pc_03 22 2001I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 22,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
II.Members Present:Richard Downing
Fred Allen,Jr.
Craig Berry
Bob Lowry
Hugh Earnest
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Pam AdcockBillRector
Members Absent:Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
City Attorney:Cindy Dawson
III.Approval of the Minutes of the February 8,2001 Meeting oftheLittleRockPlanningCommission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
)
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MARCH 22,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEM:
A.G-25-180 81'treet Name Change to Cooperative Way
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-2845-C 8900 Geyer Springs R-2 to C-3
1.1.8-1268-B Integra Addition —Revised Preliminary Plat
2.Z-5099-B 19,900 Cantrell Road C-2 to C-3
3.Z-6978 West of 7618 Fluid Dr.R-2 to C-3
4.Z-6983 1001 East 7 Street R-4A to UU
4.1 Z-6983-A Arkansas Sling and Wire Rope C.U.P.
5.Z-5558-A Butler Manufactured Home C.U.P.
6.Z-6984 Hubbard Day Care Center C.U.P.
7.Z-6985 Fletcher Manufactured Home C.U.P.
8.LU01-19-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning
District from Multi-Family,Park/Open Space,Community Shopping
and Single Family to Community Shopping at the southwest corner
of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road.
9.The Reservoir Neighborhood Action Plan for an area bounded by
Rodney Parham Road,I-430,Cantrell Road and a line roughly
parallel to and east of Reservoir Road,containing all
development on streets intersecting with Reservoir.
10.Little Rock Municipal Parks Property Rezoning;Various to PR
10.1 Little Rock Municipal Parks Property Land Use Plan
Amendments
11.Revision of the City's Planning Jurisdiction Boundary
12.Asher Avenue Rezonings
1
2
H 0
COUNTY FARI RO
Public Hearing
Items
9
5 M MI*
Ot,L R/Iif pPRIDEVAIIEV
M4RK 0 6 'EIR 4 4191-65
K4NIS 1-650 CITY LIMTS
MAS 12B'TM
N
BT E 61M
N
6'RICNT 3
0,M-OYE('-150 R EVDT DAM
IABSCNI 0 RODS.IT
l-ll
2
L4 IYBM B!A2IER IKE
OAM EEOBER
0'DODD
M
(5IHRAINESV4LLEY
I 50 1.1 6
ITV 106 5
65
61
MA
BASEINE
ASELINE
M
DIXON I ARPEROTTERMABELVALEMAVA'
CREEK REST
VA 'FF
SINKER
BISON
MLA 5
ALEXANDER DREH 0
TER SPCS C OYF
CUTCFF
COIOFF
CHY LIMTS 5 EL 65
167 165
PRAt
Planning Commission March 22,2001
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:G-25-180
NAME:West 81'treet —Street Name Change
LOCATION:West 81'treet,west of Scott Hamilton
Drive
PETITIONER:Hank Kelley for Arkansas Electric
Cooperative
PROPOSAL:To change the name of a portion of West81'treet to Cooperative Way.
Abuttin Uses and Ownershi :Commercial uses exist along the
entire north and south sides of the street proposed for the
name change.
Nei hborhood Effect:No detrimental effect is anticipated
other than a few address changes for the businesses facing81'treet.The post office will honor existing addresses
for up to 5 years,allowing those businesses to use their
supplies of letterhead and envelopes.
Effect on Public Services:None.Neither Public Works nor
the Fire Department object to the name change.The applicant
will have to pay for the replacement of the street name
signs.
Utilities:Staff received no objections from Water,
Wastewater,ARKLA and Southwestern Bell,and no comments
from Entergy.
CATA:Proposed street name change has no effect on bus
radius,turnout or route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is petitioning to change the name of West81'treet to Cooperative Way.The original petition
included the property owner along the entire south side
of the street and of course Arkansas Electric who owns
the property at the west end of the street.The
applicant has attempted to involve the two property
owners along the north side of the street,Motel 6 and
Red Roof Inn,but has received no response.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:G-25-180
Proper notification has been made and Staff has
received no objection to the proposal.This street
serves as the main entrance to Arkansas Electric
Cooperative and the businesses on the south side of81'treet.It bounds the rear of the two properties
on the north side,which use it for access into parking
areas,but not as their main entrances.
No detrimental neighborhood effect is anticipated as a
result of this name change.No objections have been
received from Public Works,Utility Companies,Fire
Department,affected residents or property owners.
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested street name
change of West 81st Street to Cooperative Way.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(JANUARY 18,2001)
Hank Kelley was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and bziefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.There were
no open issues,nor questions by the Committee members,and
so no discussion occurred.The Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 8,2001)
Hank Kelley was present.There were no registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for
deferral due to the applicant not accomplishing all requirednotifications.
The applicant's request for deferral was received less thanfivedayspriortothehearingsoawaiveroftheby-laws
was required.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and motions to
accept the late request for deferral and to defer the itemuntilMarch22,2001 were approved.The vote in bothinstanceswas9ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:G-25-180
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Hank Kelly was present represeriting his application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the
item with a recommendation for approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-2845-C
Owner:Baseline Partners,L.L.C.
Applicant:John Pownall,Thomas Engineering
Location:8900 Geyer Springs Road
Request:Rezone a 200'50'trip from
R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Inclusion within a future
development on the adjacent
C-3 zoned parcel
Size:0.275+acres
Existing Use:Paved parking
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Multiple commercial uses;zoned C-3 and C-4
South —Office;zoned 0-3 and small portion of one
single-family lot;zoned R-2
East —Nonconforming office,commercial and mobile
home park;zoned R-2
West —Single-family;zoned R-2 and rear portion of
abutting commercial site;zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Geyer Springs Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way
45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Close driveway that does not meet ordinance
requirement and reestablish curb and gutter.
4.Provide internal access to out-parcels.
With Buildin Permit:
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.6.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2845-C
7.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATZON ELEMENT
A CATA bus route is located at the corner of Baseline and
Geyer Springs Roads,just north of this site.
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,Windamere,Allendale and SWLRUP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs West Planning
District.The adopted Plan recommends Commercial for thetract.The proposed rezoning conforms to the adopted Plan.
The portion of the buffer that shuts single family should be
preserved.
The site lies within the area covered by the
Cloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Action Plan which was
approved on March 18,1997.The action plan mirrors the
Land Use Plan in recommending commercial for this area.The
request conforms to the action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone a 50'
200'triplocatedonthesouthsideofthepropertyat8900
Geyer Springs Road from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3"General
Commercial.The north 30-foot portion of this strip is
paved and has been used as parking lot and driveway for the
commercial development on the site.The south 20-foot
portion is sparsely wooded.A 6-foot tall wood fence and a
concrete retaining wall separate the 20-foot wide natural
area from the 30-foot wide portion that is paved.The
applicant proposes to utilize a portion of this property for
development of a new commercial use on the C-3 zoned
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2845-C
property adjacent to the north.A revised preliminary plat
to subdivide the site onto two lots has been filed in
conjunction with the rezoning;see S-1268-B,Integra
Addition.
When the 6.81+acre tract located at the southwest corner of
Baseline and Geyer Springs Roads was rezoned from "A"One-
Family to "F"Commercial in 1974,the south 50 feet wereleftsinglefamilytoprovideatransitiontotheexisting
single family homes that abutted the southern perimeter of
the site.The Planning Commission endorsed,and the Board
of Adjustment approved,a plan whereby the northern 30 feet
of the 50-foot wide strip could be developed and used as
parking and driveway to serve the commercial development.
That approved plan included the required installation of the
fence along the line between the 20-foot natural area and
the 30 foot wide paved area.Subsequent to development of
the commercial site,one the properties directly south of
the site,the one located at the northwest corner of Geyer
Springs and Senate,was rezoned to Office.The remainder of
the properties abutting the south side of the large
commercial site are still occupied by single-family
residences.
