Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004) The applicant, Lila Mulkey, was present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that a similar use had been approved for this site in 1997. Staff asked the applicant to provide a copy of the bill of assurance. Staff informed the Committee that variances were needed to allow the 40% rear yard coverage and to allow the two-story accessory dwelling. In response to questions from staff, Ms. Mulkey stated separate utilities were requested, all of the proposed driveway and parking area would be paved and there would be no new fencing. Gary Langlais asked who would live in the accessory dwelling. Ms. Mulkey responded that she would. Staff noted the comment from Wastewater and directed her to contact Wastewater’s staff. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: The R-3 zoned lot located at 208 Rose Street is currently occupied by a one- story, rock, brick and frame single family residence. On August 7, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a C.U.P. to allow construction of a two-story accessory building with a garage on the ground floor October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-A 3 and a 336 square foot accessory dwelling on the second floor. The applicant was going to occupy the principal dwelling and the accessory dwelling was to be used as a guest quarters only and was not to be rented. The structure was not built and the C.U.P. expired. The applicant now proposes to construct a two-story accessory building, with the same 25’ X 25’ footprint as was approved in 1997. The structure has been moved closer to the rear property line. Although the proposed building meets the required setbacks, it does now cover 40% of the required rear yard; exceeding the allowable 30% coverage for accessory buildings. The applicant proposes to use the entire two-story structure as an accessory dwelling. Parking will now be provided in the area between the structures. The code allows two-story construction for accessory dwellings, if the ground floor is used for a garage. The applicant is requesting variances from the area coverage limitation and to have a two-story accessory dwelling. The property owner proposes to occupy the accessory dwelling and to continue to rent the principal dwelling. Separate utilities are requested. Staff is supportive of the requested C.U.P. The proposed use is not out of character with the neighborhood which contains a variety of housing types; including single family, duplexes and multifamily. The applicant will live on site. Since more than adequate parking will be provided on-site, staff is supportive of allowing the two-story accessory dwelling. There appears to be no bill of assurance issue. The applicant states she met with a representative of Wastewater and resolved their concerns. If approval is not submitted by Wastewater at the time of building permit request, no permit will be issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C.U.P. subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. The property owner must occupy one of the dwellings on the site. 2. Approval must be provided from Wastewater prior to approval of a building permit. 3. The paved parking and driveway must be constructed in compliance with the site plan. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the 40% rear yard coverage and to allow the two-story accessory dwelling. Staff recommends allowing separate utilities. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6345-A 4 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-7724 NAME: Mae-Mae’s Homecare Day Care Center – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 3500 Zion Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Mary Morrow PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a day care center in the existing residence on this R-3 zoned lot. 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the southwest corner of Zion and West 35th Streets. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located within a neighborhood that is almost exclusively single family in zoning and use. A church and a city park are located two blocks to the southeast. Otherwise, all properties in the area around this site appear to be single family. The proposed use is not a day care family home but a day care center with 24 hour per day operation. Staff does not believe this use is appropriate in this area. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The day care center operates in three shifts with 16 children in each of the two daytime shifts and up to 6 overnight. There are 6 employees, 3 who live on-site and 3 off-site. The parking requirement for a day care center is one space per employee on the largest shift plus one space per facility vehicle plus one space per 10 children of licensed capacity. If half the employees work each shift, it appears 4 parking spaces are required; assuming there is no overlap in attendance. The site does have a paved parking – drop-off area on the 35th Street perimeter. The parking area does not appear to be sufficient for the use. The applicant states the employees who live off site live close enough to walk or are dropped off. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7724 2 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The entire rear yard area, including the playground is enclosed by a 6 foot tall, wood privacy fence which is constructed in “good neighbor” fashion; with the finished side facing out. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: Approved as submitted. CenterPoint Energy: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No Comments received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No Comments. