pc_05 03 2001LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MAY 3,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Richard Downing
Fred Allen,Jr.
Craig Berry
Bob Lowry
Hugh Earnest
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Pam AdcockBillRector
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Members Absent:Rohn Muse
City Attorney:Steve Giles
III.Approval of the Minutes of the March 22,2001 Meeting of
the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were
approved as presented.
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING —REZONING —CONDITIONAL USE HEARING
MAY 3,2001
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.S-1308 Rocky —Replat
B.S-1096-D Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)
Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review
II .NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-6120-C Capitol Lakes Estates R-2 to MF-12
2 .Z-6120-D Village on the Lakes —Long-Form PRD
3.Z-6952-A 9117 Asher Avenue C-3 to C-4
4.Z-6995 8700 Scott Hamilton R-2 to C-4
5.Z-7004 10901 Kanis Road C-2 to C-3
6.Z-7008 18425 Kanis Road R-2 to C-1
6.1 LU01-18-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis
Mountain Planning District from Single
Family to Neighborhood Commercial at
18425 Kanis Road
7.Z-7014 904 Welch —921 East 9 R-4 to 0-1
7.1 LU01-07-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the I-30
Planning District from Single Family to
Office at the southwest corner of East 9
and Welch Streets
8.Z-7017 17524 Kanis Road R-2 to AF
8.1 Z-7017-A Hoffman Doggy Day-Care C.U.P.
9.Z-7018 Kanis and Medical Center Drive 0-2 to 0-3
10.Z-3269-D That French Salon C.U.P.
1
Agenda,Page Two
11.Z-6999 Flanigan Beauty Shop C.U.P.
12.Z-7007 Thomas Memorial Baptist Church C.U.P.
13.Z-7009 Moore Manufactured Home C.U.P.
14.Z-7010 Dowdy Child Care Center C.U.P.
15.Z-7011 Cantrell Garden Center C.U.P.
16.Z-7012 Led By The Spirit Church of God C.U.P.
17.Z-7013 Dunbar Jr.High School C.U.P.
18.Z-7015 Integra Addition Car Wash C.U.P.
19.Z-7016 Faith Care/Inner City Garden Center C.U.P.
20.Z-6989 Southwestern Bell Wireless Tower Use Permit
21.G-25-181 Rename Water Works Dr.to Winston Faulkner Road
22.Z-6996 Webb Day-Care Family Home S.U.P.
23.Z-7000 Jones Day-Care Family Home S.U.P.
24.Z-7001 Brown Day-Care Family Home S.U.P.
2
14
Pu
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
It
e
m
s
CL
21
(S
I/
\
I
47
(
+
LE
E
R/
V
g
PR
VA
L
L
E
Y
MA
R
K
M
CI
6.
1
o
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
1
KA
N
I
S
1-
6
3
0
2
AN
I
S
12
T
H
12
T
H
9T
H
E.
6
I
H
o
/
X
(7
(
Q
CL
CC
IF
U
CP
o
8
WR
I
G
H
T
CC
c„
D
A
M
CO
(
D
I
V
E
(
1-
4
3
0
R
OS
E
V
E
L
T
~+
4'
L
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
TH
o=
LA
W
S
O
N
13
1$
@E
x
.
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
("
W
S
O
N
lE
UR
E
R
DA
V
I
D
1-
3
0
Pi
O'
D
O
D
D
65
T
H
J~
65
T
H
RA
I
N
E
S
+
VA
L
L
E
Y
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
65
16
7
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
BA
IN
E
32
o
6
DI
X
O
N
HA
R
P
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
VA
U
CL
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
o
SL
I
N
K
E
R
CL
VI
N
S
O
N
66
SO
o
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
EY
E
R
SP
G
S
.
C
OF
F
CU
T
O
F
F
C
CU
T
O
F
F
I
I
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
EL
16
7
65
36
5
AS
H
E
R
o~
PR
A
T
T
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
MA
Y
3,
20
0
1
May a,2001
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:S-1308
NAME:Rocky —Replat
LOCATION:Southeast corner of Baseline Road and Chicot Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Yelenich Family Revocable Living Trust Laha Engineers,Inc.
5706 Partridge Lane P.O.Box 190251
No.Little Rock,AR 72118 Little Rock,AR 72219
AREA:approximately 3.23 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3
FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:C-3
PLANNING DISTRICT:15
CENSUS TRACT:41.06
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1.A variance to allow reduced rear platted building lines
(Lots 1 and 2).
2.A waiver of right-of-way dedication for Baseline and Chicot
Roads.
3.A waiver of street improvements for Baseline and Chicot
Roads.
A.PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to replat the two (2)existing lots
at the southeast corner of Baseline and Chicot Roads into
three (3)lots.The applicant proposes to construct an auto
parts store on the newly created lot (Lot 1).Lot 2 as
shown on the proposed replat contains a service station,
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
which will be removed in the future with development of a
new convenience store.The south and east lot lines of this
existing lot are proposed to be slightly adjusted,with Lot
2 being enlarged.Lot 3 contains an existing commercial
building,formerly a Fred's Store.
The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced rear
platted building setbacks for Lots 1 and 2.A 5-foot rear
platted building line is proposed for each of these lots.
The applicant is requesting a waiver of additional required
right-of-way dedication for Baseline and Chicot Roads.The
applicant is also requesting a waiver of additional street
improvements for Baseline and Chicot Roads.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is a vacant commercial building (old Fred's Store)on
Lot 3 of the proposed replat,with a service station on Lot
2.The area proposed for Lot 1 is asphalt parking area for
the existing commercial building.
There is a mixture of commercial uses to the east and to the
north across Baseline Road.There is a church across Chicot
Road to the west.There is an Entergy sub-station
immediately south of this site,with commercial uses further
south.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the
neighborhood.The Chicot,Cloverdale,West Baseline and
SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.South edge of property is in floodplain.
2.Baseline and Chicot Roads are classified as principal
arterials on the Master Street Plan.A dedication of
right-of-way to 45 feet from centerlines is required.
3.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area,per Sec.
8-283 will be required.
4.A development permit for Flood Hazard,per Sec.8-283
will be required.
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
5.Provide design of streets conforming to Master Street
Plan.Construct right turn lane from Chicot Road onto
Baseline Road.
6.Driveway locations shall conform to Ordinance 18,031.
E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Entergy:No Comment.
ARKLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:No Comment received.
Water:An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in
addition to normal fees in this area.
Fire Department:No Comment.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is located on bus routes 17 and 17A,
but 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 29,2001)
Rocky Yelenich and Troy Laha were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed replat
and noted several items which needed to be shown on the
replat drawing.
The Public Works requirements were discussed at length,
primarily right-of-way dedication.Cross-access and
parking easements were briefly discussed.Mr.Yelenich
noted that the existing drive near the east property line of
Lot 1 would be closed,with shared access from Baseline Road
between Lots 1 and 2.
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Staff noted that based on the C-3 zoning of the property,
the front platted building lines could be reduced to 25
feet.The front building lines were originally platted at
40 feet.Staff noted that the reduction of the front
building lines was based on the required right-of-way being
dedicated.This issue was discussed.
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the replat to
the full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised replat drawing to staff on
April 4,2001.The revised replat addresses some of the
issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.
Street centerlines,descriptions of monuments and the
required legal description have been noted.
The applicant has also submitted a parking plan for Lot 3.
The plan shows that there will be 90 parking spaces
remaining on Lot 3 to serve the existing commercial
building.The ordinance requires a minimum of 64 spaces for
the existing building.Therefore,the creation of Lot 1
does not encroach into the required parking for the existing
commercial building.
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting
waivers of the Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication
and street improvements to Baseline and Chicot Roads.The
required right-of-way for both streets is 45 feet from
existing street centerlines.This would mean an additional
five (5)feet of dedication along Baseline Road and an extra
width varying from five (5)feet to ten (10)feet along the
Chicot Road frontage.The revised replat submitted shows an
additional five (5)feet of dedication along a portion of
Baseline Road,which would bring the overall right-of-way on
this street to 40 feet from centerline.The applicant is
also requesting a waiver of street improvements to these
streets,which would include construction of a right turn
lane from Chicot Road onto Baseline Road.Public Works
recommends denial of the waivers as requested.
As noted in paragraph G.,the C-3 zoning of the property
allows a 25 foot front platted building line.The front
platted building lines on this property were platted at 40
feet years ago.The revised replat submitted shows 25 foot
4
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
platted building lines for the proposed lots,but the 25
foot measurement was made from the existing front property
lines.Staff feels that if the original 40 foot front
platted building lines are reduced to 25 feet,the 25 foot
measurement should be taken from the required Master Street
Plan right-of-way line.
Also,the applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard
setback line for Lots 1 and 2.The required rear yard
setback in C-3 zoning is 25 feet.The applicant is
requesting a five (5)foot rear yard setback for these two
lots.Staff will only support the rear yard setback
variance if the required Master Street Plan right-of-way is
dedicated.Without the required right-of-way dedication,
staff feels that there is no hardship nor justification for
the setback variance.
Although staff has no objection to the concept of a replat
to create Lot 1 and adjust the south and east property lines
for Lot 2,staff cannot fully support the replat until the
outstanding issues mentioned in this paragraph are resolved.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat subject to
the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff recommends that the front 25 foot platted building
line be measured from the required Master Street Plan
right-of-way line.
3.Staff recommends denial of the rear yard setback variance
if the required right-of-way is not dedicated.
4.Staff recommends denial of the waivers of right-of-way
dedication and street improvements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Rocky Yelenich and Troy Laha were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the replat and noted that
the Commission needed to address a bylaw waiver for the
notification before hearing the item.There were no objectors
present.
5
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Rocky Yelenich explained that he did not obtain an abstract list
of adjacent property owners,but researched the county records
and created his own property owner list.He stated that he hand-
delivered a notice to each of these owners and obtained their
signatures.The Commission reviewed the notice and signatures as
presented by Mr.Yelenich.
Commissioner Adcock noted that the neighborhood associations in
the area knew about the proposed development and supported the
development.
Commissioner Faust noted that two (2)neighborhood associations
submitted letters supporting the plat.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he was concerned with setting
precedence in waiving the bylaws.
Mr.Yelenich noted that the developers of Lot 1 were ready to
proceed with development of this lot.
Staff expressed concern that an abstract list was not used to
notify adjacent property owners.There was a general discussion
of a possible bylaw waiver and the required notice procedure.
There was a motion to defer the application to the May 3,2001
Planning Commission agenda.The motion was discussed.The
Commission noted that the applicant needed to obtain an abstract
list and verify that he notified all of the required adjacent
property owners.If any of the property owners were not
notified,the Commission instructed the applicant to do so as
soon as possible.The staff was to review the abstract list
and parties given notice and report to the Commission on
May 3,2001.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays and
4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Troy Laha and Rocky Yelenich were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed replat.Staff
noted that the front platted building lines along Baseline and
Chicot Roads had been revised to 40 feet.With this being done,
staff noted support of the variance for reduced rear yard setback
for Lots 1 and 2.Staff noted a recommendation of denial of the
requested waivers for right-of-way dedication for Baseline and
Chicot Roads and right turn lane construction on Chicot Road.
6
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Staff noted that the applicant mailed the required certified mail
notices as per an abstract list on April 20,2001.Staff
informed the Commission that a waiver of the bylaws was in order
to approve the notices being two (2)days late.There was a
motion to approve the bylaw waiver and accept the notification as
completed by the applicant.The motion passed by a vote of 10
ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
Troy Laha addressed the Commission in support of the replat.He
noted that the applicant requested a waiver of the right-of-way
dedication for Baseline and Chicot Roads and a waiver of the
required street improvements (right turn lane)on Chicot Road.
He discussed the reasons for the waiver requests.He noted that
three (3)existing driveways along the property frontage would be
eliminated and replaced with curb and gutter.He noted that the
property was not in the floodplain.
Norm Floyd,with SWLR UP and West Baseline Neighborhood
Associations,noted that both groups supported the project.He
noted a desire to have opaque screening along the south side of
the property.
Mr.Laha noted that the applicant agreed to the opaque fencing.
He noted that this would be done to deter parking on this
property for the fireworks display/sales on the south property.
He also noted that there would be no pay phones on this property
and no parking of vehicles overnight.
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,discussed the required
right-of-way dedication and street improvements.He noted that
Public Works supported the driveway locations with the removal of
three existing drives.Mr.Turner recommended that the right
turn lane on Chicot Road be constructed.
Commissioner Adcock asked if the right turn lane was warranted.
Mr.Turner noted that it was and explained.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if there was a right turn lane on
Baseline Road north.Mr.Turner commented that there was not.
There was a discussion of when the State Highway Department made
the improvements to Baseline and Chicot Roads.Mr.Turner and
Mr.Laha indicated that the Baseline improvements were done
within the last 10 years and the Chicot improvements were done
around 1985.There was additional discussion of this issue.
7
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Commissioner Rahman asked about the length of the required turn
lane.Mr.Turner noted that it needed to be 200 feet with a 50
foot taper.There was additional discussion of the Public Works
issues.
Mr.Laha noted that the State had no plans to widen Chicot Road
and needed no additional right-of-way.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about the impact should the Planning
Commission approve the right-of-way waiver.Mr.Turner indicated
that there would be no significant impact on Baseline and
discussed.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about traffic signals at the
intersection.Mr.Turner noted that there was standard
signalization at the intersection.
Commissioner Adcock expressed concern about the accident rate at
this intersection.This issue was briefly discussed.
There was a main motion to approve the replat subject to the
conditions as noted by staff,to include approval of the variance
for reduced rear yard setback for Lots 1 and 2 and denial of the
waiver requests for right-of-way dedication for Baseline and
Chicot Roads and improvements to Chicot Road.
There was a discussion of the right-of-way requirement and a past
issue at West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue.Mr.Turner
explained the issue.
There was a motion to amend the main motion and approve the
waiver request for right-of-way dedication for Baseline Road.
The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,8 nays and 1 absent.
There was a second motion to amend the main motion and approve
the waiver request for right-of-way dedication for Chicot Road.
The motion failed by a vote of 1 ayes,9 ayes and 1 absent.
Commissioner Faust asked if an in-lieu contribution could be made
for the street improvements.Mr.Lowery stated that in-lieu
could be made for the improvements and explained.
There was a third motion to amend the main motion and approve the
waiver request for right turn lane construction on Chicot Road.
The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes,8 nays and 1 absent.
8
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-1308
Chairman Downing called for a vote on the main motion.The main
motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
9
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
NAME:Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Revised Subdivision Site
Plan Review
LOCATION:1012/1014 Autumn Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Central AR Land Development Co.Central Arkansas Engineering
1012 Autumn Road,Suite 1 1012 Autumn Road,Suite 2
Little Rock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211
AREA:2.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0
ZONING:0-3 ALLOWED USES:General Office
PROPOSED USE:General Office
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
Variance for a reduced rear yard building setback
BACKGROUND:
On May 11,2000,the Planning Commission approved the Autumn
Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.The subdivision included 6.43
acres and three (3)lots.On June 22,2000,the Planning
Commission approved a site plan for Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision.
Lot 2 contains an existing 5,590 square foot (one-story)office
building and 24 parking spaces.The multiple building site plan
approved for Lot 2 was to take place in the following phases:
Phase 1 —A 7,014 square foot (single-story)office
building and 58 parking spaces.