Staff is supportive of rezoning the portion of the R-2 zoned
strip lying adjacent to the property that is now zonedoffice.There is now no need for the R-2 buffer between the
commercial development and the office.Staff believes it is
appropriate to retain the natural portion of the buffer
where it is adjacent to the single family home.
Consequently,staff recommends approval of the rezoning
request with the exception of a 20'35'trip lying
adjacent to the single family home.This would preserve the
natural area located between the fence/retaining wall and
the home.
The rezoning request conforms to the adopted Neighborhood
Action Plan and Land Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request for the50'200'trip with the exception of a 20'35'trip
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-2845-C
lying adjacent to Lot 1,Castlewood Subdivision;the
adjacent single family lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The applicant was present.There was one interested party
present who desired more information on the issue.Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval of the
C-3 zoning,with the exception of a 20'35'trip lying
adjacent to Lot 1,Castlewood Subdivision.A letter of
support had been received from SWLR UP.
Chairman Downing asked the applicant to meet with the
interested party,Carroll Strickland,to see if his
questions could be answered.They left the room and the
Commission moved on to other items.
After the parties returned to the zoom,Monte Moore of the
Planning Staff informed the Commission that Mr.Strickland
was not opposed to the rezoning and that he had had his
questions answered.In response to a concern raised by Mr.
Stzickland,the applicant agreed to clean up the drainage
ditch along the southern perimeter of the site at the time
the proposed new lot is developed.Staff suggested that
such a condition could be made part of the conditional use
permit application,which presumably will be filed at a
later date.
A motion was made to approve the application,as recommended
by staff.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1.1 FILE NO.:8-1268-B
NAME:Integra Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:Southwest corner of Geyer Springs and Baseline Roads
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Baseline Partners Thomas Engineering Company
P.O.Box 5508 3810 Lookout Road
565 U.S.Highway 5 South North Little Rock,AR 72116
Pinehurst,NC 28374
AREA:6.769 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3/R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On January 6,2000 the Planning Commission approved a two-lot
preliminary plat of this property.On February 7,2000 Lot 1 of
the Subdivision was final platted,with Lot 2 being held on
preliminary plat.There has been an auto parts store constructed
on Lot 1.Lot 2 contains a 51,371 square foot commercial
building,previously a Harvest Foods Store.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedpreliminaryplatbysubdividingLot2intotwo(2)lots.
The applicant proposes to construct a car wash on the
proposed Lot 3.This proposal will be brought to the
Planning Commission as a conditional use permit application
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268-B
at a later date.The applicant also proposes to rezone a
small portion of Lot 3 from R-2 to C-3 (Item 1 on this
agenda).
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
As noted in paragraph A.,there is an auto parts store on
Lot 1 and a vacant commercial building (previous Harvest
Foods Store)on Lot 2.The remainder of Lot 2 contains
concrete parking.
There are commercial uses and zoning to the north across
Baseline Road and to the east across Geyer Springs Road.
There are also commercial uses adjacent to this property to
the north.There are single-family residences and office
uses to the south.The property to the west contains theSt.Theresa's Catholic Church development,with a new
building currently under construction.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Allendale,Cloverdale,Windsmere and SWLR UP
Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public
hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment
from the neighborhood.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.Geyer Springs Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way
45 feet from centerline will be required.
2.Baseline Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Close driveway that does not meet ordinance
requirement and re-establish curb and gutter.
4.Provide internal access to out-parcels.
5.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
6.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
7.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:8-1268-B
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Show Ten Foot Easement for existing 12"Sewer
Main located on property.Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903
foz details.
Entergy:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:Little Rock Water Works suggests that the Harvest
Foods/Integra property (Lot 2)retain ownership on Geyer
Springs Road at the location of their service connection
for fire and domestic service near the south line of
proposed lot 3 off Geyer Springs Road.Otherwise,they
will need to extend a waterline to their new property
line and reconnect their services at that point involving
considerable expense.The exact location of the
connection needs to be confirmed.Contact Marie Dugan at
377-1222 for details.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment.
CATA:Site is on bus routes ¹17 and ¹17A and has no effect
on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
No Comment.
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MARCH 1,2001)
John Pownall was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the revised preliminary plat.Staff noted that a parking analysis was needed to show
that the parking on Lot 2 will meet the minimum ordinance
recpxirements for the existing commercial building.
3
'March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268-B
Mr.Pownall noted that this information would be provided
to staff.
The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed.
Public Works representatives noted that the southernmost
driveway along Geyer Springs Road needed to be closed,with
Lots 2 and 3 using the middle driveway for shared access.
Mz.Pownall stated that he would look into closing the
drive,and noted no other concerns with the Public Works
requirements.
Staff made Mr.Pownall aware of the Water Works comments.
This issue was briefly discussed.Mr.Pownall stated that
he would contact Marie Dugan at Water Works to work out this
issue.
There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee
forwarded the revised preliminary plat to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing
to staff on March 7,2001.The revised plat addresses all
of the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The south property line for Lot 3 has been moved
to the north by approximately 45 feet,which leaves the
existing water main on Lot 2 as requested by Little Rock
Water Works.
The applicant also submitted a parking analysis for Lot 2,as requested by staff.The parking analysis shows that Lot
2 will contain 160 parking spaces to serve the existing
commercial building.The ordinance requires a minimum of
152 parking spaces for the 51,371 square foot building.Staff has no outstanding issues with the parking analysis.
As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments,Public Works
requires that the southernmost driveway along the Geyez
Springs Road frontage of this property be closed,with Lots
2 and 3 having a shared access from this street.There are
three (3)existing dziveways along the Geyer Springs Road
frontage.
The Planning Commission approved the original preliminary
plat for this property on January 6,2000.One of the
conditions of approval of this original preliminary plat was
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1268-B
that one (1)of the three (3)existing driveways along Geyer
Springs Road be closed.The applicant at that time agreed
to the driveway closing and noted that it was preferred that
the southernmost drive be closed (reference to letter from
Garver Engineers dated January 3,2000).The revised plat
drawing notes that the southernmost drive will be closed
with the curb and gutter re-established.Therefore,this
issue has been resolved.
Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no other
outstanding issues associated with the revised preliminary
plat.With resolution of the driveway issue,staff supports
the revised preliminary plat and feels that the addition of
the third lot to the development will have no adverse impact
on the general area.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary platsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs
D and E of this report.2.Lots 2 and 3 must be final platted at the same time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The staff presented a positive recommendation on this
application,as there were no further issues for resolution.
There were no objectors to this matter.
Staff informed the Commission that Public Works had met with the
applicant and agreed to allow the southernmost driveway along
Geyer Springs Road to remain open,with the following conditions:
1.The driveway must be reduced to an 18-foot width.2.The driveway must be an "exit only"drive.
Public Works noted support of a variance for driveway spacing.
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.
5
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-5099-B
Owner:Pfeifer Development Company
Applicant:Eugene M.Pfeifer,III
Location:19,900 Cantrell Road
Request:Rezone from C-2 to C-3
Purpose:Unspecified future development
Size:11.95+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;zoned 0-3 and Multifamily
development,under construction;zoned MF-18
South —Undeveloped;zoned C-3 and 4-acre tract
currently containing 3 single-family homes;
recently approved for C-3
East —Convenience store;zoned PCD and
Mini-warehouses;zoned C-3,with C.U.P.
West —Undeveloped;zoned 0-2 and MF-18
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55
feet from centerline will be required.
With Buildin Permit:
2.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
3.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
4.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175 and
the "MSP".
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5099-B
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Express Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the Duguesne,Aberdeen Court and Bayonne Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Pinnacle Planning District.The
adopted Plan recommends commercial for the bulk of the
tract,with small portions on the west side being indicated
as Office and Multifamily.Insomuch as this rezoning
request involves only existing commercially zoned property,staff believes no plan change is necessary.The propertyliesinanareanotcoveredbyaneighborhoodactionplan.
No action plan is proposed for the near future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone 11.95+acres
located at 19,900 Cantrell Road from "C-2"Shopping Center
Commercial to "C-3"General Commercial.The site is
undeveloped and heavily wooded.There is no specific plan
for immediate development of the site.