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA bus route. A bus route is located one block to the south, on West 36th Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 30, 2004) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and informed the applicant that additional information was needed including: a copy of the bill of assurance; hours of the “shifts”; number of employees living on-site and off-site; signage; site lighting and a copy of the day care’s current DHS license. Staff informed the Committee that the day care was a 24-hour per day operation, with two shifts plus overnight care. Staff asked the applicant of the fenced property adjacent to the west was used for the day care since the fencing was similar and there was playground equipment in the area. Ms. Morrow stated the adjacent property was not used in any way for the day care operation. Staff noted the existing parking design did not comply with code standards since it appeared that vehicles backed into the street. Gary Langlais asked Ms. Morrow what the neighbors felt about the business. She responded that no one seemed to have October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7724 3 any problems. Staff asked Ms. Morrow if this was her only residence; if she lived anywhere else, any other day of the week. Ms. Morrow responded that this was her sole residence. Ms. Morrow stated she had kept children at her home for 17 years but until 6 years ago had not kept more than 5 children. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by October 6, 2004. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. STAFF ANALYSIS: The R-3 zoned property located at 3500 Zion Street is occupied by a one-story, 2,300 square foot, frame, single family residence. The occupant of the home has kept children at the site for 17 years, in some capacity. Six years ago, she received a license from the State as a day care family home and began keeping up to 16 children. Prior to that, she did not keep more than 5 children. During staff’s recent review of state licensed day cares, this business was found not to have received a C.U.P. An enforcement notice was issued and the owner subsequently applied for this C.U.P. The day care center operates in three shifts. 16 children are kept from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; 16 from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and 2 to 6 from 8:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The business has 6 employees; 3 who live in the home. A paved parking/drop-off area is located on the north side of the house. The applicant states parents pull off of 35th Street and park parallel to the house so that they do not back into the street. Staff does not believe the parking area complies with ordinance standards. The rear yard area, including the playground, is enclosed by a 6 foot tall, wood, privacy fence. Lighting consists of porch lights and one night watcher in the yard. The applicant has stated this is her sole residence. The John Barrow bill of assurance does not address use issues. The applicant owns the lots adjacent to the west which are also enclosed by a privacy fence. Staff observed playground equipment in this area, but the applicant stated that area is not used for the day care. Staff does not support the proposed day care center at this location. The property is located within a neighborhood which is almost entirely single family in use. The property is not on the edge or fringe of a neighborhood where it might be more appropriate to have this level of nonresidential use. The operation is 24 hours per day in nature with 2 shifts of 16 children each and a third shift of up to 6 children. The business has 6 employees, 3 of whom live off-site. The applicant has stated she wishes to erect a small (1.5’ X 2.5’) sign which further adds to the nonresidential nature of the use. Staff believes this use is too intense and is inappropriate for this site. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7724 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the application be deferred to the December 16, 2004 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. With a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent, the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-7725 NAME: Black Community Developers Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 4017 West 12th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Black Community Developers, Inc. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of the existing duplex on this R-4 zoned lot as transitional housing for up to 12 women; 6 per unit. STAFF REPORT: The task force which is studying the issue of Transitional Housing has not yet completed its work. It is believed that a report will be coming from that group soon; including proposed ordinance changes. Staff believes this item needs to be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda to allow that process to continue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda, in order for the Transitional Housing Task Force to complete its work. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-7726 NAME: Victory Outreach Church Transitional Housing – Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 3401 West 12th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Victory Outreach Church/Deverick Green PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow use of the existing duplex on this R-4 zoned lot as a transitional housing facility for up to 11 men and an on-site manager. STAFF REPORT: The task force which is studying the issue of Transitional Housing has not yet completed its work. It is believed that a report will be coming from that group soon; including proposed ordinance changes. Staff believes this item needs to be deferred to the December 16, 2004 agenda to allow that process to continue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) Staff recommended to the Commission that the application be deferred to the December 16, 2004 Agenda, in order for the Transitional Housing Task Force to complete its work. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the December 16, 2004 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was deferred. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6973-B Owner: Colonel Glenn Partners, LLC Applicant: White-Daters and Associates Location: Southwest corner of Colonel Glenn and David O. Dodd Roads Area: 1.08 Acres Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Purpose: Future Commercial Development Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North – Office/Warehouse Development (across Colonel Glenn Road); zoned POD South – Undeveloped property (across David O. Dodd Road); zoned O-3 East – Undeveloped property (across David O. Dodd Road); zoned C-3 West – Undeveloped property; zoned C-3 A. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required plus additional right-of-way for turn lanes at the arterial to arterial intersection. 2. David O. Dodd is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required plus additional right-of-way for turn lanes at the arterial to arterial intersection. 3. A conceptual layout has been provided under separate cover showing lane assignments and intersection configuration. 4. Signed and notarized dedications should be furnished with final Board approval of the rezoning request. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-B 2 B. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Route #14 (Rosedale Route) runs to the east along Colonel Glenn Road at Shackleford Road. 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 John Barrow and SWLR United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. LAND USE ELEMENT: This request is located in the 65th Street West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Community Shopping for this property. The applicant has applied for a C-3 Commercial use for future development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Bowman and David O. Dodd Roads are shown as Minor Arterials on the Master Street Plan and Colonel Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III bikeways are not in the immediate vicinity of the development. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Colonel Glenn Partners, LLC, owner of the 1.08 acre tract at the southwest corner of Colonel Glenn Road and David O. Dodd Roads, is requesting to rezone the property from “R-2” Single Family District to “C-3” General Commercial District. The rezoning is proposed in order to October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6973-B 3 incorporate the property into the C-3 zoned property to the west for future commercial development. The property is currently undeveloped and mostly tree-covered. The general area contains a mixture of zoning and uses. There is undeveloped C-3 zoned property to the west and east across David O. Dodd Road. Undeveloped O-3 zoned property is located across David O. Dodd Road to the south, with J.A. Fair High School further south. An office/warehouse development is located across Colonel Glenn Road to the north, with an office use to the northeast. The City’s Future Land Use Plan designates this property as Community Shopping. The requested C-3 zoning does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Staff is supportive of the requested C-3 zoning. Staff feels that C-3 zoning for the property is reasonable. Staff feels that incorporating this property into the larger C-3 tract to the west for future commercial development is a good use of the property. Staff believes the proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the general area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 13 ISSUE: Proposed Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment STAFF REPORT: In response to concerns raised by citizens and echoed by those Commissioners present at the September 23, 2004 informal meeting, staff is proposing the following change to the Bylaws related to notification for special use permit applications. There currently is no supplemental notice requirement outlined in the Bylaws for special use permits. Article IV, Section A.4.b. of the Bylaws states: b. To Affected Parties – Notice to affected parties shall be provided as specified in paragraphs (1) through (5) below. Relative to paragraphs (2) through (6), requiring supplemental notice to neighboring property owners, the mailing of notice to the names and addresses that an applicant has obtained from an abstract company shall be considered adequate notice. If an applicant fails to provide the supplemental notice requirement herein, the Planning Commission shall defer action on such application until supplemental notice has been adequately provided. Article IV, Section A.4.b.(4) currently states: (4) Supplemental Notice of Conditional Use Permits and Tower Use Permits – Before a hearing, the applicant shall submit proof that at least fifteen (15) days notice of the Commission's hearing has been given to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of any tract for which a permit has been petitioned. The staff shall provide mail notice to property owners associations or individuals representing neighborhoods. Staff proposes amending this subsection by adding Special Use Permits. The new text will be as follows: (4) Supplemental Notice of Conditional Use Permits, Special Use Permits and Tower Use Permits – Before a hearing, the applicant shall submit proof that at least fifteen (15) days notice of the Commission's hearing has been given to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of any tract for which a permit has been petitioned. The staff shall provide mail notice to property owners associations or individuals representing neighborhoods. October 21, 2004 ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) 2 It is noteworthy that staff also currently sends a notice to residents within three hundred (300) feet of any tract for which a permit has been requested. As required by the Bylaws, the proposed amendment to Article IV, Section A.4.b. (4) was presented in writing at the October 7, 2004 Commission meeting to be placed on the October 21, 2004 agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 21, 2004) The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The bylaw amendment was approved.