Phase II —A 15,000 square foot (two-story)office
building and 38 parking spaces.
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
To date,none of the Autumn Subdivision has been final platted.
The applicant notes that the various property owners are working
toward obtaining a final plat,but it is expected to take several
more months.
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedsiteplanforLot2,Autumn Subdivision.The only proposed
change in the previously approved plan involves moving the
approved phase line.The owner of the east half of the
proposed Lot 2 is ready to construct the 7,014 square foot
(one-story)office building as shown on the approved site
plan.Therefore,the owner proposes to move the phase line
to align with the current ownership (property)line.It is
the owner's intent to purchase the remainder of Lot 2,final
plat that lot within the next year,and continue with PhaseIIofthisdevelopment.
Based on the fact that the applicant proposes to move the
phase line to align with the current property line,a rear
yard setback variance is required.The minimum required
rear yard setback in 0-3 zoning is 15 feet.The rear yard
setback for the new building in Phase I would be 5 feet.
The existing office building on the site maintains a rear
setback of 6.5 feet.
Based on the fact that the preliminary plat will expire on
May 11,2001 and the property transaction is expected to
take several more months,the applicant is also requesting a
one (1)year time extension for the previously approved
preliminary plat.This will allow the property owners time
to work out details and final plat the property.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
There is an existing office building on the proposed Lot 2,
Autumn Subdivision.There is a mixture of office and
commercial uses to the north along Chenal Parkway and to the
east across Autumn Road.There is undeveloped property
immediately south of this site,with an office building and
two single family residences further south along the north
side of Kanis Road.There is a contractor's maintenance
yard to the west an office/mini-warehouse development to the
northwest.
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Birchwood and John Barrow Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff
has received no comment from the neighborhood.
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
Same Comments as reviousl submitted on S-1096-C as
follows:
1.Autumn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned
development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.Autumn Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
3,300.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
New Comment:
1.Furnish sidewalk easement if right-of-way dedication is
insufficient to contain sidewalk.
With Buildin Permit:
2.Provide existing topographical information at maximum 5-
foot contour interval and 100-year base flood elevation.
3.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186 (e),
will be required.
4.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)6 (d),will be
required.
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely af fected.
Entergy:No Comment received.
AEUCLA:No Comment received.
Southwestern Bell:Consider utility easement and conduit
to supply service to rear building.Contact Southwestern
Bell for details.
Water:On site fire protection will be required.Fire
protection may be limited due to existing 6"water line.
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
Hydraulic analysis will be performed as plans and
requirements are provided to Water Works.Acreage fees
of $150 per acre apply in addition to normal charges.
Are Phase 1 and Phase 2 all one parcel?
Fire Department:Private fire hydrant will be required.
Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comment received.
CATA:Project site is located near bus route ¹5,but 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 29,2001)
The applicant was out of town and therefore not present.
Staff explained the revised site plan to the Committee.
There was very little discussion of the item,as there were
no issues to be resolved.After the brief discussion,the
Committee forwarded the revised site plan to the full
Commission for final action.
H.ANALYSIS:
As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revise
the previously approved site plan for Lot 2,Autumn
Subdivision by moving the phase line to align with the
current property line.This is to allow the new building in
Phase 1 to be constructed before the property transaction
for the west one-half of Lot 2 and final platting of this
lot.
In conjunction with the adjustment in the phase line,the
applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear
yard setback for the new building.The rear yard setback
4
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
for the new building in Phase I would be 5 feet.The
ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15 feet.Staff
supports the setback variance based on the fact that the
variance will go away when Lot 2 is final platted as shown
on the approved preliminary plat and the existing building
on this property maintains a setback of less than 15 feet
(6.5 feet).
With the adjustment in the phase line,a total of 50 parking
spaces will remain in Phase I.The ordinance requires a
minimum of 31 parking spaces to serve the buildings within
Phase I.Staff has no issues with the proposed phase line
adjustment.
Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a
one (1)year time extension for the previously approved
Autumn Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.This will allow the
property owners additional needed time to resolve details
involving the property transaction and final platting.
Staff supports the time extension as requested.
Based on the fact that it is the applicant's intent to
follow through with the final platting of the subdivision
and site plan for Lot 2 as previously approved by the
Planning Commission,staff supports the revision of the
phase line for the Lot 2 development.The revised site plan
should have no adverse impact on the surrounding property.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan for
Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Staff supports the variance for reduced rear yard setback
for the new building in Phase I.
3.Staff also recommends approval of a one (1)year time
extension for the Autumn Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001)
Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on
April 19,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the
5
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D
May 3,2001.With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent,the
Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral
request as made by the applicant (less than five working days
prior to the public hearing).Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 3,2001 agenda.
A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on
May 3,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the
May 31,2001.With a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent,the
Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral
request as made by the applicant (less than five working days
prior to the public hearing).Staff supported the deferral
request.
The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion
within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 31,2001
agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
h jr 3,2001
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6120-C
Owner:Capitol Lakes Estates,LLC
Applicant:Jim Hathaway
Location:Western perimeter of Capitol
Lakes Estates,south of proposed
West Kanis Road extension
Request:Rezone from R-2 to MF-12
Purpose:Future multifamily development
Size:7.28+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;proposed Capitol Lakes Estates;
zoned R-2
South —Undeveloped;proposed Capitol Lakes Estates;
zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped;proposed Capitol Lakes Estates;
zoned MF-12
West —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Rushmore Blvd.and Unknown arterial are classified on the
Master Street Plan as minor arterials.A dedication of
right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
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.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction,site grading,and drainage plan will need
to be submitted and approved.
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
h jr 3 2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-C
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of land located within 200 feet of the site and
the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association were
notified of the proposed rezoning.There are no residents
within a 300-foot radius of the site to be notified by
staff.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Low Density Residential and
Single Family for this site.Insomuch as a plan is to be
general in nature,staff believes no Plan Amendment is
necessary.This tract and all surrounding properties are
wooded and undeveloped.Allowing the minor expansion of the
LDR designation to encompass these additional 7+acres seems
reasonable.The site is not within an area covered by a
neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this wooded,
undeveloped,7.28+acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to
"MF-12"Multifamily.The property is located on the western
perimeter of the proposed Capitol Lakes Estates development;
west of and adjacent to an existing,25+acre MF-12 zoned
tract.The 7.28+acre tract is located approximately 1,700
feet west of the current alignment of Cooper Orbit Road.
The area was previously platted as a street and 14 single
family lots.Final engineering has proven that the terrain
is too steep to develop as it was preliminarily platted.
The applicant has revised the preliminary plat by removing
the 14 lots and street and by combining the 7.28+acres with
the larger 25+acre,multifamily tract.This item was
previously on the Commission's December 7,2000 agenda.
Prior to the hearing,the applicant requested that the item
2
h,jr 3,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-C
be withdrawn,without prejudice.The Commission approved
that request on December 7,2000.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.The area to be
rezoned is approximately 1/3 mile from the nearest residence
in the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision,the nearest single-
family development.This site and all surrounding
properties are currently heavily wooded and undeveloped.
The proposed Capitol Lakes Estates development abuts the
site on the north,south and east.The site abuts a large
area of wooded,undeveloped property on the west.This
7.28+acre tract is bounded by a proposed arterial street
(west Kanis Road)on the north,a 25+acre,MF-12 zoned
tract on the east and proposed single-family lots on the
south.Since the difficulty of the terrain will prevent the
development of the tract as single-family homes,staff
believes the best use for the site is to add it to the
adjacent multifamily tract.
When the zoning for Capitol Lakes Estates was first approved
in 1996,there were difficulties associated with the
multifamily that was proposed at that time.Two tracts of
multifamily were proposed;a 25 acre tract to be located on
the west side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road (to
be called Rushmore Avenue)and 13+acres located on the east
side of Rushmore Avenue.Concerns centered on the smaller
tract which was known as Tract "B"and as a result,when the
zoning was approved by the Board of Directors,the following
conditions were attached:
~Any development which occurs on the property described as
Tract B in Section 1 of this Ordinance shall be limited
to 125 dwelling units.
~Three acres within the property described as Tract B in
Section 1 of this Ordinance will be dedicated as Open
Space and not developed.
~Capitol Lakes Estates shall not be developed prior to
implementation of sanitary sewer service,whether brought
about through formation of a new sewer improvement
district,expansion of the existing sewer improvement
district or some other more feasible cooperative
alternative.
3
lh~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-C
~With respect to that portion of property zoned MF-12
which will front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit
Road,a twenty (20)foot natural buffer will be
maintained along the frontage of the newly realigned
Cooper Orbit Road.If it becomes necessary to regrade
the buffer zone,the regraded area within the twenty foot
buffer strip will be replanted to a planting density
fifty (50)percent greater than that specified in the
Little Rock landscaping ordinance.
The developer has now proposed to rezone a portion of what
was known as Tract "B"to PRD for development of a 45 lot,
single-family subdivision.See File No.Z-6120-D,The
Village on the Lakes Long-Form PRD,item no.2 on this
agenda.
Allowing this expansion of additional multifamily zoning on
the western perimeter of the Capitol Lakes Estates
Development will not affect the zoning of the smaller tract
nor will it impact any of the previously approved
conditions.
The applicant is proposing a 30-foot wide buffer along the
western edge of the 7.28+acre tract and along the southern
perimeter of the tract where it is adjacent to proposed
single-family lots.Since this buffer is not set aside as a
separate tract,staff would prefer to see it zoned OS to
assure it remains as a buffer.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-12 zoning with
a 30 foot OS strip to be zoned along the western perimeter
of the site and along the southern perimeter of the tract
where it is adjacent to the proposed single-family lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
One person had submitted a card indicating support for the
item.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
4
h,g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-C
approval of the requested MF-12 zoning with the 30 foot "OS"
strip along the western perimeter and along the southern
perimeter where adjacent to single-family.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
5
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
NAME:Village On The Lakes —Long-Form PRD
LOCATION:Along Cooper Orbit Road,approximately 0.4 mile south
of Kanis Road
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Capitol Lakes Estates,LLC Civil Design,Inc.
P.O.Box 13246 15104 Cantrell Road
Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72223
AREA:11.59 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:44
FT.NEW STREET:1,030 linear feet
ZONING:R-2 and ALLOWED USES:Multifamily
MF-12 (with conditions)
PROPOSED USE:Attached Single Family
Residential
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20,1996 the Planning Commission by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 nays,3 absent and 1 abstention approved the Capitol Lakes
Estates —Preliminary Plat with conditions.The plat failed at
the Board of Directors level only because the various waivers
(minor street length,lot depth and width,pipe-stem lots,street
grades)failed.
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat resolving
design,Master Street Plan and easement issues.On December 18,
1997 the revised preliminary plat was approved by the Planning
Commission with a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays except for one (1)
abstaining vote on the variance for pipestem lot request.On
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
January 20,1998,the Board of Directors approved variances for
pipestem lots and cul-de-sac length.On February 17,1998,the
Board of Directors approved ordinances establishing the Capitol
Lakes Municipal Property Owner's Improvement District No.6 and
the Capitol Lakes Sewer Property Owner's Improvement District No.
148.
On April 15,1999 the Planning Commission granted a one (1)year
time extension for the approved preliminary plat.Since that
time,the developer has been working on obtaining Corps of
Engineers permits and off-site sewer improvements,as well as
final design work on Phase I.According to the City'
Subdivision Ordinance Section 31-94,an approved preliminary plat
shall remain effective "...as long as work is actively
progressing...".Staff feels that the developer is actively
working toward the final platting of Phase I,and that the
approved preliminary plat is still in effect.
On November 7,1996 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.
17,312 rezoning two (2)areas of the Capitol Lakes Estates
development from R-2 to MF-12.One of the MF-12 zoned areas
(shown as Tracts C-1 and C-2 on the attached Capitol Lakes
Estates Master Plan)is 14.81 acres in size and was limited to a
maximum of 125 dwelling units.The rezoning ordinance also
required three (3)acres of open space within the 14.81 acres and
a 20 foot natural buffer along the MF-12 frontage on the newly
realigned Cooper Orbit Road (Rushmore Avenue).
A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to rezone 11.59 acres (shown as
Tracts C-1 and D on the attached Capitol Lakes Estates
Master Plan)from R-2/MF-12 to PRD for an attached single-
family residential (townhouses)development.The proposed
development includes 11 buildings with a total of 44 single
family residential dwellings.The sale of each unit will
include the ground under the unit and a small yard area,
therefore a preliminary plat is proposed as a component of
the PRD development request.Each single family lot will be
approximately 3,200 square feet in area.
Each single family unit will be two-story construction,with
between 2,100 and 2,400 square feet of building area.The
applicant has submitted proposed building elevations which
are attached for Planning Commission review.
The proposed PRD development will have two (2)access points
from Rushmore Avenue,as noted on the attached site plan.
The northernmost access (Pinion Drive)will be a private
drive.The southernmost access drive (Castor Drive)will be
a dedicated public street with 60 feet of right-of-way.In
2
May ,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
addition to providing access to this development,both
streets will provide access to the adjacent property to the
east.
Tract D (zoned R-2)as shown on the attached Capitol Lakes
Estates Master Plan is included in the PRD rezoning request.
A detention pond is shown on Tract D which will handle
stormwater detention for the northern portion of the
project.Two (2)detention ponds within the southern
portion of Tract C-1 will handle additional drainage.There
is also an 8 foot walk/bike path shown within Tract D.This
pedestrian path will tie into the sidewalk along West Kanis
Road and extend along the east boundary of Tract C-1 to the
sidewalk along Castor Drive.
The applicant has noted that all common areas and private
streets will be under the control of a property
owners'ssociation.The maintenance of the private streets,access
drives,drainage areas,internal walk/bike paths and common
areas will be provided by the property owners'ssociation
and addressed in the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood.
The proposed site plan shows a monument-type sign location
at the corner of Rushmore Avenue and West Kanis Road.There
is also a directional/entry sign at each development
entrance from Rushmore Avenue.
The applicant proposes to construct the PRD townhouse
development (in one phase)concurrently with the
construction of Phase I of the Capitol Lakes Estates
Subdivision.The applicant has noted that if the
development concept for Tract C-1 proves successful,Tract
C-2 (as shown on the Master Plan)will be submitted for PRD
rezoning at a later date,for continuation of the attached
single family residential development.Amenities including
a pool,clubhouse and basketball court will be provided in
the future PRD site plan for Tract C-2.
B.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is undeveloped and wooded,with varying degrees
of slope.The existing Cooper Orbit Road runs through this
property,along the property's east boundary.There is R-2
zoned property to the north and east,with additional MF-12
zoned property immediately south.The Spring Valley Manor
Subdivision is located further south.The proposed Rushmore
Avenue is located along the property's west boundary,with
additional MF-12 zoned property across Rushmore Avenue to
the west.
3
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing,staff has received several phone calls
from persons requesting information on the proposed PRD
development.The Spring Valley Manor Property Owners
Association was notified of the public hearing.
D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1.West Kanis Road and Rushmore Avenue are listed on the
Master Street Plan as minor arterials.A dedication of
right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required.
2.Pinion Drive and Castor Drive are classified on the
Master Street Plan as commercial streets.Dedicate 60
feet right-of-way and construct full improvements to the
property.
3.Cactus Court and Basil Court need to be terminated with
cul-de-sac or hammerhead.
4.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
8.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are
required.
9.A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area is required prior to construction.