At the time this property was zoned C-2 in February 1989,it
was outside of the city limits but within the City'
extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.It was zoned prior to
adoption of the Highway 10 Overlay District in October 1989.
The property lies within the Commercial node established by
the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 (Cantrell
Road).It was felt at that time,that it would be
appropriate to have the additional level of Planning
Commission review required in C-2 to assure that the
development would conform to the scenic quality of Highway10.Subsequent to the approval of this C-2 zoning and the
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5099-B
adoption of the Highway 10 Overlay standards,the other
3 corners of the Highway 10/Chenal Parkway intersection were
zoned C-3.The heightened design standards of the overlay,
including increased building setbacks and landscape areas,
will assure that any development of this tract continues the
scenic nature of Highway 10.
The Commission recently approved C-3 zoning for 4 acres
located on the south side of Cantrell,across from this
site.The C-3 zoned southeast and southwest corners of
Chenal Parkway and Cantrell Road are currently undeveloped.
A mini-warehouse development is located on the C-3 zoned
property north of Cantrell,east of Chenal Parkway.A
convenience store is located on the PCD zoned property
directly east of the subject property.The 0-3 zoned
property to the north and the 0-2 and MF-18 zoned properties
to the west are currently undeveloped.A new apartment
complex is nearing completion on the MF-18 zoned property to
the northwest.The proposed C-3 zoning is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area and conforms to the adopted Land
Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:3 PILE NO.:Z-6978
Owner:Harold W.and Betty Thomas
Applicant:Thomas M.Draper
Location:West of 7618 Fluid Drive
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Unspecified future development
Size:5.24+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —School;zoned R-2
South —Industrial tire recapping and sales business;
zoned PID
East —Undeveloped and multiple commercial uses;
zoned C-3
West —Single-Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Property proposed for rezoning does not have street
frontage.Replat or provide access easement.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA Bus Route is located on Fourche Dam Pike,just east
of this site.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the Hezmitage Neighborhood Association were notified of the
rezoning request.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6978
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Port Planning District.The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for the site.
The commercial rezoning request conforms to the adopted
Plan.Staff believes it is appropriate to place a 50'ide
OS strip along the western perimeter,where the site is
adjacent to single family.
The property is in an area not covered by a neighborhood
action plan.No action plan is forecasted for the near
future.
STAFF ANALISIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5.24+
acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "C-3"General
Commercial.The property is former farmland and has been
cleared and mowed for many years.Once the tract is
rezoned,it will be combined with the adjacent C-3 zoned
tract to the east that fronts onto Fluid Drive.This
adjacent tract is also owned by the same individuals.There
are no specific,immediate development plans.
The properties to the east,along Fluid Drive and Fourche
Dsm,are zoned C-3 and contain a variety of commercial uses
including two convenience stores,a restaurant and a hotel.
An industrial tire recapping and sales business is located
on the PID zoned tract adjacent to the south.Badgett
Elementary School is located north of the site.The
Richland Subdivision is located west of the site.A
substantial drainage ditch separates the subject property
from the single-family homes in the Richland Subdivision.
Some small amount of screening is provided by trees and
undergrowth located along the ditch.
The C-3 zoning is certainly compatible with the existing
commercial and industrial uses and zoning in the area.The
site is located far enough from the school building itself
that the City's required buffers and landscaping should
provide adequate screening and buffering of any commercial
development from the school.Staff believes it would be
appropriate to require a 50'ide OS Open Space strip along
the western perimeter of the subject property to provide
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6978
additional protection for the single family homes in
Richland Subdivision.This 50-foot strip corresponds to the
maximum buffer required for a commercial property of this
depth and is only slightly larger than the minimum
requirement of 39.47 feet.It would be consistent with past
actions in the area where a similar sized OS strip has been
installed along the southern perimeter of Richland
Subdivision and along the southern perimeter of Hermitage
Home Sites,located east of Fourche Dam.
The C-3 zoning conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan and,
with the 50 foot OS strip on the west,should be compatible
with uses and zoning in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 zoning,with the
western 50 feet of the tract to be zoned OS,Open Space to
serve as a buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval of
the C-3 zoning,with the western 50 feet to be zoned OS.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed
with staff'recommendation.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6983
Owner:Michael E.Barrow Revocable
Trust
Applicant:Bud Calver
Location:1001 East 7 Street
Request:Rezone from R-4A to UU
Purpose:Develop as new location for
Arkansas Sling and Wire Rope Co.
Size:0.48+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family and hoarded structures;
zoned R-4A
South —Single Family;zoned R-4A
East —Vacant lots;zoned R-4A
West —Office,parking lot and light industrial;
zoned UU
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Byrd Street and 7 Street.
With Buildin Permit:
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
A CATA Bus Route is located on East 6 Street,one block
north of this site.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the Hanger Hill and Downtown Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-30 Planning District.The
adopted Land Use Plan currently recommends LDR Low Density
Residential for the site.Staff is supportive of approving
the requested UU zoning without amending the Land Use Plan
at this time.Two major developments are proposed for an
area located several blocks north of this area,the Clinton
Presidential Library Park and the new international
headquarters of Heifer Project.In response to these major
developments,staff again believes it is necessary to review
the Land Use Plan for the larger area east of I-30,
including properties as far south as this site.
The Urban Use zoning category is designed to allow a wide
variety of residential,office and commercial uses.It has
development criteria that are intended to assure that any
development is compatible with other uses and development
surrounding it.
The site is within an area not covered by a neighborhood
action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these 3 lots,
totaling .48+acres,from R-4A residential to UU Urban Use
District.The site is vacant although most of the propertyiscoveredbyaconcretefoundation,the remnant of a
previous industrial use that occupied the site.The
applicant proposes to build a new structure and associated
parking on the site to accommodate Arkansas Sling and Wire
Rope.This business is relocating from its current location
at I-30 and East 4 "Street.A conditional use permit has
been filed to allow the development.See item no.4.1 on
this agenda,file no.Z-6983-A.
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983
The site is located east of I-30 in an area of mixed uses
and zoning.The area is characterized primarily by
industrial uses on properties zoned UU,I-2 and I-3.The
small pocket of R-4 and R-4A properties immediately north,
east and south of this site contains a scattering of
residences,boarded structures and vacant lots.
Staff believes the UU zoning request is appropriate.The
Urban Use district contains development criteria designed to
assure that development is compatible with adjacent
properties.In this case,that is further underscored by
the additional level of review through the associated
conditional use permit application.
Although the Land Use Plan currently recommends Low Density
Residential for the small pocket of R-4 and R-4A zoned
properties that includes this site,staff does not believe a
Plan Amendment is warranted at this time.In conjunction
with the proposed Presidential Library Park and Heifer
International developments located several blocks north of
this site,a broader-based review of the land use plan in
the area east of I-30 will be undertaken.It is anticipated
that any plan revision will include Mixed Use development in
this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested UU zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,2 absent and 1 abstaining (Rector).
3
'arch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
NAME:Arkansas Sling and Wire Rope —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:1001 East 7 Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Michael Barrow Trust /Charles Calver
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for the
relocation of Arkansas Sling and Wire Rope
on property zoned UU,Urban Use,located at
1001 E.7 "Street.Item 4 is for rezoning
this site from R-4A to UU.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.48-acre site is located on the southeast corner of
the intersection of East 7 Street and Byrd Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is currently zoned R4-A,Low Density
Residential.Item 4 on this same agenda is for rezoning
this site to UU,Urban Use.The proposed UU zoning would
allow for the proposed use under a conditional use permit.
Properties to the north and east are zoned R-4A.There are
existing houses to the north,while the property to the
east is vacant.The property to the south is zoned R4 and
contains existing houses.The property to the west is zoned
UU and contains an office warehouse with a parking area.
One block to the east and northeast the zoning is I-2,
Light Industrial and I-3,Heavy Industrial,respectively.
The proposed use would be a quiet light industrial use.The
applicant has proposed a building with a sloped roof and
exterior that would contain a mixture of surfaces that
should blend with the neighborhood.Therefore,Staff
believes the proposed use would be compatible with the
neighborhood and not cause an adverse impact.
The Hanger Hill and Downtown Neighborhood Associations,all
property owners within 200 feet,and all residents within
300 feet that could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6983-A
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed site plan includes one driveway accessing a
seven-space parking area from Byrd Street.The UU District
requires no on-site parking,however,the proposed use
requires delivery and customer vehicles to enter the site
to load and off-load product.The proposal places the
parking and loading area in the rear,which would be
shielded from the east by the building,shielded from the
south by the slope of the land,required screening,and a
landscaped area.Therefore,Staff supports the proposed
parking and loading area to prevent the activity from
occurring on the street and causing an adverse impact.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The proposed plan meets most ordinance requirements.Since
this site is in a designated "mature area"some flexibility
with requirements is allowed.Therefore,to accommodate
required building landscaping,additional landscaping
required on the south side would be fulfilled with
landscaping around the southwest corner of the building up
to the step area.A six-foot high opaque perimeter screen,
either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward
or dense evergreen planting,would be required to help
screen this site from the residential property to the south
and east.Street trees are required 30 feet on center,no
closer than 30 feet from the intersection,in the UU
District.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.A 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required
at the corner of Byrd Street and 7 Street.
b.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
d.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.Contact the Water Works regarding
needs for domestic water service and fire protection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus route ¹12,and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
light industrial business to be located on property being
considered for UU,Urban Use zoning.The current zoning is
R-4A,Low Density Residential.UU zoning would allow light
industrial use under a conditional use permit.
The proposal includes a 7,800 square foot,single story,
new building on vacant land with a small seven space paved
parking area and loading area in the rear.The area used to
be zoned industrial,but was changed to R-4A when that new
zone was created.A mixture of zoning,including
residential to the north,south,and east,and UU to the
west surrounds the site.One block northeast and east the
zoning is industrial.There are existing houses to the
north and south,while the property to the east is vacant.
The property to the west contains an office warehouse.
The proposal is well within height and setback
requirements.The applicant raised the height of the
building from 22 feet to 35 feet to comply with Staff's
request to use a slopped roof,and added masonry fagade
finishes to better match the surrounding construction
styles.The applicant has asked to reduce the amount of
surface area that is transparent due to the nature of the
building's interior.The floor space is primarily a large
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
open area with offices in the west end.The open area will
be used for light manufacturing and assembly,which would
not be compatible with a large glass front.They have
included several windows in an attempt to add as much
transparent surface as possible.Staff believes the
proposed use to be reasonable and feels the proposed
building would present a good appearance compatible with
the area.Staff would support the variance to reduce the
amount of transparent surface from the required 60%to the
13.3%shown in the plan on the 7""Street frontage if the
Byrd Street frontage contained a minimum of 30%transparent
surface.Staff believes that would be a reasonable
compromise based on the proposed interior layout and use of
the structure versus the ordinance requirement.
No off-street parking is required in the UU district.
However,the proposed use does require activity that would
be better served by the on site parking and loading areas
that the applicant has proposed.The rear paved area
proposed would eliminate a potential adverse impact that
could come from the product loading and nature of the
customer traffic for the business.The applicant expects a
tractor trailer delivery of large spools of wire about 4
times a week,and about 16-20 customers a day.Hours of
operation would be 7:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.Monday through
Friday and everything would be contained inside the
building.There would be only 4 employees.Required fencing
or evergreen plantings should provide adequate screening
for the residential areas to the south and east,especially
since the paved areas will be at a lower grade than those
properties.The applicant made several changes,adjusting
the building location on the site and fagade materials to
meet UU zoning requirements and blend in with the area as
much as possible.
The normal requirement for street radial dedications on
corners is 20 feet.That would actually conflict with the
requirement in the UU District for buildings to be built
with a sero build-to-line in the front with only 0 to 4
foot side setbacks.The applicant has requested a waiver to
the 20 foot radial dedication so they can meet the required
setbacks.Staff supports the waiver.
Staff believes the proposed use would be reasonable for
this site,and with proper screening,it should have a
minimal adverse impact on the area.
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape,Buffer and Screening
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.
c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and away from any
residential soned area.
Staff also supports the request for a waiver of the 20 foot
dedication of right-of-way on the corner of Byrd and 7
Streets,and the variance to reduce the amount of
transparent surface area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MARCH 1,2001)
Charles Calver,business owner,and Jerry Meyer were present
representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of
the proposal and briefly reviewed the comments provided to the
applicant.
A brief discussion took place regarding the conflict of the UU
setbacks and 20 foot radial dedication ending in agreement that
a waiver would be necessary.The issue of the building
orientation and zero build-to-line,the building fagade
material,the accompanying landscape and screening requirements,
the requirement for 60%of the front fagade to be a transparent
material,location of trash receptacles,and the sidewalk
requirements were all reviewed.The applicant agreed to meet the
ordinance requirements.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification by
certified mail of property owners within 200 feet no later than
M h7,2DDD,dthtth ppl'*tp 'd 2 t hd
certified outgoing receipts,the abstract list of owners,and a
copy of the notification letter to Staff no later than six days
prior to the public hearing.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
5
'arch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Charles Calver,business owner,and Jerry Meyer were present
representing the application.There were no registered objectors
present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation for
approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under
"Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
Chairman Downing commented that the only issue seemed to be the
amount of transparent surface area on the west fagade and so
that would be all that needed to be discussed.
Mr.Meyer commented that they did not want to increase the glass
area on the west side to 30%of the fagade surface because they
felt that would negatively impact the aesthetics of the building
design as now proposed.He added that they had agreed to add
brick veneer and wainscote,molding at the top,construct a
pitched roof,reorient the building on the property,and do
street improvements.They felt they would have the nicest
building in the area with this design and couldn'do more and
still have a monetarily feasible project.
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,commented that he felt that the
transparent surface requirements in the new W district were
intended for situations downtown where the intent was that the
buildings would be commercial,retail or office buildings where
more glass would be normal.He added that Staff's recommendation
was partially influenced by a desire not to agree to such a
large variance for the first application within the new W
district.However,he said that this was somewhat unique because
of the location.If it was located on Main Street then Staff
would feel much stronger about strict application of the
transparent surface requirements.
Commissioner Berry asked Staff how this area might change in the
next 30 to 40 years which might make the strict application of
the requirement more important later than it would be now.Staff
and the applicant responded that changes will occur,but it'
hard to predict the future development and needs.Commissioner
Berry said he supported staff's recommended 30%transparent
fagade.
6
'arch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:4.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6983-A
Commissioner Faust complimented the changes that had been made
since the Subdivision Committee presentation,and acknowledged
that much improvement had been made through the applicant's
effort's to come closer to the ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Earnest stated that he felt this would be a welcome
addition to the area.
Chairman Downing asked Staff how the calculation of the
percentage of coverage was made.Mr.Lawson responded that the
area included was from the top of the foundation where the brick
veneer began,to the roof eave.
Commissioner Berry asked Staff for a clarification of their
position.Mr.Lawson responded that this was not a clear-cut
case because of its location.If it was located in the main part
of downtown then there would be no question that the full
requirement should be met.However,because of where it is and
the industrial nature,60%glass would probably not be necessary
or even desirable.The applicant clarified that only the first
64 feet of the Byrd Street side of the interior would be offices
and the sewing room,the rest would be open shop area which
would not be conducive to more windows.Mr.Lawson acknowledged
that the proposed design did look good along Byrd Street and it
was up to the Commission if they were satisfied.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,less and except the
recommendation that 30%of the Byrd Street fagade be
transparent,and to include a variance to allow 13.3%
transparent fagade along 7 Street and 15%along Byrd Street.
The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2 absent,and
abstention by Commissioner Rector.Chairman Downing asked that
the record reflect that after this item had been approved,an
individual commented that she had some concerns and wanted some
questions answered.He added that no card had been submitted
notifying the Commission that the individual wanted to question
the item.He suggested that the applicant and the individual get
together and work out her concerns.