10.Provide Street light plants to Traffic Engineering
(contact Steve Phiphott 340-4856).
11.Relocate dumpster.Current location doesn'provide
adequate turning radius for trucks.
12.Provide 180'aper for lane reduction on Rushmore.
13.Provide 50'hroat section (at the intersection)on
Rushmore (for WB dual left turns).
E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements
to serve property.Capacity Analysis required,contact
Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
4
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
Entergy:No Comments received.
ARKLA:No Comments received.
Southwestern Bell:Approved if developer can provide a way
of contact to units 1-3 and 23-36 by conduit.Easements
will be needed to efficiently provide any telephone
terminals near power.Contact Marco Barker at 373-3715 for
details.
Water:The existing 12-inch water main will have to
be relocated at the Developer's expense.Additional
off-site improvements may be required to provide adequate
fire flows for multi-family development.There is an
existing private fire hydrant off the existing 12-inch
main.Adequate service to that fire hydrant must be
maintained.Installation of water facilities including
on-site fire protection will be required and will be
installed at the Developer's expense.Acreage fee of
$600 per acre and development fee based on the size of
connection apply in addition to normal charges.
Fire Department:No emergency turnaround shown (cul-de-
sac).Place fire hydrants per code.Contact Dennis Free
at 918-3752 for details.
Count Plannin :No Comments received.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Plannin Division:
This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning
District.The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential
for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned
Residential Development for attached single-family housing.
The property is currently zoned MF-12 Multifamily.A land
use plan amendment is not required.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:
The property under review is not located in an area covered
by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action
plan.
5
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
Landsca e Issues:
No Comment.
G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(APRIL 12,2001)
Bill Dean and Jim Hathaway were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed PRD
development.Staff noted that some additional information
was needed on the project,and additional items needed to be
shown on the proposed site plan and preliminary plat.
Bill Dean noted that the PRD project would be developed in
one (1)phase.He noted that the PRD would be developed
concurrently with Phase I of the Capitol Lakes Estates
Subdivision.In response to a question from staff,Mr.Dean
noted that the development would not utilize City garbage
collection.He noted that the proposed trash compactor
would be moved to a more centralized location of the
property.
The Public Works requirements were discussed.The proposed
streets which run from Rushmore Avenue to the 80-acre
property to the east were discussed at length.Public Works
noted that these two streets needed to be public streets
given the future development potential of the adjacent 80-
acre tract.
Staff made the applicant aware of the Fire Department
comments as noted in paragraph E.of this report.Mr.Dean
noted that he would meet with the Fire Department to resolve
the turnaround issue.
Mr.Hathaway briefly discussed the PRD rezoning with the
Committee.He noted that the applicant had also filed an
MF-12 rezoning application for seven acres of property to
the west.(Item 1.on this agenda).
After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the PRD to the
full Commission for resolution.
H.ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan and preliminary
plat to staff on April 19,2001.The revised site plan
addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision
Committee.The revised plan provides turnarounds at the
6
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
ends of the internal streets,moves the garbage compactor to
a central location and shows sign locations.The revised
plan also shows areas of the site which will remain
undisturbed.The revised preliminary plat complies with the
requirements as set forth by staff at the Subdivision
Committee meeting.
The revised site plan shows three (3)sign locations.There
is a monument sign at the corner of Rushmore Avenue and West
Kanis Road and a directional sign at each development
entrance.The monument sign will have a maximum height of
six (6)feet and a maximum area of 32 square feet,as
typically allowed by City ordinance for a subdivision.Each
directional sign will have a maximum height of six (6)feet
and a maximum area of four (4)square feet.The signs are
shown on the plan in the right-of-way.The signs must be
moved out of the right-of-way and be at least five (5)feet
back from property lines.
Each unit as shown on the plan will have a two-car garage.
The ordinance typically requires one (1)parking space per
single family lot.There are no parking issues associated
with the development.
As noted in paragraph A.,the proposed PRD development will
have two (2)access points from Rushmore Avenue.The
northern access will be a private drive (Pinion Drive),with
the southern access (Castor Drive)being a dedicated public
street with 60 feet of right-of-way.These two (2)streets
will provide access to the PRD development and the adjacent
property to the east.The Bill of Assurance for this
subdivision must explain that the private access easements
within this property will be for the benefit of the
individual lot owners and the adjacent property owner to the
east.
The applicant has noted that this proposed attached single
family residential development will be constructed in one
(1)phase.The project will be developed concurrently with
the construction of Phase I of the Capitol Lakes Estates
Subdivision.After construction of the new streets within
Phase I of Capitol Lakes Estates the portion of the existing
Cooper Orbit Road which runs through the east portion of
this property must be abandoned.As noted on the attached
master plan,West Kanis Road will tie into the existing
Cooper Orbit Road at the northeast corner of the property.
Rushmore Avenue will attach to the existing Cooper Orbit
7
May ,'001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6120-D
Road right-of-way at the completion of Phase I and again
with the completion of Phase II.
To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues
associated with proposed PRD rezoning.The Public Works
Department has reviewed the revised site plan and
preliminary plat and notes that there are no issues left to
be resolved.
The applicant has done a good job in addressing the issues
as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee,and
revising the plans accordingly.The rezoning of this
property from MF-12 to PRD for an attached single family
development (platted lots,owner-occupied)should have no
adverse impact on the general area,as the proposed density
will be 5.3 single family dwellings per gross acre.
I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the PRD rezoning subject to the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D
and E of this report.
2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away
from adjacent R-2 zoned property.
3.The garbage compactor must be screened on three (3)sides
with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.
4.The maintenance of the private streets,access drives,
drainage areas,internal walk/bike paths and common areas
must be provided by the property owner's association and
explained in the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision.
5.The Bill of Assurance must also explain that the access
easements are for the benefit of the individual lot
owners and the adjacent property owner to the east.
6.The abandonment of the section of Cooper Orbit Road which
runs through this property must not take place until the
new streets within Phase I,Capitol Lakes Estates are
constructed and accepted by the City.
7.The maximum sizes for the proposed signs will be as noted
in paragraph H.of this report.The signs must be moved
out of the right-of-way and be at least five (5)feet
back from property lines.
8
May ,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Jim Hathaway and James Dreher were present,representing the
application.Staff briefly described the proposed PRD with a
recommendation of approval as noted in paragraph I.of this
report.There were two (2)persons present with concerns.
Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the
application.He asked to hear from the concerned parties and
then respond to the concerns.
Eulalia Araoz,adjacent property owner to the east,discussed the
two (2)proposed access points to her property through the PRD
development.She discussed various notations within the agenda
report.She stated that Pinion Drive should be a public street.
Carlos Araoz,also owner of the adjacent property to the east,
addressed the Commission.He also stated that Pinion Drive
should be a public street.
Jim Hathaway stated that the approved preliminary plat for
Capitol Lakes Estates provided for access to the Araoz property
from the north at the northeast corner of the Capitol Lakes
property.He noted that this PRD development would provide a
much better access to the Araoz property.He noted that Public
Works revised their original recommendation,and supported Pinion
Drive to be a private street as long as it extended to the Araoz
property.There was additional discussion of the issue of access
to the adjacent east property.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the staff recommendation included
both Pinion and Castor Drives being public streets.Bob Turner,
Director of Public Works,explained that he had met with the
applicant and that Public Works supported Pinion Drive as a
private street.
Commissioner Lowry asked if a 24 foot wide street (Pinion Drive)
would be sufficient for fire protection and access.Mr.Turner
noted that the street would support fire access and that the
street would provide an emergency/secondary access to the
adjacent east property.Mr.Turner noted that Public Works
supported the project as proposed.
Commissioner Rahman questioned why the private street (Pinion
Drive)extended to the adjacent east property.Mr.Turner noted
that he did not know how the property to the east would develop
9
May ,2001
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6120-D
in the future.He stated that Pinion Drive would provide an
emergency access to the east property.This issue was briefly
discussed.
Commissioner Adcock asked about past Fire Department letters
relating to street width and on-street parking.Mr.Turner
discussed this issue.
Commissioner Adcock asked if there would be "no parking"signs on
Pinion Drive.James Dreher stated that each single family unit
would have a two-car garage and he did not anticipate on-street
parking.
There was further discussion of the access to the adjacent
property to the east.It was also discussed and noted that the
Fire Department had no problem with the proposed site plan.
There was a motion to approve the PRD rezoning as recommended
by staff.The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,1 nay and
1 absent.
10
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6952-A
Owner:Jeffery and Becky Jenkins
Applicant:Jef fery Jenkins
Location:9117 Asher Avenue
Request:Rezone from R-2 and C-3 to C-4
Purpose:Expansion of wrecker service
Size:.76+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Vacant;zoned C-3
South —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
East —CLR Parks Department Maintenance Facility;
zoned C-3 and R-2
West —Vacant;zoned C-4 (also owned by applicant)
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Asher Avenue is classified on the master Street Plan as a
principal arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline will be required.
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.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
M~g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952-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 Westwood,John Barrow and SWLRUP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the proposed rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Commercial and Single Family for
the area proposed for rezoning.
The biggest portion of the subject property shown as Single
Family on the Plan is either already zoned C-3 or was used
as parking to serve the commercial uses that previously
occupied the site.This proposed rezoning would "line-up"
with the recently approved C-4 zoning adjacent to the west.
Staff believes no Plan Amendment is necessary.
The property lies within the area covered by the Pecan Lake
Stagecoach/Dodd —Westwood Neighborhood Action Plan that
was adopted on April 4,2000.The site is on the perimeter
of the Westwood Neighborhood,although this 3-part
neighborhood plan covered a much larger area along the Asher
Colonel Glenn —Stagecoach corridors.Objectives within
the Westwood Plan were to "maintain adequate or sufficient
buffering between residential and nonresidential uses"and
that "commercial and office activities should remain on
Asher Avenue."There are no residential uses that abut this
site,the R-2 zoned property to the south is undeveloped.
This rezoning request appears to meet the intent of the
action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,
.76+acre tract from "C-3"General Commercial and "R-2"
Single Family to "C-4"Open Display Commercial.The site
was previously occupied by three commercial buildings and a
parking lot.The buildings have been removed.All that
remains is the deteriorated parking lot and the slabs where
the buildings were located.The northern 200+foot portion
2
M J(3,2001
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952-A
of the property is zoned C-3.The southern portion of the
tract is zoned R-2.A portion of the parking lot extends
into this R-2 zoned area.The tract has been acquired by
the owner of the auto repair/wrecker service located to the
west.He has acquired and is in the process of rezoning
several tracts located around the existing auto
repair/wrecker service business.As a result of the
widening of Asher Avenue and the associated right-of-way
acquisition,the applicant is needing to reconfigure his
operations.The street widening will virtually "wipe-out"
the front portion of his property,including his parking
lot.On December 21,2000,the Commission approved the
rezoning of some other tracts located around the wrecker
service property from C-3 and R-2 to C-4.The Board of
Directors approved the rezoning on January 16,2001.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.As was
previously mentioned,the property adjacent to the west was
recently rezoned to C-4.This property virtually mirrors
that adjacent property in depth,although it does have
greater width and frontage on Asher Avenue.The C-3 and R-2
zoned property adjacent to the east is occupied by a City of
Little Rock Parks Department maintenance facility,a C-4 or
I-2 use.The vacant properties across Asher Avenue to the
north are zoned C-3.The subject property abuts R-2 zoned
property to the south.Those lots to the south are actually
very deep residential lots which front onto Westwood Drive.
The houses are located on the eastern end of the lots,
nearer Westwood.
The Boyle Park District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial
for the bulk of the site.The C-3 zoning now extends beyond
the Commercial designation and the portion of the tract
which had been used for commercial purposes extends even
further.The request appears to meet the intent of the
neighborhood action plan which recommends that commercial
activities should remain on Asher Avenue.
Staff believes the C-4 rezoning request is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area and conforms to the adopted Land
Use and Neighborhood Action Plans.
As part of the previous rezoning action on the applicant's
properties to the west,a 20'ide "OS"Open Space strip was
zoned along the perimeter of the tracts where they were
adjacent to single family.Staff believes it would also be
3
M g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952-A
appropriate to place a similar 20'S zoned strip along the
southern perimeter of this subject property.That dimension
would be slightly larger than the size of the land use
buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning with
the southern 20 feet of the tract to be zoned OS,Open
Space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Letters of support had been received from SWLRUP and the
Westwood Neighborhood Association.One person was present
in support of the item.Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval of the requested C-4 zoning with
the southern 20 feet to be zoned OS.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
4
3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6995
Owner:Ray Jones
Applicant:Jeb Burnett
Location:8700 Scott Hamilton Drive
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose:Build a new,coin-operated,
wand-type car wash
Size:1.84+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Automobile sales lot;zoned R-2
South —Variety of retail and automobile related
commercial uses;zoned R-2
East —Church and Lawnmower repair;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Scott Hamilton is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet
from centerline will be required.
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.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
lily 3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6995
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the Upper Baseline and SWLRUP Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the proposed rezoning.The Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Association has voted not to support the C-4
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Geyer Springs East Planning
District.The adopted Plan recommends Commercial for most
of the front portion of the site,nearest Scott Hamilton.
The remainder of the site is shown as Low Density
Residential on the Plan.A drainage-way bisects the site
from northwest to southeast.This drainage-way corresponds
to the separation between Commercial and Low Density
Residential on the Plan.Staff believes it would be
appropriate to use that same line to delineate the
Commercial and Residential zoning.
Although the Plan does recommend Commercial for the bulk of
the site,staff questions whether C-4,Open Display
Commercial,is the appropriate zoning for the site.No
pattern of C-4 zoning has been established along this
portion of Scott Hamilton.Staff believes C-3,General
Commercial,would be more appropriate.This would also
provide the additional level of Planning Commission review
of the proposed car wash through a conditional use permit.
The site lies within the area covered by the Upper Baseline
Neighborhood Action Plan which was adopted on November 2,
1999.No Land Use Plan or zoning changes were proposed as a
result of the Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,
1.84+acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "C-4"Open
Display Commercial.The site was previously occupied by
nonconforming commercial buildings which have been removed.
The site now contains areas of concrete and broken asphalt.
2
h g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6995
The applicant proposes to build a new,self-serve car wash
on the site.
Although staff is generally supportive of commercial zoning
for the tract,there are concerns and,as such,staff cannot
support C-4 for the entire site.
This area of Southwest Little Rock was mostly developed at
the time of its annexation to the City and is characterized
by a patchwork of zoning and uses,both conforming and
nonconforming.This site is surrounded by R-2 zoned
properties.Those properties are not,however,occupied
solely by single family homes.A vacant lot,a single-
family home and several nonconforming commercial businesses
are located south of the site.Across Scott Hamilton,to
the east,the R-2 zoned properties are occupied by single-
family homes,a church and a lawnmower repair shop.The
properties north of the site contain a nonconforming car
sales lot and numerous single family homes both site built
and manufactured/mobile homes.West of the site,the zoning
is R-2 and the use is exclusively single family homes.
A tree and shrub lined drainage ditch bisects this site,
from northwest to southeast,roughly separating the western
one-third of the tract from the remainder of the site.The
Geyer Springs East Land Use Plan appears to use this ditch
as a dividing line,recommending commercial for that portion
of the site closest to Scott Hamilton and single-family for
that portion west of the ditch.Staff believes it would be
appropriate to continue to use the ditch as the separation
line between commercial and residential zoning and uses.