7
'arch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-5558-A
NAME:Butler Manufactured Home —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:12,424 Heinke Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Philip Butler
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit to locate
a single-wide new manufactured home as an
accessory dwelling on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential,located at 12,424
Heinke Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 3.76 acre site is located on the west side of Heinke
Road off of Vance Lane,a private road approximately 0.2
mile south of Taliaferro Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.It contains a single-wide,
manufactured house built between 1979 to 1981.The proposed
unit would be the second on this property.The property to
the west and south is vacant.There are single family
houses on the north side of Vance Lane,and to the east
there is a single family house along with a large shed.
This property lies about 500 feet east of Heinke Road,at a
higher elevation,and is not clearly visible from Heinke.
The area surrounding the proposed site is moderately to
heavily wooded.
There are no other manufactured homes along Vance Lane.
This unit would be larger than the first unit,1152 square
feet versus 910 square feet,and therefore,not meet the
intent of an accessory dwelling.The ordinance maximum
allowed floor area for an accessory dwelling is 700 square
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5558-A
feet.Staff does not believe placing the second single-wide
manufactured home on this property as an accessory dwelling
would be compatible with this area.
The Rolling pines Neighborhood Association,Southwest
Little Rock United for Progress,all property owners within
200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site would be accessed by way of a gravel driveway
from the private gravel road named Vance Lane.Normal
residential parking would be provided.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:This property does not have frontage on a water
main.Water service is not available without a water main
extension.
Wastewater:Sewer not available for this area.Sewer
main extension required with easements to serve property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5558-A
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
1152 square foot,new single-wide manufactured home to be
used as an accessory dwelling on property zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential.The site currently contains a 910
square foot single-wide manufactured home built between
1979 and 1981.The second home is intended for an immediate
family member and not to be used as a rental.
The proposed area is a rural area with large lots and
tracts of land.The proposed site is 3.76 acres and lies
about 500 feet east of Heinke Road,at a higher elevation,
and is not clearly visible from Heinke.The area
surrounding the proposed site is moderately to heavily
wooded.The proposal meets all required setbacks and other
siting requirements.Normal zoning ordinance requirements
as stated in City Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5),and
building code requirements for setup and anchoring of
manufactured homes would have to be met.The applicant
intends to use the existing water well and add another
septic system for sewage.The applicant must have the State
Health Department inspect the added services to ensure
adequacy.
There are no other manufactured homes along Vance Lane.
This unit would be larger than the current unit,1152
square feet versus 910 square feet,and therefore,it would
not meet the intent of an accessory dwelling.The ordinance
maximum allowed floor area for an accessory dwelling is 700
square feet.Staff believes that the intent of the
ordinance with regard to accessory dwellings is for a
smaller home to be placed on a property in support of the
primary home.Garage apartments,a small "mother-in-law"
home,or even small employee quarters would meet that
intent.Staff does not believe placing the second single-
wide manufactured home on this property as an accessory
dwelling would meet the ordinance intent for accessory
dwellings.
The applicant has two other options to pursue placement of
two manufactured homes on this property.The first option
would be to apply for rezoning of the property to R-7A and
subdivide the property into two lots.Then each lot could
contain a single-wide manufactured home "by right"after
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5558-A
rezoning.The second option would be to subdivide the
property into two lots and then request a conditional use
permit for a double-wide manufactured home on the second
lot as a primary residence.The existing single-wide could
remain on the first lot.Staff would be more receptive to
the second manufactured home if the property was subdivided
and a new double-wide manufactured home placed on its own
lot.A new single-wide unit could not be placed on its own
lot without rezoning the property to R-7A.
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit
primarily because Staff believes it does not meet the
ordinance intent for accessory dwellings.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MARCH 1,2001)
Philip Butler was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly reviewed
the comments provided to the applicant.
The applicant was asked how he planned to provide water and
sewage service for the new unit.He stated that his well was
adequate and that he would install a separate septic system foz
the new unit.The applicant was reminded to have the State
Health Department inspect the systems for adequacy.Staff also
brought to the applicant'attention the requirements for setup
and anchoring of manufactured homes.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification by
certified mail of property owners within 200 feet no later thanM*07,2000,dthtthppl'tPo'dp t *kd
certified outgoing receipts,the abstract list of owners,and a
copy of the notification letter to Staff no later than six days
prior to the public hearing.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-5558-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Philip Butler,the applicant,and his daughter Lee Butler
Blackwood,who would be living in the proposed manufactured
home,were present representing the application.There were no
registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for denial primarily because Staff believed it
did not meet the ordinance intent for accessory dwellings.Staff
acknowledged the applicant'letter to the Commission which
stated that there aze two other manufactured homes on Vance
Lane,contrary to Staff'comment that there were no other
manufactured homes along Vance Lane.Staff stated that the homes
mentioned were not recognized as manufactured homes during the
site visit.
Staff stated that they believe the intent of the ordinance is
that an accessory dwelling be smaller than,and in support of,
the primary dwelling.Since the proposed accessory unit would be
larger than the existing unit,1152 square feet versus 910
square feet,Staff felt that it would not meet the intent of an
accessory dwelling.In addition,Staff explained that the
ordinance maximum allowed floor area for an accessory dwellingis700squarefeet.The proposed unit exceeds that by 452 feet,
which is further example of how this proposal does not meet the
intent of the ordinance.
Ms.Blackwood explained that she would be living in the home
with her young son.She further explained the circumstances
that led to the request for the additional manufactured home at
this location on her parents'roperty.She added that this site
and all the surrounding property belongs to the Butler family,
and the family has no intent to sell the property outside of the
family or rent out any of the land or stzuctures on the land.
She stated that the primary reason for the additional
manufactured home was to provide a place for her and her son to
live so she could move out of her parents'ome with minimum
relocation costs.
Janet Berry,President of Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress,spoke in opposition to the proposal.She stated that
the membership had asked her to oppose the proposal because they
are opposed to single-wide manufactured homes being placed on
individual single-family lots anywhere in Little Rock.
Commissioner Adcock asked Staff what conditions had been placed
5
,March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5558-A
on a similar request in this same area in the recent past.Staff
responded that the conditions placed on the other site were as
follows:the unit could remain for only five years;the C.U.P
was strictly for the current owner and would become void if he
sold the property;they could not rent out the home;and,it
must be used by a family member.
Commissioner Rahman asked Staff if one of primary reasons for
their opposition and concern was the proposed size of the new
home in relation to the existing home.Staff confirmed that
concern.Then he asked if there would be any difference if the
new unit was made the primary dwelling and the existing one
became the accessory dwelling.Mr.Lawson responded that it was
more than just the size,the concern was also regarding the
intent of an accessory dwelling in the ordinance,and concern
about two single-wide units existing on R-2 zoned property.He
added that through the conditional use permit the Commission
could approve just about what ever they felt was acceptable,and
include any reasonable conditions.
Chairman Downing asked Ms.Berry if the conditions outlined
would make the proposal acceptable to her.She said they would
and she reiterated that her opposition was based on the request
from her membership.She added that she lived fairly close to
this area and she felt that the manufactured home would fit in
reasonable well at the proposed location.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,less and except
their opposition,and to include the following added conditions:
in the event the land is sold,the conditional use permit will
be revoked;the new unit will be foz a Butler family member
only;and,it may not be used as a rental unit.The motion
passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent
6
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6984
NAME:Hubbard Day Care Center —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:3105 West 12 Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Balan Kathriesan /Nicole Hubbard
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
children'day care center for up to 40
children on property zoned R-3,Single
Family Residential,located at 3105 West
12 Street.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.3 acre site is located on the south side of 12
Street just west of the intersection of 12 and Johnson
Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site consists of two lots zoned R-3,Single
Family Residential,and is surrounded primarily by R-3
zoning.To the northeast across 12 "Street,and a short
distance east across Johnson Street,the zoning is 0-3,
General Office.
The applicant does not plan to change the residential
appearance of the exterior of the house,but they do plan
to add a parking area on the vacant lot immediately to the
west.There are existing parking areas belonging to the
nearby Greater Paradise Missionary Baptist Church
immediately to the east and southeast,and across 12
Street to the northeast of the existing house.Therefore,
the added parking would not be out of character with the
area.
Twelfth Street is a major 4-lane east-west thoroughfare
with a scattering of residences,offices,and businesses.
Since the applicant has the room to add adequate paved area
for parking and drop-off,and will not change the
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6984
residential appearance of the existing house,Staff
believes the proposed use would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
The "Pine to Woodrow"and the "Stephens Area Faith"
Neighborhood Associations,all property owners within 200
feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed plan includes one access driveway from 12
Street into an 8-space parking area.A day care center
requires 1 space of each 10 children,and 1 space for each
employee.The proposal is for a maximum of 40 children and
4 employees.That would generate a parking requirement for
8 spaces.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The site plan submitted does meet the minimum landscape
buffers and other landscape requirements.Since this site
is within the designated "mature area"some flexibility
with these requirements (25%maximum)may be allowed.A
six-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its
face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings,is
required along the southern eastern and western perimeters
of the site.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.West 12 Street is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way
35 feet from centerline will be required.
b.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.c.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that
is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
d.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.f.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
2
'March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6984
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus route ¹3,and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
children's day care center with a maximum capacity of 40
children.It would operate from 6:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday.The property is zoned R-3,Single
Family Residential,and contains a house.It is surrounded
primarily by R-3 zoning,with some 0-3 zoning nearby for a
church and some of it's parking areas.
The applicant does not plan to initially change the
exterior of the house except to add a handicapped
accessible ramp to the front,add a parking area on the lot
immediately to the west.The plan includes a future
addition to the rear of the house.Siting criteria for the
house are not an issue since it is existing.The plan meets
the required parking,buffer and screening requirements.
The proposed later addition would meet setback
requirements.The proposal also includes a 4 foot by 6 foot
sign to be placed in the front of the house at least five
feet from the front new property line,the line after an
additional 5 feet are dedicated for right-of-way.Staff
believes that size sign would be reasonable.
Staff questioned the placement of the handicapped ramp,but
because of utility meters serving the house on the west
side,a large tree near the porch in the front,and
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6984
additional height and restricted access through the rear,
the proposed location is necessary.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of this
property and that with proper perimeter screening,it would
be compatible with the neighborhood and not have an adverse
impact.
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit,
including the 4 by 6 foot sign in the front,subject to
compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.
c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and directed
downward and inward to the property and not towards any
residential zoned area.
d.Obtain a sign permit from the Little Rock Zoning
Section.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MARCH 1,2001)
Nicole Hubbard was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly reviewed
the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff explained the buffer and screening comments and mentioned
the need for adequate handicapped accessibility.Staff also made
a brief comment about including a sign in the C.U.P.if one was
desired.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification by
certified mail of property owners within 200 feet no later than
H h7,20DO,dthtth ppl'tpo 'd pot kd
certified outgoing receipts,the abstract list of owners,and a
copy of the notification letter to Staff no later than six days
prior to the public hearing.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
4
~March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6984
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22'001)
Nicole Hubbard was present representing her application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with
the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent
5
i Maxch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-6985
NAME:Fletcher Manufactured Home —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:8121 Jamison Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Square Deal Inc./Erica Fletcher
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
1999 double-wide manufactured home to be
used as the primary residence on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,
located at 8121 Jamison Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 1 acre site is located on the east side of Jamison
Road a short distance north of the intersection of Jamison
and Avery Roads.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is a rural area zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by vacant R-2 zoning to the
north,east,and south.Across Jamison to the west the
zoning is Z-2,Light Industrial,and contains the City'
Public Works maintenance yaxd.The closest residential
structure is a house over 300 feet to the south.
Staff believes the proposed new two-section manufactured
home would be compatible with the neighborhood if set up
and anchored according to City standards.
The Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association,Southwest
Little Rock United for Progress,all property ownexs within
200 feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
iMarch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6985
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There would be one access driveway along the north edge of
the property providing the required residential access and
parking.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer Main Outfall located on property.Locate
prior to construction.Contact Little Rock Wastewater
Utility for details.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus route ¹15,and has no effect on bus
radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for a
new two-section,28 foot by 64 foot,manufactured home to
be placed on this vacant property zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,to use as their primary residence.
The proposed site lies in an area with a mixture of uses
ranging from single family residential to apartments to
light industrial.The site is currently vacant and
surrounded by vacant property on the north,south and east.
The City's Public Works Department maintenance yard lies
across Jamison to the west and is zoned I-2,Light
2
'March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6985
Industrial.A short distance to the north lies the City'
impound lot on property zoned I-2.The nearest residential
structure is a house approximately 335 feet to the south.
There are no other manufactured homes in the vicinity of
this site.All siting requirements are exceeded in the
proposed plan.The home would have to be set up according
to Little Rock Ordinance Section 36-254(d)(5)and the
City's building code requirements for setup and anchoring.
Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable for this
site,would be compatible with the neighborhood,and not
have an adverse impact on the area.
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
The unit must be set up according to Little Rock City
Ordinance Section 36-254 (d)(5)as follows:
1.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
(14)degrees or greater.
2.Removal of all transport elements.
3.Permanent foundation.
4.Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
5.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
6.Underpinning with permanent materials.
7.Home shall be multi-sectional.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(MARCH 1,2001)
Erica Fletcher was present representing her application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly reviewed
the comments provided to the applicant.
Attention was brought to the Water Works and Wastewater
Department comments,and the manufactured home setup and
anchoring requirements.In addition,Staff reminded the
applicant to provide notification by certified mail of property
owners within 200 feet no later than March 7,2000,and that the
ppl't p o 'd p t k d t'f'o tgo''pt
3
'arch 22,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6985
t p*'d po t~*k d *t'f'tgo 'g *o 'pt,th
abstract list of owners,and a copy of the notification letter
to Staff no later than six days prior to the public hearing.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final
action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Erica Fletcher was present representing her application.There
were no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with
the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 9 ayes,0 nays and 2 absent.
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:LU 01-19-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning District
Location:Southwest Corner of Chenal Parkway at Rahling Rd.
R~t:M lt'-P 'ly,P t/OP SP,S'l P 'ly,
and Community Shopping to Community Shopping
Source:Planning &Development Staff
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal Planning District from
Multi-Family,Park/Open Space,Single Family,and Community
Shopping to Community Shopping.The Community Shopping
category provides for shopping center development with one
or more general merchandise stores.Prompted by a
revocation of a Planned Commercial Development,the PlanningStaffinitiatedthisiteminordertohavethelanduse
shown match the current zoning and likely future developmentofthepropertyinquestion.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant and zoned C-2 Shopping
Center and is approximately 66.49+acres in size.The
vacant land at the northeast corner of the Chenal Parkway /Rahling Road intersection is zoned C-3 General Commercial.
The property directly to the east consists of a shoppingcenterlocatedinaPlannedCommercialDevelopmentand anofficeparkzoned0-2 Office Institutional.An office
building is located on the Planned Development Office to the
south.The remainder of the property to the west is a
vacant Planned Commercial Development.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On January 4,2000 a change took place from Office to MixedOfficeCommercialabout1milesoutheastofthestudyareaat15500ChenalParkway.
On April 20,1999 a change was made from Office to
Commercial about 1 mile southeast of the area under reviewatChenalParkwayeastofKirkRoad.
On December 15,1998 a change took place from Single Family
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU 01-19-03
to Public Institutional about 1 mile southeast of the
property in question at 715 Wellington Village Road.
On September 1,1998 a change took place from Single Family
to Multi-family in an area east of Chenal Valley Drive about
4 of a mile northeast of the study area.
On September 1,1998 a change took place from Multi-family
to Single Family at Rahling Road south of Pebble Beach Drive
about 2/3 of a mile northeast of the area under review.