Doing such would provide better buffering for the
neighborhood to the west.
There is no pattern of C-4 zoning along this short stretch
of Scott Hamilton.Staff does not believe this site is the
appropriate location to break that pattern and to begin
establishing C-4 zoning.Staff believes it would be more
appropriate to zone that portion of the site east of the
ditch to C-3 General Commercial,not C-4.A car wash,the
use proposed by the applicant,may be permitted as a
conditional use in C-3.C-3 zoning would allow an
additional level of Planning Commission and neighborhood
review of the proposed development through the conditional
use process.The setback requirements in C-3 are less
than those required in C-4 which may work to some advantage
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6995
for the applicant if the Commission follows staff's
recommendation and leaves the western portion of the site
R-2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the C-4 zoning as
requested by the applicant.
Staff recommends that the portion of the site located east
of the drainage ditch,as illustrated on the attached
drawing,be zoned to C-3.The portion of the site west of
the ditch is recommended to remain zoned R-2.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors
present.Several letters of objection had been received by
staff and forwarded to the Commission.Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of denial.
Jeb Burnett addressed the Commission in support of his
application.He stated his client wanted to build a 6-bay
car wash and he wanted to keep the request for C-4 zoning.
Mr.Burnett did agree with staff's suggestion to keep the
commercial zoning east of the tree and shrub-lined ditch.
He described other nonconforming uses in the area,including
a car-lot adjacent to the north.Mr.Burnett stated this
site was previously occupied by a car wash.He expressed
concern that zoning to C-3 and subsequently filing for a
conditional use permit would lengthen the process beyond
what the client was willing to accept.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the
applicant could offer conditions to be attached to his
application that would make it similar to a conditional use
permit without a site plan.
Aaron Jones stated his desire to build a 6-bay car wash on
the site.He stated he didn'care what the property had to
be zoned to accommodate it.Mr.Jones presented photographs
of other car washes he had built.He stated the car wash
4
h y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6995
would be built on the east side of the property and the
western portion of the site would be left undisturbed.
Commissioner Rector asked Mr.Jones if he would be willing
to limit the hours of operation for the car wash.Mr.Jones
responded that he could not.
In response to a question from Commissioner Rector,Mr.
Jones stated he was willing to limit the uses on the site to
a car wash and those uses listed as permitted in C-3.
Rev.Richard Keesee,Pastor of Baseline Baptist Church at
8705 Scott Hamilton Road,spoke in opposition.He voiced
concerns about traffic,noise and people "hanging out"on
the car wash lot.Rev.Keesee listed several other car
washes in the area and questioned the need for this one.
Gary Bennett,of 12010 Arch Street and a member of Baseline
Baptist Church,spoke in opposition to the proposed car
wash.
Doug Pierce,of 8607 Community Road,spoke in opposition.
He voiced concern about people playing loud music on the
lot.
Commissioner Lowry commented that complaints about noise
were of secondary concern to him.He stated he had heard
many people come to Planning Commission meetings and
complain about churches as well.
Ramona Ball,of 8712 Community Road,spoke in opposition to
the C-4 zoning.She noted the proximity of nearby homes.
Ms.Ball also reiterated concerns about traffic,noise and
the substandard streets adjacent to the site.Ms.Ball
noted that the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association had
voted to oppose the C-4 zoning.
Norm Floyd,representing SWLRUP,spoke in opposition.He
commented that the association had supported other carwashes
in the area that were staffed and well-lighted.Mr.Floyd
stated the association did not support this proposed,
unmanned carwash.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Floyd if SWLRUP could support
C-3 zoning for the site.Mr.Floyd responded that the
5
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6995
association could support C-3 but would not support a
conditional use permit for an un-manned car wash.
Aaron Jones again addressed the Commission in support of his
application.He stated no access would be taken from
Cristen Drive,the western portion of the site would remain
R-2,there would be no pay-phone on the site and daily
maintenance would take place.
During the ensuing discussion,Mr.Jones amended his
application to only that portion of the site east of the
ditch and to restrict the uses to a car wash and those uses
permitted in C-3.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Jones if he could not limit the
hours of operation by putting a timer on the power and
lights.Mr.Jones responded that it would not be
economically feasible to do so.
After a further,brief discussion,a motion was made to
approve the application as amended by Mr.Jones.The motion
failed by a vote of 0 ayes,8 noes and 3 absent.
6
May s,2001
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7004
Owner:Estate of Billy Bridewell
Applicant:Jim Hathaway
Location:10901 Kanis Road;south side of
Kanis,west of Shackleford
Request:Rezone from C-2 to C-3
Purpose:Future resale,no immediate
development proposed
Size:1.12+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family and Undeveloped;zoned 0-3 and
Hotel;zoned C-3
South —Undeveloped;zoned C-2
East —Convenience store with gas pumps;zoned PCD
West —Undeveloped;zoned C-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 55 feet from
centerline will be required.(10-foot additional right-of-
way for turn lane.)
With Buildin Permit:
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street
Plan).Construct one-half street improvements 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.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction,
site grading,and drainage plan will need to be submitted and
approved.
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7004
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus 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 John
Barrow and Sandpiper Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the proposed rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site lies within the I-430 Planning District.The adopted
Land Use Plan recommends CS Community Shopping for this site and
the surrounding area bounded by Shackleford,Kanis,Centerview
and a line north of the buildings that front onto Executive
Center Drive.Several properties within this overall CS area
have been developed as offices.CS is more appropriate for
larger scale,shopping center developments,not small tracts
such as the subject property.The requested C-3 zoning is
compatible with uses and zonings in this immediate area west of
Shackleford Road.Staff does not believe a plan amendment is
necessary.
The property now lies within the larger area covered by the
updated John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan.The property does
not lie within the area covered by the original action plan
which was adopted on June 18,1996.As a component.of their
Plan update,the members of the steering committee are
considering expanding the boundary of the plan from I-430 west
to Bowman Road.Work on the updated action plan has been put on
hold for several months because many of the committee members
have been involved in work on Vision Little Rock.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this undeveloped,
wooded,1.12+acre tract from "C-2"Shopping Center district to
"C-3"General Commercial.No immediate development has been
proposed for the site.
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7004
The tract lies on the south side of Kanis Road,one lot west of
Shackleford Road.A convenience store with gas pumps and a car
wash is located on the PCD zoned property adjacent to the east.
A hotel and a large,furniture store are located in the C-3
zoned area north of the site,across Kanis Road.The
undeveloped,C-2 zoned properties west and south of the site are
heavily wooded.The 0-3 zoned properties across Kanis Road to
the northwest contain single family homes.Other uses in the
immediate area around the intersection of Kanis and Shackleford
include the Farm Bureau office campus,a restaurant,a church,
numerous office buildings and a new hotel which is under
construction.The proposed C-3 zoning is compatible with uses
and zoning in the area.
The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends CS for this site and
the larger area immediately south of Kanis,west of Shackleford.
CS is a more appropriate designation for areas to be developed
as a large scale,multiuse development.This larger CS
designated area is developing with a mixture of office and
commercial uses.The applicant's requested C-3 zoning continues
this pattern.Staff believes the C-3 zoning for this 1.12+acre
tract meets the intent of the Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-3 zoning request,as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as
filed.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
May J,2001
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-7008
Owner:Mike Lee and Ron Miller
Applicant:David Jones,Marlar Engineering
Location:18425 Kanis Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-1
Purpose:Build a photography studio
Size:1.4+acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family and Wooded;zoned R-2
South —Sparsely developed,Farm and Single Family;
zoned AF
East —Vacant lot;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Kanis 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.
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.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is outside of the city limits and is not located on a
CATA Bus Route.
May ~,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7008
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 rezoning request.The site is outside of the
city limits and there is no neighborhood association in the
vicinity.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site lies within the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The
adopted Plan recommends SF,Single Family,for this site and the
surrounding properties.Small nodes of C,Commercial,and NC,
Neighborhood Commercial are located at the intersections of
Kanis/Edswood and Kanis/Stewart respectively.A proposed land
use plan amendment has been filed in conjunction with this
rezoning request.The applicant is asking that the Plan be
changed from SF to NC for this site.See item LU01-18-02.
Staff is not supporting the proposed amendment.The commercial
uses are more appropriately located at the previously identified
intersections.Those two nodes are mostly undeveloped.It is
premature to consider expanding nonresidential zoning to this
site which is located midway between those intersections.
The property lies outside of the city limits and is not within
an area covered by a neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,1.4+
acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "C-1"Neighborhood
Commercial.The applicants propose to develop the site to
house a photography studio.The business,Arkansas School
Pictures,is currently located on North Pierce Street.The
subject property is located outside of the corporate city limits
but is within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction.This
rezoning request is associated with a Land Use Plan Amendment,
LU01-18-02.
Staff is not supportive of the requested C-1 zoning for this
location.The area immediately surrounding this site is
characterized by single-family homes on larger tracts and tracts
of undeveloped,single family zoned property.Several hundred
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7008
feet west of the site,a small C-3 zoned tract and a slightly
larger area of C-1 zoned property are located at the
Kanis/Denny/Stewart Roads intersection.A day care and an auto
repair business are located on a C-3 zoned tract several hundred
feet east of this site.An undeveloped,C-3 zoned tract is
located at Edswood Road,east of the daycare/auto repair site.
The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends that
commercial uses be located within the nodes established by the
Kanis/Edswood and Kanis/Denny/Stewart intersections.There is
available undeveloped land within each of these nodes.While C-
1 is the commercial zoning district that may be compatible with
nearby residential uses,staff questions whether this rezoning
is prudent in light of the availability of undeveloped,already
zoned property in the area.The applicants'ropose to build a
new,commercial building in an area characterized by single
family residential uses and outside of the areas recommended for
commercial zoning by the Land Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were numerous objectors
present.One letter of opposition had been received.Prior to
presentation of the item,the applicant requested that the item
be withdrawn.
A motion was made to approve the applicant's request to withdraw
the item.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.
3
May S,2001
ITEM NO.:6.1 FILE NO.:LU01-18-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Ellis Mountain Planning
District
Location:18425 Kanis Road
R~e est:Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial
Source:David Jones,Marlar Engineering Co.Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District
from Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial.The Neighborhood
Commercial category includes limited scale commercial
development in close proximity to a neighborhood,providing
goods and services to that neighborhood market area.The
applicant wishes to build a photography studio on the site.
Staff has not expanded the application.Expansion of this
application to connect with any other non-residential uses would
require an expansion of a half mile along Kanis in either
direction which would be premature at this time.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family
and is approximately 1.36+acres in size.All of the
surrounding property is zoned R-2 Single Family and consists of
large lot single-family residential development.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999 a change was made from Office to Commercial on
Chenal Parkway east of Kirk Road about 1 mile east of the
property in question.
On May 6,1997 multiple changes were made at various locations
north of the Chenal Parkway /Kanis Road intersection about @ of
a mile east of the amendment area.
The Future Land Use Plan shows the applicant's property and all
of the surrounding property as Single Family.There are also
three areas shown available for non-residential development
May a,2001
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU01-18-02
within 1 mile of the application area.A node of Neighborhood
Commercial is located at the intersection of the Kanis and Denny
Road intersection.An area designated Commercial is also
located at the intersection of Kanis and Edgewood Roads.A
large tract of land shown at the intersection of Kanis Road and
Chenal Parkway is shown as Commercial.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
The Master Street Plan shows Kanis Road as a Minor Arterial with
a Class II bikeway starting at the intersection of Chenal
Parkway and continuing to the western planning boundary.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows a Priority 2 Proposed Open
Space on the banks of the nearby Rock Creek.An existing ditch
runs through the property and drains into Rock Creek.Any
development of this property would need to consider the
ecological and drainage effects on Rock Creek.
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.
ANALYS I S:
The applicant's property is located in a rural environment
outside city limits.However,the status of Kanis Road as a
minor arterial will bring pressure for future non-residential
development along Kanis Road in the future.The commercial
development along this section of Kanis Road should be
concentrated at intersections of arterial streets as currently
shown on the Future Land Use Plan.This amendment would place
commercial development in the middle of an area shown as Single
Family that is isolated from the areas set aside for commercial
activities that are currently a half of a mile in either
direction.In addition there is non-residential land available
at the intersections of Kanis and Denny Road,Kanis and Edgewood
Road,and at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway.
2
May a,2001
ITEM NO.:6.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU01-18-02
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Gibraltar/Pt.West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners
Association,and Spring Valley Manor Property Owners
Association.Staff has received two comments from area
residents of a neutral nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant made a request to have the item withdrawn without,
prejudice.A motion was made to approve withdrawal of the item
and waive the by-laws.The item was motion was approved with a
vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,and 3 absent.
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-7014
Owner:Agather McKeel
Applicant:Agather McKeel
Location:921 East 9 and 904 Welch;
Southwest corner of 9 and Welch
Request:Rezone from R-4 to 0-1
Purpose:Utilize existing structure as a law
office and to develop parking on the
adjacent lot
Size:.32+acres
Existing Use:Vacant lot and vacant residential
structure
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Multifamily;zoned C-3 and R-5,vacant lot;
zoned R-4
South —Vacant lot and Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Vacant lot and Duplexes;zoned R-4
West —Drug Store;zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.East 9 and Welch are classified on the Master Street Plan as
collector streets.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at
the corner of East 9 and Welch.
With Buildin Permit:
3.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.
6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Provide plan showing on-site parking arrangements.
May S,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7014
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus 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 Hanger
Hill and Downtown Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site lies within the I-30 Planning District.The adopted
Plan currently recommends Single Family for the site.The
property does directly abut an area shown as commercial.0-1,
Quiet Office district,is an appropriate zoning category to
accommodate low-intensity uses which are proposed to be located
within established areas of the city and in close proximity to
residential uses.
The property does fall within the larger "East of I-30"area.
This area generally is defined as that area bounded by the
river,I-30,Roosevelt Road and the airport.The Land Use Plan
for this area,which includes the I-30 and East Little Rock
Planning Districts,will be reviewed in conjunction with the
anticipated Presidential Library Park and Heifer Project
developments.It is anticipated that detailed design standards
will be developed for the area north of East 9 Street.At
this time staff does not believe it is necessary to amend the
Land Use Plan to accommodate this proposed,two-lot,0-1
rezoning.
The site lies at the eastern fringe of the area covered by the
Downtown Neighborhoods Action Plan which was adopted on March
16,1999.Any Land Use Plan or zoning changes proposed by the
Plan were located in an area west of I-30,south of I-630.The
Plan focused very little on this area east of I-30.Two
objectives of the Plan were to "increase cooperation between
zoning officials and developers to renovate existing properties"
and to "increase small business development".This proposal
appears to meet the intent of those objectives.
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7014
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these two lots
from "R-4"Two-Family Residential to "0-1"Quiet Office.The
northern lot (921 East 9 Street)contains a vacant,one-story,
brick and frame residential structure and a detached,brick and
frame garage.The abutting lot to the south (904 East Welch)is
vacant.The applicant proposes to remodel the residential
structure for use as an attorney's office and to develop some
parking on the vacant lot.The property was located in the path
of the January 1999 tornado.A second dwelling that was located
on the site was destroyed by the storm.Numerous other
structures in the area were either heavily damaged or destroyed,
leaving vacant lots.
The property is located on the northern edge of a small
residential neighborhood,in an area of mixed zoning and uses.
The C-3 zoned property adjacent to the west is occupied by a
drug store.Vacant lots and single family and duplex dwellings
are located on the R-4 zoned properties to the south and east.
Multifamily dwellings are located on the C-3,R-4 and R-5 zoned
properties across 9 Street,to the north.Interstate 30 is
located 1 'c blocks to the west and a large area of industrial
uses and zoning begins two blocks to the east.
The 0-1 Quiet Office district is established in order to provide
for orderly conversion of older structures no longer useful,
serviceable or desirable in their present uses to office use.
The area standards provided in the 0-1 Quiet Office district
anticipate that office uses will be located in established areas
of the city and in close proximity to apartments and other
residential uses.Height,area and off-street parking
regulations are designed to assure that office uses will be
compatible with adjacent residential districts.0-1 has a very
limited list of permitted uses.
Staff believes the proposed 0-1 zoning is compatible with uses
and zoning in the area.Staff does not believe a land use plan
amendment is necessary at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-1 zoning.
3
May d,2001
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7014
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to
complete the notification process and the item needed to be
deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 14,2001 Commission meeting.The vote was
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
May a,2001
ITEM NO.:7.1 FILE NO.:LU01-07-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —I-30 Planning District
Location:921 E.9th Street and 904 Welch Street
RecCuest:Single Family to Office
Source:Agather Celeste McKeel
Staff has determined that this application is not necessary.
This site is located in the East of I-30 Planning area that
includes planning districts ¹7 —I-30 and ¹6 —East Little Rock.
Two major developments are proposed for this area:the
Presidential Library and the Heifer Project headquarters.In
light of these two major developments,Staff believes that it is
necessary to review the larger area,East of I-30,including
properties to the south and east of this site.This review has
begun.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
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 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
I
y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-7017
Owner:Estate of Maidie Shearer
Applicant:Sue Ann Hoffman
Location:17524 Kanis Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to AF
Purpose:Dog Daycare (kennel)
Size:1.38+acres
Existing Use:Vacant residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped;zoned R-2,C-2 and PCD
South —Single Family and undeveloped;zoned R-2
East —Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Kanis 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.Dedicate regulatory floodway to the City.
With Buildin Permit:
3.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.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located outside of the city limits and is not
located on a CATA Bus Route.
m~3,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017
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 rezoning.The site is located outside
of the city limits and there is no neighborhood association
within the vicinity.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site lies at the southern edge of the Chenal Planning
District.The adopted Plan recommends MF Multifamily for
this site and the surrounding properties,with any portion
of the site that might be in the regulatory floodway shown
as PK/OS Park/Open Space.AF,Agriculture and Forestry,is
treated as single family from a land use perspective in the
extraterritorial area.No plan amendment is required.
The site lies outside of the city limits and is in an area
not covered by a neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.38+
acre portion of the applicant'property from "R-2"Single
Family to "AF"Agriculture and Forestry District.The
family'ownership consists of 4 contiguous,200'
600'ots.The rezoning request is for the south 300'f one of
the lots.The site contains a single-family dwelling.The
applicant proposes to convert the house into a "pet day-
care"with outside runs to be built behind the structure.
Such a use is defined as a kennel by the code and requires a
conditional use permit in AF.An associated conditional use
permit application has been filed;see item Z-7017-A,
Hoffman Doggy Daycare C.U.P.The property is located just
outside of the corporate city limits,within the City'
extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.
Staff is supportive of the requested AF rezoning.The site
is located in an area that is still fairly rural in nature.
The predominate land use is single-family homes on larger
tracts.An area of C-3 and PCD zoned properties is located
east of the site,at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and
2
h g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017
Kanis Road.These properties now contain office uses and a
golf driving range.Undeveloped properties extend to the
north and west.A large ranch is located on AF zoned
property approximately 1,000 feet west of this site.The
family's ownership also consists of one 200'600'ract
adjacent to the east of this site and two additional 200'
600'ract adjacent to the west.
The AF Agriculture and Forestry district is intended to
provide a smooth transition between purely rural areas and
newly urbanized areas,allowing flexibility adequate to
permit reasonable absorption of land use types typically
found in the urban fringe.Many areas newly annexed to the
city will be already partially developed with a variety of
nonurban land uses,while others will exhibit relatively
little development of any kind.It is the purpose of the AF
district to provide a usable district for certain uses which
may be annexed to the city and which may be held from
development as urban land uses.
The only permitted uses in the AF district are:
(1)Single-family residences,together with the usual
accessory uses.
(2)Agriculture and forestry operations,to include the
raising of livestock and poultry.
(3)Governmental or private recreational uses,including
but not limited to golf courses,tennis courts,
swimming pools,playgrounds,day camps and passive
recreational open space.
(4)Plant nursery.
Conditional uses in AF are:
(1)Agricultural products processing.
(2)Hunting and gun clubs.
(3)Riding academy (equestrian)or commercial stable.
3
y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017
(4)Broadcast towers and related facilities.
(5)Kennels
AF is treated as single family from a land use perspective
in the extraterritorial district and no plan amendment is
recpxired.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the recpxested AF zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.The item
was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of
10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
b.y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
NAME:Hoffman Doggy Day Care —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:17,524 Kanis Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:The Estate of Maidie Shearer /
Sue Ann Hoffman
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
Pet Day Care Center with outdoor pens on
property zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential (AF Rezoning pending,see
item no.8).
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 1.4 acre site is located on the north side of
Kanis Road,approximately 0.4 mile west of the City
Limit Boundary,but inside the City's Extraterritorial
Zoning Boundary.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-2,zoning.The area
consists primarily of large tracts of land that are
either vacant or contain single family houses.The
property surrounding this site on the north,east and
west is all part of a single estate,which was
inherited by family members.
The properties to the west and across Kanis Road to the
south and southeast are currently undeveloped.The
existing house sits 90 feet back from Kanis.The open
runs and pens would be in the rear of the house more
than 140 feet from Kanis Road.No exterior changes to
the house are proposed.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
M g',2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
There are no neighborhood associations presently
representing this area.Staff did send notices to all
residents within 300 feet that could be identified,
advising them of the public hearing.The applicant did
post the required sign on the front of the property
announcing the filing of the application.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is an existing gravel driveway that accesses the
property from Kanis and serves a carport on the west
side of the house.It would remain as it is and provide
access and parking for the site.There is not a
specific parking standard for a kennel.Based on the
expected volume of traffic,Staff applied the standard
for Business Office of one space for every 400 square
feet of gross floor area.That requires there to be
4 parking spaces,which could be easily accommodated in
the existing driveway,carport,and area in front of
the carport.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
This site must have a six-foot high opaque screen
between it and the residentially zoned properties to
the north,east and west.Credit toward fulfilling
this requirement can be given for existing natural
dense vegetation that is able to provide the year-round
screening required.
The proposed parking area will have to be landscaped.
Areas set aside for landscaping are not shown.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas must be
shown.
Since this is a tree-covered site,the City Beautiful
Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees
as feasible.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape
ordinance requirements can be given when preserving
trees of six inch caliper or larger.
2
3,2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Kanis 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.
b.Show customer parking layout.c.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.
d.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
e.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Water service is not available to this
property.If water service becomes available,
installation of a reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer will be required due to the use of the
property as a kennel.
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve property.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is not on a CAT bus route at this time.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a pet day care center in an existing residential
structure with no exterior changes to the structure.
They do intend to add open runs and pens in the rear of
the structure within a chainlink fenced area.
3
h jr 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
The property is located outside of the corporate city
limits but is within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction.The property is currently zoned R-2.An
AF rezoning request has been filed.Kennels are listed
as a conditional use in the AF zoning district.
The applicant intends to operate the pet day care from
6:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday through Friday,with an
occasional weekend pickup by appointment only.
Overnight boarding would also be offered.No exterior
expansion of the existing structure is planned and so
siting criteria is not an issue.A fenced in area would
be added in the rear for runs and outside pens.The
proposed site is in an area consisting of large tracts
of residentially zoned land.Currently the properties
to the south,southeast,north and west are
undeveloped.The undeveloped land to the south across
Kanis is tree covered,while the rest of the
surrounding area has a scattering of trees,but is
mostly clear.The front property line does have a row
of small trees and shrubbery along it providing natural
screening.The properties surrounding this site to the
north,east and west are part of a single estate,which
the children have inherited.
While some additional traffic will be drawn to this
site,the proposed operation is small and should not
result in much of an increase in traffic.
The applicant has included a request for two types of
signage.They wish to install a ground-mounted sign six
feet tall,with a 4 foot by 4 foot face located near
the driveway entrance.The second sign desired would be
a wall sign mounted on the west end of the existing
house structure.
Staff believes this proposal would not have an adverse
impact on the surrounding area.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
4
1.2 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
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.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Sue Ann Hoffman was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Public Works commented about providing adequate maneuvering
room for parking,stormwater detention,and the need to
address street improvements if improvement were made to the
property.They suggested paying 15%in-lieu to meet the
requirement to make street improvements if building
construction occurs.
Staff also briefly reviewed the requirement for landscaping
and screening from residentially zoned properties,and
reminded the applicant that if existing trees were
preserved,that would substitute for new landscaping.
The applicant was also reminded that if any signage was
desired it would have to be approved within the C.U.P.Staff
reminded the applicant to provide notification by certified
mail to property owners within 200 feet no later than
April 18,2001,and that the applicant must provide
property owners,and the original notification letter with
affidavit completed,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
h.g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:8.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7017-A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Sue Ann Hoffman 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
modified as follows:Public Works comments c,d,and e apply
only with a building permit,and approval includes a 4 foot
by 4 foot,6 foot tall ground sign on the east side of the
property no closer than 5 feet from the front property line,
and a wall sign mounted on the west end of the building
consuming no more than 10%of the facade.The vote was
10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
6
i-.ay 3,2001
ITEM NO.:9 FILE NO.:Z-7018
Owner:Baptist Health
Applicant:Frank Riggins,The Mehlburger Firm
Location:North and west of the intersection
of Kanis Road and Medical Center
Drive
Request:Rezone from 0-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Future development of a medical
clinic
Size:7.14+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Medical offices;zoned 0-3
South —Medical offices;zoned 0-3 and
Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Hospital and Hotel;zoned 0-2
West —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Kanis 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.
With Buildin Permit:
2.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
3.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction,sit grading,and drainage plan will need to
be submitted and approved.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
5.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
6.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is
damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
.~'y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7018
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus 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 John Barrow,Twin Lakes,Twin Lakes "B"and Sewer
District No.147 Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-430 Planning District.The
adopted plan recommends Office for the site.The requested
0-3,General Office rezoning conforms to the adopted plan.
The site does not lie within an area currently covered by a
neighborhood action plan.The previously approved John
Barrow Neighborhoods Action Plan did not extend north of
Kanis Road.As a component of the Plan Update,it is
expected that the boundary will be expanded north of Kanis
Road,to I-630.It is further anticipated that the Land Use
Plan will continue to show Office for this area.Progress
on the Plan update has been suspended until completion of
Vision Little Rock because so many of the steering committee
members are involved in the Vision Little Rock process.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped,7.14+acre tract from "0-2"Office and
Institutional to "0-3"General Office.No specific
development has been proposed at this time.However,it is
anticipated that the site will be developed for medical
offices.
Staff is supportive of the rezoning request.Office zoning
is appropriate for the site.The requested 0-3 zoning is
compatible with zoning and uses in the area.The main
building of the Baptist Medical Center hospital is located
2
~ay 3,2001
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7018
on the 0-2 zoned property to the east.The medical center's
hotel is located on the 0-2 zoned property directly on the
northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Kanis Road.A
medical clinic is located on the 0-3 zoned property to the
north.The 0-3 zoned property to the west is undeveloped.
A new medical office park is being developed on the 0-3
zoned properties across Kanis Road to the south.
The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends Office for the
site.The 0-3 General Office rezoning request conforms to
the adopted Plan.
In an unrelated matter,there is one issue that should be
addressed by the applicant at some point in the near future.
A portion of the hospital parking lot,located northeast of
the subject property,is still zoned R-4 Residential.At
the time the main hospital campus,the subject property and
the hotel site were rezoned from R-4 to 0-2 in 1983,Lot 1
was left as R-4.That property should be rezoned to 0-2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The applicant offered no additional comments.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
la~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:10 FILE NO.:2-3269-D
NAME:That French Salon
LOCATION:11,600 Mara Lynn Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Joel Holmes /Hathaway Group,Stacey
Moore
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
a 10 chair beauty salon in an existing
structure on property zoned 0-1,Quiet
Office.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.7 acre site is located on the north side of Mara
Lynn Road,half way between Green Mountain Drive and
Aspen Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned 0-1,Quiet Office.It is bounded by
an OS,Open Space area on the north and west,
separating this site from residential single family
zoning further to the north and west.The east side is
zoned R-5,Urban Residence.To the south across Mara
Lynn there is an apartment complex in MF-24 Multifamily
zoning.The proposed use would be quiet,and the traffic
generated would be light and spread throughout the day.
With the proper screening from the residential
properties to the east,west and north,Staff believes
the proposed use would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
The Walnut Valley and Beverly Hills Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,andallresidentswithin300feetthatcouldbeidentified,
were notified of the public hearing.
le~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3269-D
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site already contains two access drives from Mara
Lynn which would not be changed.Public Works has asked
that the most easterly drive be one way in only because
of the angle it makes with Mara Lynn.The applicant has
agreed.The second drive would be two-way.
The existing driveways and parking areas do not meet
ordinance requirements.The applicant plans to bring
them into compliance and increase the number of parking
spaces to the required 18 spaces.The number of spaces
required is based on one space for every 200 gross
square feet.The finished part of the building has 3786
square feet,which would generate a requirement for 18
parking spaces including one handicapped accessible
space sized to accommodate a van.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
This site is required to be screened from the
residential properties to the west,north and east.
This can be a wooden fence with its face side directed
outward or dense evergreen plantings.
Newly paved areas will require landscaping unless
otherwise provided for an approved landscape border to
protect plants from vehicular traffic is required.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Mara Lynn Drive is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way
to 30 feet from centerline.
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.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3269-D
f.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
g.Redesign parking lot to meet City Code.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works if larger and/or
additional water meter(s)are required.Due to the
nature of the processes used in this facility,
installation of a reduced pressure zone backflow
preventer may be required on the domestic water
service.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a 10 chair beauty salon in an existing structure
on property zoned 0-1,Quiet Office.This beauty saloniscurrentlylocatednearbyintheBowmanCurve
shopping area.It would be open Monday through Thursday
9:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.The applicant intends to correct problems
the current owner created with inadequate drives and
parking,and remove unfinished,unauthorized additions
to the original structure.
This 0-1 zoned property lies in a residential area
consisting of a mixture of single family and
multifamily residences.There is an OS buffer in place
between this site and the residential area to the north
and west.The existing structure has previously been
used as a day care center and an antique shop.
3
bray 3,2001
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3269-D
Building siting criteria was not applied since no
additions are proposed to the existing structure.The
proposed parking,landscaping and screening would meet
ordinance requirements.The applicant intends toinstallsignageasallowedin0-1 zoning.Existing
drives would be used and parking would meet ordinance
requirements.A variance would be required for the
existing driveway spacing which does not meet ordinance
requirements.Staff believes there is a practical
reason to leave both driveways if the eastern most
driveway is made one-way in only.The other driveway
should be two-way.