On May 6,1997 multiple changes took place on the east side
of Chenal Parkway and along Rahling Road within a 1-mile
radius of the property in question.
On September 19,1995 multiple changes took place on the
west side of Chenal Parkway north of Kanis Road resulting in
the current future land use designations for the property in
question.
The property in question is currently shown as Multi-family,
Park/Open Space,Single Family,and Community Shopping.The
property to the north is shown as Low Density Residential,
Neighborhood Commercial,and Single Family.The property to
the east is shown as Commercial,Community Shopping and
Office.The property to the south is shown as and Single
Family.The property to the southwest is shown as Single
Family.A strip of Park/Open space is located along Rock
Creek to the west.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan.Rahling Road is shown on the Master
Street Plan as a Minor Arterial.The Master Street Plan
shows Rahling Road continuing to Lawson Road as a Principal
Arterial.In addition,the Master Street Plan also shows a
Class I Bikeway running along Chenal Parkway from Bowman
Road to State Highway 10.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows a proposed neighborhood
park close to Rock Creek near the southwest corner of the
area under review.Development of Community Shopping uses
is likely to increase the traffic in the area.Any
development of this site should address increased traffic,
impacts on the floodway of the creek and the ecological
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU 01-19-03
balance of the natural area affecting the proposed
neighborhood park.
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 of review is located in a developing area near the
city limit west of Chenal Parkway.Most of the developed
land in the immediate area consists of shopping centers andofficeparks.The residential subdivisions in the
surrounding area do not front on the arterial streets.Most
of the surrounding land remains
undeveloped.
The current future land use plan was implemented to match
the uses that were included in a Planned Commercial
Development that was to include residential,shopping,and
open space uses.The proposed development was never
constructed and the Planned Commercial Development was
partially revoked and this portion of the property reverted
to its original zoning.The land uses shown for the
property in question does not match the current zoning.
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,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,and St.Charles Property
Owners Association.
Staff has received no comments from area residents
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU 01-19-03
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.This amendment
returns the Land Use Plan to its classification prior to the
revoked PCD.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for approval.A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:9
Name:Reservoir Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In May of 2000,the Planning and Development Department met
with representatives of the Colony West,Echo Valley,and
Sturbridge Neighborhood Associations and area citizens about
starting a neighborhood plan for their area.
A phone survey was conducted by the UALR Institute of
Government to ask residents about various topics of concern
in their area.This statistically accurate survey of 418
interviews provided a good representation of the
neighborhood and its concerns.The survey was conducted to
identify those concerns and problems so that they could be
addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to lessen the
negative impacts.
A saturation mailing (approx.3500)was performed with
addresses obtained from the GIS system with an invitation to
the first meeting.Along with the invitation to the meeting
was a brief explanation of the planning process and a
portion of the document to send back to Planning Staff that
contained three open ended questions concerning drainage,
street improvements and general issues concerning their
neighborhood that were not addressed in great detail in the
phone survey.Citizens had the option of requesting to
serve on the committee or asking for survey results in the
mailer.
Informational meetings were held from June 2000 through
October 2000.Those who responded to the survey,churches
and all businesses in the area were invited to attend these
meetings.From these meetings,goals and objectives were
developed and refined.
After a draft plan was finished,a "Plan Preview"meeting
was held on January 8,2001.This meeting was to present
the plan back to the residents.All persons who attended
one or more meetings,in addition to area churches,were
invited to attend.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
As part of the neighborhood planning efforts,changes to the
Future Land Use Plan are forthcoming.These plan changes
are scheduled to be presented at the May 3,2001 planning
commission meeting.
At this time,the steering committee requests the city via
the Little Rock Planning Commission and the Board of
Directors accept the Action Plan as a resolution and help
the neighborhood work toward the goals presented in the
plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Before the item was presented,the Commission had a
discussion concerning the recommended modifications to
resolutions used to adopt Neighborhood Action Plans.The
new language would acknowledge the importance of
Neighborhood Action Plans and at the same time stress the
fact that the Neighborhood Actions plans are adopted by
Resolution and do not have the force of law.
Planning Commission Chair Downing opened the discussion and
asked Commissioner Craig Berry to explain the modifications
to the Resolution language.Commissioner Berry stated that
the new language added clarification to provide context for
the Board of Directors and the neighborhoods as to the
purpose and intent of the role of neighborhood planning in
the context of community wide planning.
Commissioner Pam Adcock expressed her concern that she did
not want to add language that would ultimately weaken
neighborhoods.Commissioner Berry replied that the new
language would acknowledge the importance of Neighborhood
Action Plans.
Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters for
Pulaski County,stated that many citizens of the community
were confused about the fact that Neighborhood Action Plans
are adopted by Resolution and are not City of Little Rock
Ordinances.Many citizens have the misperception that
Neighborhood Action Plans have the force of law.Ms.Bell
2
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
closed her remarks by stating that it was unfair for
citizens to think the Neighborhood Action Plans have the
force of law when they do not.
Commissioner Adcock stated the importance of telling the
Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committees that the plans
are adopted by Resolution and not Ordinance.The Steering
Committees should also be informed of the difference between
Resolutions and Ordinances.
Chairman Downing asked for an explanation between the
proposed language and the current language used in the
Neighborhood Action Plan Resolutions.Commissioner Berry
stated that two clauses were added.The first clause states...
"Whereas,comprehensive planning must include not only the
interests of the neighborhood immediately affected,but the
interests of the city as a whole."The second clause
states..."Whereas,advocacy planning by neighborhoods is an
acceptable and legitimate role for citizens and professional
planners."
Commissioner Hugh Earnest stated that it is important for
Neighborhood Action Plans to fit in with the overall
comprehensive plans for the city because conflicts are
inevitable between Neighborhood Action Plans and other City
of Little Rock plans.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked Ruth Bell if the League of
Women Voters had a suggestion for adding language that the
Neighborhood Action Plans are indeed a plan and a hope for
the future.Ruth Bell stated that it would be helpful to
add such language with as few "whereas"as possible.
Chairman Downing began a discussion among the Commissioners
about how sometimes the goals of a Neighborhood Action Plan
(adopted by resolution)conflicts with other city plans,
such as the Master Street Plan,that are adopted by
Ordinance.Chairman Downing also stated that the
Neighborhood Action Plans are adopted by resolution to
resolve conflicts between neighborhood plans adopted by
resolution and other city plans that are adopted by
ordinance.
3
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
Commissioner Judith Faust stated her support for the
modified language and that it acknowledge that sometimes the
needs of the city as a whole out weigh the needs of
individual neighborhoods yet at the same time the new
language acknowledges the importance of the Neighborhood
Action Plan process to the city.
Harold Necks,speaking on behalf of the Reservoir
Neighborhood Action Plan Steering Committee,stated that the
committee understood throughout the entire process that the
plan would be adopted by Resolution and that it would not be
adopted by Ordinance.
A motion was made to approve the modified language of the
resolution and was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation of the
item.
Commissioner Faust asked city staff how the telephone survey
was paid for.Walter Malone,City Staff,stated that the
survey was paid for by a contract managed by the City
Manager's office.
Commissioner Earnest stated that he had concerns about the
rental inspection program.Commissioner Earnest stated that
rental inspection information should be placed in a
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)database to track
rental inspections.A GIS database of rental inspection
records would be an asset to the Neighborhood Action Plan
process since rental property is often a major issue
addressed by Neighborhood Action Plans.
Linda Van Blaricom,resident of the Echo Valley Neighborhood
Association,spoke on behalf of the Reservoir Neighborhood
Action Plan Steering Committee.Ms.Van Blaricom went
through all of the goals listed in the document and listed
the top two objectives from each one.
Commissioner Berry asked City Staff about the
neighborhoods'esireofnotwideningReservoirRoad.Bob Turner,Director
of Public Works,stated that Reservoir Road was shown on the
Master Street Plan as a Minor Arterial and that it was
4
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)
ultimately slated to be widened to four lanes.Jim Lawson,
Director of Planning and Development,stated that the
decision to not connect Reservoir Road with the extension of
Brookside/John Barrow Road actually reduced the
functionality of the street even though it is shown as a
Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan.