The proposed use would be quiet and the traffic
generated would be spread throughout the day.Staff
believes that with the proper screening from theresidentialpropertiestotheeast,west and north,the
proposed use would be compatible with the neighborhood
and not cause an adverse impact.
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 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.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance for
reduced driveway spacing.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
George Collins,project architect,and Thomas Graham,project engineer,were present representing the application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
The inadequacies of the existing driveways,parking,and
screening were reviewed.Staff reminded the applicant to
provide notification by certified mail to property owners
4
zy 3,2001
ITEM NO.:10 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-3269-D
within 200 feet no later than April 18,2001,and that the
P —
'eceipts,the abstract list of property owners,and the
original notification letter with affidavit completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
George Collins,project architect,and Thomas Graham,
project engineer 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.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:11 FILE NO.:Z-6999
NAME:Flannigan Beauty Shop
LOCATION:4310 John Barrow Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Andress Flannigan
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
an 8-chair beauty shop in a new
structure on property zoned 0-3,General
Office.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is approximately 0.38 acres in size and is
located on the west side of John Barrow Road,a short
distance south of 42"Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned 0-3,General Office,as is
the abutting property to the north.The properties to
the west and south are zoned R-3,Single Family
Residential and are currently undeveloped.The
properties to the northwest and southwest are also
zoned R-3 and contain single family residences.Across
John Barrow Road to the east the zoning is R-4,Two
Family Residential,and there is a duplex currently on
that property.A little further north along the west
side of John Barrow,the zoning changes to C-3,General
Commercial,but currently is undeveloped.
The applicant has agreed to install a wood privacy
fence along the west and south property lines.With the
proposed screening from the residential properties to
the west and south,Staff believes the proposed use
would be compatible with the neighborhood.
The John Barrow Neighborhood Association,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300
feet that could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6999
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed plan shows one access driveway from John
Barrow Road into an 11 space parking area.Beauty shops
require 1 space for every 200 square feet of gross
floor area.The building proposed appears to have 1196
square feet which would require 6 spaces,including one
which would be handicapped accessible and accommodate a
van.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with
ordinance requirements.
A six foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or fence evergreen
plantings,is required to screen this site from the
residential properties to the south and west.
A water source within 75 feet of all landscaped areasisrequired.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Barrow 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.
b.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.c.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding size and
location of water meter.Due to the nature of the
processes used in this facility,installation of a
reduced pressure zone backflow preventer may be
required on the domestic water service.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
2
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6999
MKZA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.Place fire
hydrant per code.
CATA:Site is not on a dedicated bus route and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for an 8-chair beauty shop in a new structure with
accompanying parking to be constructed on property
zoned 0-3,General Office.
The single story proposed structure meets height and
setback requirements.Eleven parking spaces are
proposed verses a requirement for six spaces minimum.
The proposed salon would operate 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.
Tuesday through Saturday.The required landscaping,
buffers and screening are provided in the plan.Signage
would be as allowed in office zoning.
The proposed site is zoned office and is surrounded by
primarily residential zoning.There is office zoning
immediately to the north,and commercial zoning further
north on the west side of John Barrow.Both of those
properties,as well as the residential properties
immediately to the west and south are currently
undeveloped.
The proposed use would be quiet and the traffic
generated would be spread throughout the day.Staff
believes that with the proper screening from the
residential properties to the west and south,the
proposed use would be compatible with the neighborhood
and not cause an adverse impact.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
3
b~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:11 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6999
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Andress Flannigan was present representing her application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff reviewed the screening requirements and noted that the
original site plan showed a building setback of only five
feet from the north property line versus a 10 foot required
side setback.The applicant said she'd correct that.Staff
reminded the applicant to provide notification by certified
mail to property owners within 200 feet no later than April
R —
'ertifiedoutgoingreceipts,the abstract list of property
owners,and the original notification letter with affidavit
completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
Andress Flannigan was present representing her application.
There were no registered objectors and one proponent,Betty
Snyder of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association,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 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
4
bi y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 FILE NO.:Z-7007
NAME:Thomas Memorial Baptist Church—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:3207 West 13 "Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Thomas Memorial Baptist Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
new church site with a seating capacity
of 350 people on property zoned R-3,
Single Family Residential,and R-4,Two
Family Residential.
ORD INANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 1.72 acre site consumes most of the block between
13 and 14 "Streets,and Allis and Brown Streets.It
also includes a small portion of property on the east
side of Allis Street between 14 Street and the alley.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site consists of several lots which are
zoned primarily R-3,Single Family Residential,except
for one lot in the northeast corner of the site which
is zoned R-4,Two Family Residential.The area is in an
older residential part of Little Rock consisting of
relatively small,one and two story frame houses.The
surrounding zoning is R-3 and R-4.The church is
currently located on Brown Street,less than a block
west of the proposed site.So it has already
established a presence in the neighborhood and wishes
to expand its facilities to accommodate a growing
church.
Staff believes the proposed church site would be
compatible with the neighborhood,and with proper
screening from the abutting residential properties,it
should have only minimal negative impact.
h~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
The Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood Association,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 overall site is divided because of an alley running
through the middle,and because part of the site is
across Allis Street to the east.Therefore,several
access drives into the various parking areas are
proposed from 13 ,14 ,and Allis Streets.The alley
between Allis and Brown Street would be restored,
improved and used as one means of accessing the site.
The proposal includes a 350 seat sanctuary.That
results in a requirement for 87 parking spaces at a
rate of one for every four seats.Only 50 spaces are
shown on the main church site.There are an additional
23 parking spaces in the parking areas on the east side
of Allis Street.Those would be considered off-site
since they are across Allis Street and would represent
26%of the total required.Those two areas together
total 73 spaces,which is only 84%of the minimum
required total number of parking spaces.However,an
additional 60 spaces of off-site parking would be
available on the current church site on the west side
of Brown Street,less than 300 feet west of this
proposed site.Those spaces would bring the total
available to 133.There would be 37 of the required 87
spaces located off-site,or 42%.A variance would be
required to allow that percentage to be off-site since
the ordinance allows only 25%to be off-site.The
church plans to gate or chain closed the accesses when
not in use,but the alley would always be open.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
With the reduction allowed within the designated
"mature area"and the transfers allowed by ordinance,
the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
the ordinance requirements.
A six-foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence
with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen
2
bi y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
plantings,is required where adjacent to residential
properties.
An irrigation system to water landscaped areas is
required.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Allis Street is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30
feet from centerline.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the corner of Allis and 13 and at the
corner of Allis and 14c.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.
d.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.Close driveways that do not meet ordinance
requirements.
e.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.f.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
g.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
h.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.i.Easements for proposed stormwater detention
facilities are required.j.Construct alley to Brown Street.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding meter size
and location.
Wastewater:Six inch sewer main located in alley.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
3
b~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact
Dennis Free at fire department about turning radius.
CATA:No comments received.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a new church site with a seating capacity of 350 on
property zoned primarily R-3,Single Family
Residential,and R-4,Two Family Residential.
Accompanying parking would also be provided adjacent
and near the main church building.
The church has been buying vacant,deteriorating
houses,removing them and now wishes to build a new
church.The church has existed on Brown Street just to
the west of this proposed site for many years,has
already established a presence in the neighborhood,is
growing and wants to build a new facility to
accommodate the increasing membership and services
being provided.The existing church building would
remain and continue to be used for existing service
type ministries such as food and clothing distribution.
The site is well within an established residential
neighborhood consisting of mainly R-3 and R-4 zoning
with relatively small,one and two story frame houses.
The new church would appear to be one-story from the
front (13 Street)and two stories from the rear
because of the sloping contour of the property,but
would meet overall height maximums.Services would
normally be held at usual times on Sunday mornings and
Wednesday evenings.There would not be a day care
center or school operated at this site.
The site layout had to factor in one lot that fronts on
14 Street that is within the overall site area,butisnotownedbythechurch.Setbacks are met except for
at that lot.There the rear setback for the church
building would be only 17 feet versus a requirement for
25 feet for a distance of 50 feet.A variance would be
required for that reduced setback.The height of the
structure would not exceed the ordinance maximums of 35
4
Ray 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
feet for the structure and 70 feet for the steeple.The
applicant has agreed to screen the adjacent residential
areas with irrigated evergreen plantings.The proposed
plan meets all other landscaping and buffer
requirements when taking into consideration the 25%
reduction for a "designated mature area."A sign would
be installed along 13 Street and be sized within
normal office sign criteria.Small directional signs
would be used at some of the driveways.
Parking is another issue.The proposal includes a 350
seat sanctuary.That results in a requirement for 87
parking spaces at a rate of one for every four seats.
Only 50 spaces are shown on the main church site.There
are an additional 23 parking spaces in the parking
areas on the east side of Allis Street and 60 spaces at
the existing church site on Brown Street.Those wouldallbeconsideredoff-site since they are not on the
same lot as the church.There would be 37 of the
required 87 spaces located off-site,or 42%.A variance
would be required to allow that percentage of off-site
parking since the ordinance allows only 25%to be off-site.Staff believes this would be a reasonable request
since most of those off-site spaces are just across thestreet.
Staff believes the proposed use would be reasonable for
this property and that with proper perimeter screening,it would be compatible with the neighborhood and have a
minimal adverse impact.
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 and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Comply with Fire Department Comment.
d.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of the reduced rear
setback variance to 17 feet,a variance allowing 42%of
5
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
the parking to be off-site,and approval of the main
sign conforming to office sign standards and
directional signs at driveways.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Pastor Milton Graham,and Raymond Branton,project
architect,were present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Public Works expressed their concern over the number of
driveways and particularly how close the access to 13
Street was to the property line.The applicant agreed to
move that access further east.
Staff also reviewed the screening requirements,sign
requirements,and the way the parking was laid out.Staff
reminded the applicant to provide notification by certified
mail to property owners within 200 feet no later than April
certified outgoing receipts,the abstract list of property
owners,and the original notification letter with affidavit
completed,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 forfinalaction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Pastor Milton Graham and Deacon Michael Booth were present
representing the application.There were four 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.
Ms.Ida Wiley,resident at 1400 S.Brown Street spoke in
opposition.She emphasized that she was not opposed to
churches,she supported her own church,but she said this
church was not attended by people in this neighborhood.If
6
y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
it stayed as it is on Brown Street it was all right,but she
didn'want it to expand.She also stated that she
understood the current church building would be used as a
halfway house and the new church would include a day care.
She was also concerned how close the new parking areas would
come to houses on adjacent property she owned,and she
didn'want to lose the alley access to her properties.
James Wiley,III spoke in opposition on behalf of his
parents who live at 1400 South Brown.He stated that their
main concerns were how close the new church structure would
come to their rental property,what was the nature of the
drug counseling and treatment that the church would conduct,
what exactly would the existing building be used for.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Staff about the reference made to
a halfway house and drug treatment since they weren'
mentioned as part of the uses in the application.Dana
Carney,of the Planning Staff,responded that to Staff's
knowledge those are not proposed uses and those uses would
not be allowed in the existing or new church facilities.He
added that the church has not asked to be allowed to do drug
treatment or a day care.The day care could be made part of
the church uses within the C.U.P.,but this applicant does
not now have and has not asked for a day care as part of
their C.U.P.
Hosea Blackman,the resident of the property on the south
side of the site fronting on 14 Street,spoke in
opposition.He was concerned about the closeness of the new
church building to his house,doesn't want the church next
to him,and didn'feel that the things he heard the church
was planning to do were religious in nature.
Pastor James Wiley Sr.spoke in opposition.He stated that
he didn'object in general to what the church wanted to do,
but he felt the direction the church is going should be
better explained and discussed with the neighbors,and with
more consideration given to how it would impact the
neighbors.He added that they don'want to give up their
property and want the area kept peaceful.
Michael Booth,Chairman of the Deacon Board for Thomas
Memorial Baptist Church,responded to the concerns
expressed.First,he stated that there are people who live
7
My 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
in this neighborhood who do attend this church.Second,he
stated that the church does not have a day care or a halfway
house now and they do not plan to have either one in the
future.He added that all they have are food pantry and
clothing give-away ministries at the church that they do
plan to continue.Regarding maintaining access through the
alley,Mr.Booth stated that the alley had collected trash,
appliances and needles and been impassible for years.He
noted that the church tore down several old drug houses on
these properties that they bought and that they will improve
the alley and make it a paved access drive with the proposed
construction.He stated that they are not taking any
property,they will use property that they legally
purchased.The survey that had been accomplished showed that
Rev.Wiley'property encroaches four feet onto the church
property.He added that the church has never brought any bad
elements into the community during the 50 years of its
existence.
Milton Graham,Pastor of Thomas Memorial Baptist Church for
the past three years,also responded.He stated that he
personally had talked with Rev.Wiley who told him he had no
problem with what the church proposed to do.He added that
they hoped to use the entire block for their new church,butafterRev.Wiley made it clear that they did not want toselltheirthreeproperties,they changed the plans to fit
around those properties and keep the alley open.Pastor
Graham also stated in response to the statement that the
church was not being built to code,that they had hired a
good architectural firm from the beginning to design the
church according to all City codes.He also stated they had
no plans for a halfway house,but only normal church
functions which include counseling of people for whatever
problems they have.He felt he had worked very well with
Rev.Wiley and kept him apprised of their plans,which he
never objected to.
James Wiley presented a letter he said the church sent to
the neighbors that talked about providing counseling
regarding abstinence,drugs,sex education,and mentoring
programs for young men and women.He added that those
counseling programs would bring undesirable people into the
neighborhood who weren't serious about recovery.
Commissioner Allen commented that he hadn'heard anything
in the letter Mr.Wiley read which said anything about a
8
b~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:12 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7007
halfway house or functions unusual for a church.
Commissioner Nunnley agreed.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,and the
applicant's statements and agreements.The motion passed by
a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
9
b~~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 FILE NO.:Z-7009
NAME:Moore Manufactured Home —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:3820 Foster Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Marion Ruth Moore
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
two-section manufactured home to be used
as the primary residence on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This quarter acre site is located on the west side of
Foster Street,a short distance south of 38 "Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed.site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-2 zoned properties.
This particular section of Foster is sparsely
developed.There are vacant lots on either side of the
proposed site and across Foster to the east.There are
residences to the northeast,on the second lot to the
south,and to the west behind this property facing
Weldon Street.There are not any other manufactured
homes on this portion of Foster,but there is one other
two-section manufactured home on Weldon Street,
southwest of this property.Further south along both
sides of Foster there are more vacant properties.
Staff believes that if the manufactured home is set up
and anchored according to building code and zoning
ordinance requirements,that it would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The John Barrow and Westbrook Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,and
all residents within 300 feet that could be identified,
were notified of the public hearing.
h~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposal includes a single driveway from Foster
wide enough for two vehicles,which provides access to
a two-car site-built garage and the manufactured home.
The ordinance requires only one space for a single
family residence.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No comments.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Water service is not available to this
parcel at this time.Installation of a water main
extension at the expense of the Developer would be
required.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is close to bus route 414 but has no effect
on bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a two-section,1,792 square foot manufactured home
to be used as the primary residence located on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.The proposed site
is in a residential area that currently is sparsely
developed.There are vacant tree covered lots on either
side and across Foster from this proposed site.There
2
h~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
are residences to the northeast,on the second lot to
the south,and behind this property to the west facing
Weldon Street.There are no other manufactured homes on
Foster near this proposed site,but there is a two-
section manufactured home on Weldon Street southwest of
this site.
The proposed plan meets requirements for height,and
front and rear setbacks,but not side setbacks.The
home would be only 5.5 feet from either of the side
property lines versus a requirement for a 7.5 foot
setback on each side.Staff suggested to the applicant
that she consider purchasing a manufactured home that
was not as wide,but she said she had already purchased
this one.
Staff believes that this would be a reasonable use of
this site and that if the new manufactured home is set
up and anchored according to building code and zoning
ordinance requirements,that it would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.The home must be set up and anchored according to
City Building Code requirements and Little Rock City
Zoning 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.All homes shall be multisectional.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance for a
reduced side setback to 5.5 feet for both sides.
3
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Marion Moore was present representing her application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff reviewed the inadequate side setbacks and alternative
size units that could meet the required setbacks.The
applicant stated she had already bought the home shown in
the site plan and so she would pursue a variance.In
response to the Committee Member'question if the garage
would be built on site,the applicant responded that it
would.She added that she just wanted to have a home she
could afford and that there were other manufactured homes in
the area.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification bycertifiedmailtopropertyownerswithin200feetnolater
than April 18,2001,and that the applicant must provideP—"
property owners,and the original notification letter with
affidavit completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
Marion Moore was present representing her application.There
were four 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.
Betty Snyder,representing the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition.She stated that the
Association had met with the applicant Ms.Moore,and
explained their opposition.Ms.Snyder added that the
Association had met and discussed trying to determine an
area in their area that they felt would be appropriate for
manufactured homes but were unsuccessful.She said that.
4
3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
there were 40 people at the meeting who did not want
manufactured homes anywhere in the John Barrow area.
Doris Wright,President of the John Barrow Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition.She presented a petition
of over 380 residents opposed to the proposed manufactured
home.She added that manufactured homes were not in
agreement with their neighborhood plan.She stated that
revitalization was occurring in the John Barrow area and
rebuilding and remodeling of existing homes was increasing
in the Kensington neighborhood particularly.In response to
a question by Commissioner Faust,Ms.Wright said that the
Kensington neighborhood was on the north side of 36
Street,which is three blocks north of the proposed site.
Ms.Wright showed pictures of existing manufactured homes in
the area that she felt demonstrated how that type of housing
deteriorated quickly.She added that she did not believe the
argument that manufactured housing was more affordable based
on statistics she quoted from a Consumer's Report article
dated February 1998.She continued that she and other John
Barrow residents felt that manufactured homes would decrease
property values in their neighborhood,a problem they were
already facing.She added that the trend was changing for
the positive and they didn't want manufactured homes to turn
that trend negative again.She stated that they would like
Ms.Moore to build a site built house on this site.
Norma Walker,a resident on Holt Street,spoke in
opposition.She stated that the John Barrow area had come a
long way in improvements and they would like to see it
continue to develop.
George Brown stated he was a member of John Barrow and
Campus Place Neighborhood Associations,and was opposed to
the proposal.He pointed out that there were 66 names on the
petition presented by Ms.Wright from Campus place saying
they did not want manufactured homes in Campus Place.He
stated that because of the way manufactured homes were
constructed,installed and anchored,they were frequently
uprooted and flipped on their side during severe storms.He
said he agreed with the other reasons for the opposition
previously stated,especially decreased property values.
Marion Moore responded that the areas mentioned and pictures
shown were not near the proposed site on Foster Street.She
5
jj 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
added that another manufactured home had been permitted in
1998 on Weldon Street,the next street to the west,not very
far southwest of her location.She said that occurred after
the time Ms.Wright stated that John Barrow prohibited
manufactured homes through their neighborhood plan.She
continued that she planned to brick the front of her
manufactured home,and add a front porch with big posts,
which would look better than many of the existing homes.She
added that the property owner she purchased the land from
and the dealer she bought the manufactured home from,both
told her she could put it at this location.
Commissioner Lowry asked Staff cpxestions about several
points listed in a recent court decision regarding
manufactured homes and how he should apply them in his
decision process.These included impact on property values,
and compatibility in appearance with surrounding houses.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Ms.Moore if she would be willing
to brick the outside of her proposed home should it be
approved.In response to Commissioner Rector,Ms.Moore
stated she would brick the home from ground to eave on all
four sides by Spring 2002,but she would be putting a
bricked front porch with four big posts,a two car garage on
the front,and a deck on the rear with the initial
installation.
Commissioner Rahman asked what recourse there would be if
she did not do the brick by Spring 2002.Dana Carney,of the
Planning Staff,responded that it would fall under normal
enforcement action the same as any other violation of
conditions placed on a conditional use permit by the
Commission.She would have to correct the violation or come
back to the Commission for an extension or change to the
conditions.Commissioner Rahman asked the applicant if she
would be willing to brick the entire front now since it
would be the most visible.She responded she could do thatifshedidnotconstructthegaragenow.
Commissioner Nunnley asked the City Attorney,Mr.Giles,
what would happen if conditions occurred that prevented Ms.
Moore from completing the brick by next Spring.He responded
that if the violation was not corrected the C.U.P could be
revoked,putting her in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Then further action would be decided in Municipal court.
6
h g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
Betty Snyder further commented that if this application was
approved,more would follow.She reminded the Commissioners
that 40 residents had said at the neighborhood meeting that
they do not want manufactured homes anywhere in John Barrow.
She asked if the City could inform applicants what areas are
opposed to manufactured homes.She added that if more are
allowed,a cluster of manufactured homes would develop and
look like a little mobile home park in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Faust commented that she saw the attitude
towards manufactured homes in some neighborhoods as an
"unreasoning prejudice towards people of moderate means".
She reminded the Commission that the Rolling Pines court
decision was in part based on a cluster of incompatible
manufactured homes,which is not the case here.Each
application would have to be considered separately by the
Commission.
Ms.Snyder stated she felt the City should take a stance as
to where manufactured homes "fit"and set rules and
regulations accordingly.She said she felt it was unfair to
make the neighborhoods come to the Commission meetings each
time to say what fits in each instance;the City should make
a clear policy for where manufactured homes would be
allowed.
Commissioner Nunnley stated that he had a disdain for
manufactured homes,but he realized that they provided an
option as affordable housing.Therefore,the question of
where would they best fit needs to be addressed.Along with
where they would best fit,possibly the Commission should
have conditions and stipulations on how they should look.He
added that he did not believe they should be placed next tositebuilthomes,but since this site is not next to
existing site built homes,this might be a good location.
He added that he didn't believe it would have a negative
impact on surrounding property values in this instance.
Ms.Wright reminded the Commission that the Neighborhood
Association thought this site might be the right place too,
but 40 residents say they don't want a manufactured home at
this site or anywhere in the John Barrow area.She added
that the bill of assurance for this neighborhood restricts
mobile homes.
7
h y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:13 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7009
Commissioner Rector stated that Ms.Wright's statement
brings up the point that there are differences between
"mobile homes"and "manufactured homes",and reminded her
that bills of assurance are private contracts.
A discussion occurred regarding the impact of an appeal of
the Commission'decision on Ms.Moore.Staff stated that if
the Commission approves the application she would have an
approved C.U.P.and could move the home onto the property.
Then if the City Board repealed the Commission's decision
she would have to remove the home.
In response to questions from Commissioner Lowry,Ms.Moore
stated she would commit to having the brick front faqade
constructed by August 1,2001,and the brick facade on the
other three sides along with the garage constructed by
August 24,2002,if the C.U.P.is approved.
Ms.Wright asked the City Attorney for clarification on the
authority of the bill of assurance.Mr.Giles stated that
the bill of assurance is a private contract which has no
legal significance with the Commission.The property owners
would have to sue in Chancery court for resolution of an
alleged violation of the bill of assurance.He added that
would be the same anywhere in the City including Chenal,in
response to further questions from Ms.Wright.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations,and the agreed
dates for completing the brick facade and garage.The motion
passed by a vote of 6 ayes,2 nays and 3 absent.
8
&~jr 3,2001
ITEM NO.:14 FILE NO.:Z-7010
NAME:Dowdy Child Care Center —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:13,500 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Carlos Robinson,Jr./Tina Dowdy
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
child care center in an existing
structure with a capacity of 25 children
on land zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Cantrell Road and Rightsell Road.
2 .STAFF UPDATE:
During the initial analysis of this proposal by Staffitwasdeterminedthattheapplicantcouldnotmeetthe
Highway 10 Overlay requirements.When that situation
occurs the zoning ordinance requires the proposal be
reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD)
section of the ordinance.If the applicant wishes to
pursue the request the item will be reviewed and
presented to the Commission through that process.
Therefore,the item should be withdrawn from this
agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for withdrawal since this request
cannot be approved as a conditional use permit,but must be
reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD)section
of the ordinance.
3,2001
ITEM NO.:14 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7010
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
2
3,2001
ITEM NO.:15 FILE NO.:Z-7011
NAME:Cantrell Garden Center —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:7800 Cantrell Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Mr.Lewie Fason
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for
outside display full time at the
existing garden center on property zoned
C-3,General Commercial,located at
7800 Cantrell Road.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the north side of Cantrell
Road,where Biscayne and Watt Streets intersect
Cantrell from the south.
2.STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning Commission's Subdivision Committee
determined at its meeting on April 12,2001,that the
changes proposed by the applicant did not require a
conditional use permit.Therefore,they recommended that
the item be withdrawn from the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for withdrawal since there was no need
for a conditional use permit for this request as determined
by the Subdivision Committee.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:16 FILE NO.:Z-7012
NAME:Led By The Spirit Of God Church—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:9800 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Led By The Spirit Of God Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
new church site in two phases with a
final seating capacity of 475 people.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located on the west side of Geyer Springs
Road,just north of the intersection with Valley Drive.
2.STAFF UPDATE:
When this proposal was originally submitted the site
was identified to be located on R-2,Single Family
Residential Zoned property.Upon investigation by Staffitwasdeterminedthatthesitewasinfactlocatedon
0-3,General Office District Zoned property,where a
church is a "By-Right"use.Therefore,there was no
reason to proceed any further with the application anditshouldbewithdrawnfromtheagenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no registered objectors present.Staff presented the item
with a recommendation for withdrawal since there was no need
for a conditional use permit for this request since it is a
"By-right"use in 0-3 zoning.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
lily 3,2001
ITEM NO.:17 FILE NO.:Z-7013
NAME:Dunbar Jr.High School —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:1100 Wright Avenue
OWNER/APPLICANT:Little Rock School District /Tim Heiple
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
small addition on the rear of the
existing Dunbar Junior High School
building,replacing five existing areas
being used as classrooms with permanent
classrooms.The property is zoned R-4,
Two Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This is a long-standing existing school site located on
the northeast corner of the intersection of Wright
Avenue and Cross Street.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This existing school site is zoned R-4,Two Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-4 zoning.The
immediate area is a residential neighborhood with a
mixture of single and two family residences.The school
has existed in this neighborhood for several years and
as far as Staff is aware it is compatible with the
neighborhood.The small addition on the rear of the
building would hardly be noticeable and should have no
impact on the school's compatibility with the
neighborhood.
The Downtown and Wright Avenue Neighborhood
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,and
all residents within 300 feet that could be identified,
were notified of the public hearing.
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7013
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The school has a one way drive for access.Entry is
from Cross Street and the exit is onto Wright Avenue.
That will not change.The number of classrooms and the
number of teachers would not change because of this
addition.Therefore,the existing parking will not be
affected or changed.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A small amount of landscaping toward compliance with
the Landscape Ordinance will be required equal to the
expansion percentage proposed.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Wright Avenue is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-
way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
b.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the corner of Wright and Cross.
c.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.
d.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
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.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Sewer on site.Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility for details.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
2
bi y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7013
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus route ¹16 and has no effect on
bus radius,turnout and route.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for an addition of five classrooms to the existing
school.The one story addition would connect the main
classroom building to the gymnasium immediately to the
north.The school has outgrown the existing classrooms
and so instruction is being done in open areas not
originally designed as classrooms.The addition would
create actual classroom space so the other areas can
revert back to what they were originally planned for.
Setbacks to the new addition would still be farther
than the existing buildings and the height of the
addition would be less than the existing buildings.
Therefore,there are no adverse siting issues.
The number of classrooms and the number of teachers
would not change because of this addition.Therefore,
the existing parking will not be affected or changed.A
small amount of added landscaping toward compliance
with the Landscape Ordinance will be required equal to
the expansion percentage proposed.
Staff believes the proposed addition would be
reasonable use of existing space and would have no
adverse impact.
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 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.
3
g 3,2001
ITEM NO.:17 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7013
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff commented on the need to upgrade landscaping in
relation to the expansion percentage.The applicant
explained what the addition was replacing and verified that
there would be no increase in the number of classrooms or
teachers.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification bycertifiedmailtopropertyownerswithin200feetnolater
than April 18,2001,and that the applicant must provide
property owners,and the original notification letter with
affidavit completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
There was one registered objector present.Staff presented
the item with a recommendation for approval subject to
compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff
Recommendation,"paragraph 8 above.
Peter Norwood asked what impact the proposed work would have
on his property.He was concerned that he might lose part of
his property.Chairman Downing explained to Mr.Norwood that
the proposed school addition would have no impact or affect
on his property.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to
include staff comments and recommendations.The motion
passed by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
4
3,2001
ITEM NO.:18 FILE NO.:Z-7015
NAME:Integra Addition Car Wash —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:8900 Geyer Springs Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Baseline Partners,LLC /John Pownall,
Thomas Engineering
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
car wash with a mix of five self-serve
and one unmanned automatic car wash bays
on property zoned C-3,General
Commercial.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.69 acre site is located on the west side of
Geyer Springs Road,a short distance south of Baseline
Road and north of Senate Drive.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned C-3,General Commercial,andisboundedonthenorthandwestbyC-3 zoning.To the
east across Geyer Springs Road the zoning is R-2,
Single Family Residential.To the south is a strip of
C-3 which would be an access easement to the property
behind this site.Further to the south next to the C-3
is a strip of R-2,which separates the C-3 zoning from
what used to be R-2 zoning,but is now zoned 0-3,
General Office.
Staff believes the proposed use would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
The Cloverdale and Windamere Neighborhood Associations
and 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.
bi y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7015
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
This site is currently a parking area for a larger C-3
zoned property.The larger tract would be re-platted
and this site would become a separate lot.It is,and
would continue to be,surrounded by paved parking.
There are existing curb cuts just off the northeast and
southeast corners of this proposed site which would
provide access from Geyer Springs.The most northern
drive would be two-way while the southern one would be
one-way out only.
A car washing facility is required to have 5 parking
spaces plus 1 space for every 250 square feet of gross
building area.The proposed structures have
approximately 4865 square feet of area which would
require 19 parking spaces.The total required parking
would be 24 spaces.The proposed site plan provides
adequate parking.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Since this is a separate plat of property it will be
necessary to provide a nine-foot wide landscape strip
along the northern,eastern and western site perimeters
exclusive of designated driveways;this is a
requirement of the Landscape Ordinance.The south side
would not require landscaping once it is re-platted as
an access easement.
A street on-site buffer width of 12 feet is required.
Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped
areas from vehicular traffic.