Commissioner Berry asked City Staff if the Master Street
Plan should be amended to reduce the classification of
Reservoir Road.City Staff began a discussion in which it
was concluded that although Reservoir Road is located at the
correct location for a Minor Arterial,the topography of the
area would limit the possibility of improving Reservoir Road
to the standards of a Minor Arterial.Mr.Turner suggested
that the city should consider implementing a new policy that
would allow street design in Little Rock to be context
sensitive.Mr.Turner finished the discussion by
introducing the concept of access management and stated that
greater access controls would allow streets to handle
greater volumes of traffic with fewer lanes.
Chairman Downing made a statement that he would like to see
the City of Little Rock follow through on the item'goal of
provide pedestrian access to Reservoir Park.Brian Minyard,
City Staff,stated that he spoke with Mark Webre about
adding pedestrian access to Reservoir Park.
A motion was made to approve the item incorporating the new
language in the resolution and was approved with a vote of 8
ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
5
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:10
Owner:City of Little Rock
Applicant:City of Little Rock Department
of Parks Recreation
Request:Rezone City Parks property to
PR,Park and Recreation District
STAFF REPORT:
It has been determined that this issue should be dealt withatalaterCommissionmeeting,perhaps in conjunction withtheCommission's review of the proposed new Master ParksPlan.
As this item was never legal-added,no action is required oftheCommission.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO 10 1 FILE NO LU01 03 01 LU01 04 01 ~LU01 05 01
LU01-09-01,LU01-09-02,LU01-11-01
Name:Land Use plan Amendment —Various Planning
Districts
Location:Various Parks
R~t ~Lo D 'ty R d 't 1',Co *',d 8'l
Family to Park/Open Space and Public Institutional
Source:Staff
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Staff requests that this item be withdrawn without prejudice
on March 8,2001.This item will be presented at a later
date to coincide with the rezoning of all City of Little
Rock park property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A
motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:11
NAME:Revision of Little Rock Planning Boundary
LOCATION:Western Pulaski County
REQUEST:Change the location of the Boundary
SOURCE:Staff
STAFF REPORT:
By state law the City has the right to exercise planning
justification for up to 5 miles beyond the corporate limits.
Within this area the City may adopt Plans and exercise
subdivision authority.The state has only given the City
the right to exercise zoning regulation for up to 3 miles
beyond the corporate limits.
In 1988 the City decided,in order to reduce confusion,to
only exercise a 3-mile planning-zoning area.By 1992 the 3
miles west of Little Rock had been zoned.Due to strong
opposition at the time the City elected not to exercise
zoning to the southeast of the corporate limits.
Since 1988 there have been numerous annexations but only one
plan-boundary change in Pulaski County (1995).The resultisthatthePlanning-Zoning Boundary to the west of Little
Rock is less than a mile in several places.In order for
the City to encourage more orderly development in areas that
are likely to become parts of the City in the future,it is
desirable to expand the plan-zone boundary.
The City strongly believes that extraterritorial planning
and zoning benefits not only the city but property owners in
the area.The City has been conducting planning studies and
regulating subdivision activity beyond the corporate limits
since 1957.The zoning of areas beyond the city limits has
been done since 1978.This has helped assure right-of-ways
are in place and that a new use does not enter an area that
adversely affects the existing uses.
March 22,2001
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)
By making the change proposed,staff can begin work on
planning studies for the area.Once the Land Use Plan and
Master Street Plan are in place,zoning and subdivision
regulation of the area would begin.
STAFF RECOMMEND:
Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 22,2001)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reviewed the current citylimits,planning boundary and zoning boundary.Mr.Malone
explained how we got to the current boundaries and why staffbelievesitisappropriatetomakechangesnow.Mr.MalonealsoreviewedtheextraterritorialzoningprocessandthedesiretoimplementLandUsePlanning,Master Street
Planning,Subdivision and Zoning Regulation for the area.
Commissioner Ernest asked about the location of the new parksite.Mr.Malone pointed to the location.
Commissioner Lowry asked about the resolution to be includedaspartoftheitem—should it be read into the record.
Cindy Dawson,City Attorney,stated it was not necessary.
Mr.Malone clarified the reason for the resolution —to put
everyone on notice that in the coming months land use and
zoning work would be done in the area.
Commissioner Lowry moved the approval of item 11 includingallstaffrecommendations.The Commission approved the
motion unanimously 7 for,0 against,and 4 absent.
2
RESOLUTION NO.137
TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK TO EXTEND THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING AREA AND INSTITUTE ZONE AND
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock has authority to zonepropertywithin3milesoftheCityLimitsunderrevisedArkansasStatute19-2829,and;
WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock wishes to have orderly andcompatiblegrowthwithinareasadjacenttotheCitywhichcouldbecomepartofLittleRock,and;
WHEREAS,the City of Little Rock has modified the PlanningAreatotakeinarea,now within three-miles.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION;
SECTION 1.That the City of Little Rock intends toexercisetheLittleRockZoningOrdinancewithintheboundariesoftheLittleRockPlanningAreatomeetthenecessityoforderlyandcompatiblegrowth.
PASSED:
March 22,2001
QO0 k
Chairman ec eta
March 22,2001
ITEM MG.:12 FlLE MG.:Z-6966-A and Z-6967-A
C~lti C oC Cy 0 C CC tt C Co
Cammit,tee
LoccLt3,OD ".Ashex"A'veQI3e area
c~e:R *oo'c *Rc co cc c t2 co cc
STAFF BEPGRT
As part of the review of the Gak Forest.Rnd Stephens
Meighbox'haod Areas dux'ing the neighborhood planning process,
the twa steering committees Llgxeed to aiiaw the Asher
Cox'x'3.dar Comm3.ttee to cxeR'te R piRQ Rlong 'thG coxr3.dar ~
Th3.$comm3.ttee 3.s msde up of appro3LB.mately 40 px'apex"ty
owner's,busxness ownex's Rnd dev'GiopGx'8 .Eclx'ly 3n.the yea
x'000thePlanningCommissionhadaxezani.ng xeguest befoxe
them slang the Ashex Coxxidox.The Planning Commission
asked the Ashex Cox'x'idox Committee to make a recommendation
on the rezoD3.Dg xeLII3est Slid also asked Lif the commxttee
could rev3.ew 'thG land use plan and the zon3.Dg
ciass3Lf icat3.ons along Asher.
The Asher Coxxidox Cammi.ttee'gasls wexe to recognize
existing uses and to confine Industrial uses to the south
side of Ashex whenevex passible.The Ashex Corridor
Cammittee developed a set.Of land Use Plan changes that,more
cLcc'uxRteiy ref iected 'the ezist3.ng land I38es clnd "thet3.x goals.
Thet changes were.scRt'tered along Ashex'v'GQI3G between
Univexsity and the Ashex/Roosevelt split..In August 2000
P1RQQ3.ng Commission approved these changest and
Board of Directors appraved them in Gctobex 2000.
In Mov~er 2000 the Asher Coxridox Committee xeviewed the
zon3.ng patterns along Ashex.StRff 3.dGQ't3.fied property
ownexs in the Ashex Avenue axes usxng Pulaski Caunty
Assessor x'ecox'ds.Gne hundred and SGVGD'ty faux'o'tent3.RI
x'ezoning lettexs were sent to prapexty owners by certified
ma3.1 G3Lpia3LD3.ng the Zan 3.Dg changes RXld,regues ting R responseiftheywereintexestedinrezoningtheirpx'operty.
Included 3.3L this cex't3.f3.Gd mal.13.ng was R business x'eply
ellv'elope fox'the pxoperty owner to x'ett'ux'n R response.
Gn Januax'y 25,2001,the Planning Cammission reviewed the
March 22,2001
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
Date
I
S ret ry r a