After allowing for reasonable access,the proposed
landscaping and buffers is adequate.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.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
y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7015
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.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Due to the nature of the processes used in
this facility,installation of a reduced pressure zone
backflow preventer will be required on the domestic
water service.Contact the Water Works regarding meter
size and location.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:Approved as submitted.Any pole relocation
will require contribution from applicant.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is on bus routes 517 and 17A and has no
effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
7 .STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a car wash with a mix of five self-serve and one
unmanned automatic car wash bays.The facility would be
one story.The self-serve wand bays would be open 24
hours a day.The automatic bay would be open from 7:00
a.m.to 7:00 p.m.daily.Signage would comply with the
requirements allowed within C-3 zoning.
All siting requirements such as setbacks,height,
parking,landscaping and buffers are met by the
proposals Landscape islands are proposed that would set
boundaries outlining the proposed site and separate it
from the rest of the tract.Traffic flow is set up so
that queuing for the various bays would all occur on
3
b.~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7015
site and exiting would be into the access easement on
the south side of the site.From there easy exiting
onto Geyer Springs could be made.
The applicant previously agreed to final plat lots 2
&3,the car wash is on lot 3,and clean the drainage
ditch on the south side of the property outside of the
existing wood privacy fence.Also,the final plat
should include a cross-access easement along the entire
south side of Lot 3.
Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and would
be compatible with the neighborhood.
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 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.Final plat lots two and three and include a cross-
access easement along the entire south side of
Lot 3.
e.Clean the drainage ditch on the south side of the
property outside of the existing wood privacy fence.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
John Pownall and Mike Berg were present representing the
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal
and briefly reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff emphasized the need to include landscaping and buffers
on the north,east and west sides,show a traffic flow plan
including where cars would wait to use the wash bays,and to
show parking areas.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification bycertifiedmailtopropertyownerswithin200feetnolater
4
~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:18 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7015
than April 18,2001,and that the applicant must provide
P —"
property owners,and the original notification letter with
affidavit completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
John Pownall and Mike Berg were present representing the
application.There were no registered objectors and one
proponent,Norm Floyd from Southwest Little Rock United for
Progress,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 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
i.~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:19 FILE NO.:Z-7016
NAME:Faith Care/Inner City Garden Center—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1422 Bishop Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Faith Care Corporation-Inner City
FutureNet
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
community garden plot area with a small
building for a greenhouse and tool
storage on property zoned R-4,Two
Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 0.16 acre site is located on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Bishop and 15 Streets.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is well within a residential
neighborhood,is zoned R-4,Two Family Residential,andissurroundedbymostlyR-3,Single Family Residential
zoning.There is one R-4 property directly south across
15 Street.The surrounding properties have residences
on them.The proposed site was a vacant lot until it
was bought by Inner City FutureNet about one year ago.
There have been neighborhood garden plots on this site
for several months.Staff is not aware of any adverse
impact caused by this use.Staff believes that the
addition of the small greenhouse will not change the
compatibility or have any adverse impact.
The Central High Neighborhood Association,all property
owners within 200 feet,and all residents within 300
feet that could be identified,were notified of the
public hearing.
h y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7016
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There are no ordinance parking standards for this
particular use.The applicant has proposed no
driveways,parking area or other vehicle access into
this site.The applicant plans to use the alley on the
west side of the property to make deliveries to the
greenhouse.There is on-street parking allowed in this
area.The garden plots are expected to continue to be
used by residents in the immediate surrounding area who
would walk to the site.The storage room in the
proposed greenhouse where tools could be stored will
encourage walking since people would not have to carry
tools to the site.Therefore,Staff believes that the
request to waive on-site parking is reasonable.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
A six-foot high opaque screen is required along the
northern and western perimeters of the site.This
screen can be a wooden fence with its face side
directed outward or dense evergreen plantings.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:Contact the Water Works regarding meter size
and location.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:Site is close to bus routes g9,11 and 16 and
has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route.
2
h.y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7016
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to
add a greenhouse to this existing garden plot site.The
greenhouse would also serve as a storage area and
contain a restroom.The greenhouse would be "open"with
activities going on from 9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday
through Friday and 10:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m.normally on
Saturday.The garden plots would be available during
daylight hours.The area would not be lighted except
for security lights on the greenhouse.
Inner City FutureNet is a 501(c)(3)private non-profit
organization which bought this vacant overgrown lot
about a year ago.They divided it into small garden
plots a few months ago to be used by the residents in
the immediate area.Since then they obtained a grant
from the City of Little Rock to further develop the
property for the community based on the
residents'esires.Recently Inner City obtained a 3-year grant
form Heifer Project International initiating a
partnership to develop this community garden and
greenhouse as part of the Neighborhood Property Pride
Program.This is the first such partnership with Heifer
Project in the South Central Region.That partnership
has provided the resources to improve the garden plots
and fund the greenhouse and accompanying gardeningactivities.The activities will focus on how to grow
organic vegetables to eat and flowers to beautify the
neighborhood.
The proposal meets height and setback siting
requirements.Opaque screening would have to be
provided on the north and west sides except for
reasonable access from the alley.The applicant has
requested approval of a 3x3 foot sign,5 feet tall to
be placed on the site at the southeast corner.Staff
considers that a reasonable sized sign.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of this
property,which would have no adverse impact on the
neighborhood and be a good community-building project.
3
b~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:19 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7016
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 and Buffer
Ordinances'.
All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and not
towards any residential zoned area.
Staff also recommends approval of the waiver of on-site
parking and approval of the requested 3x3 sign.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
The applicant was not present representing the application.
Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments written for the applicant.
Staff talked briefly with the Committee regarding the need
to obtain operating hours,signage plans if any,the need
for screening,and the reasoning for not having on site
parking.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Howard Gardner of Faith Care Corporation-Inner City
FutureNet was present representing his 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 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
4
l~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:20 FILE NO.:Z-5989
NAME:Southwestern Bell Wireless —Tower Use
Permit
LOCATION:10,301 Stagecoach Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems /
Mark Stodola
PROPOSAL:To obtain a tower use permit for a new
wireless communication facility with a
150 foot monopole and a 20 x 12 foot
equipment shelter on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This 5 acre site is located on the east side of
Stagecoach Road at the intersection with Otter Creek
Parkway.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential and is surrounded by R-2 zoning except for
the first few hundred feet of the south property line,
which has abutting C-3,General Commercial,and OS,
Open Space zoning.The eastern portion of the property
upon which the site is proposed to be located is in a
flood way.Two-thirds of the property lies in a flood
plane.The flood way and flood plane also cross the
adjoining properties on either side to varying degrees.
No development can occur in the flood way.Also the
property along the south side of this site which is
currently zoned R-2 and not in the flood way,is not
likely to ever develop residentially.The portion that
can be developed is more likely to be rezoned
commercial or office as property on the other corners
of this major intersection and property fronting on
Stagecoach have done.There is not much area between
the existing commercial property and the
b ~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5989
flood way of Fourche Creek.Therefore,Staff believes
this is a good location for a WCF tower that would not
have an adverse impact on the surrounding area.
The Otter Creek Neighborhood Association and 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:
There are two access drives for the parent property
which serve the primary uses of a maintenance yard and
storage facility for Southwester Bell Mobile Systems.
There is plenty of space for parking maintenance
vehicles to service the proposed WCF.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
WCFs are required to have a six foot wide landscape
strip and eight foot tall opaque wood fence around the
entire WCF site except for an access point.The
applicant has requested a waiver to these requirements
due to the location of the site and nature of the
surrounding area.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Stagecoach 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.
b.Dedicate regulatory floodway to the City of Little
Rock.c.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and
ramps brought up to the current ADA standards.
d.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
6.UTILITY FIRE DEPT.AND CATA COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:Service not required for this project.
2
y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5989
Southwestern Bell:They are the applicant.
AM(LA:No comments received.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a Tower Use Permit to
locate a new wireless communication facility
(WCF)including a 150 foot monopole and a 20 x 12 foot
equipment shelter.
Siting requirements are exceeded to the north,east and
west,but the distance of the tower to the south
property line which abuts residential zoning is less
than the height of the highest point on the proposed
WCF.Therefore,a Tower Use Permit is required.Staff
believes this is a good location for a WCF since it is
on existing Southwestern Bell property and is backed up
against a flood way which would preclude other
development close by that may be opposed to the WCF.
The surrounding property is heavily treed to help
naturally screen the site.WCFs are inevitable in this
area and this location would be one that would have
less direct impact on abutting property because of the
reasons described above in paragraph 2.
Staff believes this is a reasonable use of this site
and because of the nature of the surrounding
properties,its negative impact would be minimized.
The applicant is also asking for a waiver of the
landscaping and wood screening fence requirements for
this site.That request would have to go to the Board
of Directors for final approval.The applicant feels
this waiver would be justified because of the distance
from Stagecoach Road (679 feet),the natural screening
that already exists,and the nature of the surrounding
area (floodway 60 feet to the east).The site would be
within an existing chainlink fenced compound that is
3
hi~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5989
always locked.So the applicant feels an additional
wood screening fence would not be needed for security,
and that it would add no screening value because of the
reasons stated above.Staff agrees with the applicant's
justification and recommends the Planning Commission
send a favorable recommendation on to the Board of
Directors to waive the landscaping and screening
requirements.
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 and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.Only lighting allowed is that required by State or
Federal law,and that required for safety and
security of equipment.Even that must be down
shielded and kept within the boundaries of the site.
d.No signs,logos,decals,symbols or messages may be
displayed on the site except for a small message
containing provider identification and emergency
telephone numbers.
Staff also recommends approval of the waiver for
landscaping and screening for this WCF.The waiver
request would have to go on to the City Board with a
Planning Commission recommendation for a final
decision.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
Mark Stodola was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal and briefly
reviewed the comments provided to the applicant.
Staff explained why this proposal required a Tower Use
Permit and discussed the location of the proposed site in
relation to the flood way.Staff asked the applicant to show
on the site plan exactly where the flood way and flood plane
boundaries were.The issue of a higher tower was also
mentioned as reasonable for this location because of its
location and to reduce future separate towers in the area.
4
b~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:20 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6989
The applicant said they would consider a higher tower.The
applicant also stated their desire to obtain a waiver of the
landscaping and wood screening fence.
Staff reminded the applicant to provide notification by
certified mail to property owners within 200 feet no later
than April 18,2001,and that the applicant must provide
property owners,and the original notification letter with
affidavit completed,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:(MAY 3,2001)
Mark Stodola was 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.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
5
h y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:21 FILE NO.:G-25-181
NAME:Water Works Drive —Street Name Change
LOCATION:That portion of Water Works Drive that
serves the Jr.Deputy Ball Field Center
from Cantrell Road into the Center.
OWNER/APPLICANT:City of Little Rock
PROPOSAL:To change a portion of Water Works Drive
to Winston Faulkner Road.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.Abuttin Uses and Ownershi
The zoning surrounding this section of Water Works
Drive is R-2,Single Family Residential.The Municipal
Water Works owns the immediately surrounding property.
The nearby zoning consists of a mixture of I-3,Heavy
Industrial,and C-3,General Commercial.The road to be
renamed serves The Junior Deputy Baseball Center which
lies on both sides of this road.Just to the east is an
office warehouse complex,and to the northwest are
commercial businesses.
2.Nei hborhood Effect:
No detrimental effect is anticipated.The Junior Deputy
Ball Field Center has a Cantrell Road address.The
Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association
was notified of this request.
3.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.
4.Utilities:
Staff received no objections from Water,Wastewater,
and no comments from Southwestern Bell,Entergy or
ARKLA.
h~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:G-25-181
5.CATA:
Proposed street name change has no effect on bus
radius,turnout or route.
6.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is petitioning to change the name of a
portion of Water Works Drive as described earlier,
which is a private drive,to Winston Faulkner Road.
Water Works property surrounds the portion of the road
in question and they lease most of the area to the
Junior Deputy Sheriffs Baseball Program.So no other
party has standing in this petition.The original
request suggested making the street a public street.
That portion of the request was dropped after being
informed of what would be required to bring the street
up to standards for a public city street.
On December 20,2000 the Board of Commissioners,Little
Rock Municipal Water Works,adopted a resolution of
recommendation to rename Water Works Road to Winston
Faulkner Road.The reason given for choosing the name
was that Mr.Faulkner served on the Water Commission
for 15 years and he was instrumental in providing
sports activities for youth in Little Rock.
No detrimental effect is anticipated as result of this
name change.No objections have been received from
Public Works,Utility Companies,Fire Department,or
citizens.
7.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested street name
change of the proposed portion of Water Works Drive to
Winston Faulkner Road,but leaving it a private road.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(APRIL 12,2001)
No one was present representing the application.There were
no open issues and no questions by Committee Members,and so
the issue was not discussed.The Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
2
i-~y 3,2001
ITEM NO.:21 (Cont.)FILE NO.:G-25-181
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
Bruno Kirsch was 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 7 above.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
submitted to include staff comments and recommendations.The
vote was 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:22 FILE NO.:Z-6996
NAME:Webb Day Care Family Home
LOCATION:28 Valley Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Rosie and Clarissa Webb/Tina Webb
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 28 Valley Drive.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Neighbors located within 200 feet of the site and the SWLRUP,
Chicot,Allendale and Santa Monica Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the request.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On April 16,2001,the applicant requested that this item be
deferred to the June 14,2000 commission meeting.She is
deciding whether to pursue the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Commission of the applicant's request to
defer the item.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the June 14,2001 meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:23 FILE NO.:Z-7000
NAME:Jones Day Care Family Home
LOCATION:8607 Crofton Circle
OWNER/APPLICANT:Renee Jones
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 8607 Crofton Circle.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Neighbors located within 200 feet of the site and the SWLRUP,
and West Baseline Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
request.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The occupant/owner of the single family home located on the R-2
zoned property at 8607 Crofton Circle is requesting approval of
a Special Use Permit to allow her to operate a day-care family
home.
8607 Crofton Circle is located at the end of a short cul-de-sac
in the Merrivale Subdivision.Seven single family homes front
onto the cul-de-sac.All surrounding properties are zoned R-2
and are occupied by single-family homes.The applicant's home
is typical of those in the neighborhood;one-story,brick and
frame construction.The house has a double driveway and carport
with room for 4 vehicles.The rear yard is enclosed by a
chainlink fence and will provide a safe play area.The
applicant proposes to operate the day-care from 6:00 a.m.until
6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.
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 states that her home has
been licensed by the state for the care of 10 children.
Section 36-54(e)(3)of the Code establishes the site and
location criteria for day-care family homes as follow:
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7000
a.This use may be located only in a single-family home,
occupied by the caregiver.
b.Must be operated within licensing procedures established by
the State of Arkansas.c.The use is limited to ten (10)children including the
caregivers.
d.The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6)
children from households other than the caregivers.
e.This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts
where day care centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.Permits
cannot be transferred from owner to owner,location to location
or use to use.
If it were not for one unusual situation,staff would feel
comfortable recommending approval of the application.A similar
application has been filed by the occupant of the home at
8606 Crofton Circle,one lot north of this site.Staff is
uncomfortable with the prospect of concentrating two day-care
family homes in such proximity to each other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff cannot offer a recommendation of approval at this time.
If the Commission votes to approve the Special Use Permit,staff
would recommend that the following conditions be attached:
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 day-light hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
This item was discussed concurrently with Item No.24,Z-7001.
The applicants were present.There were two objectors present.
Letters of opposition had been received from SWLRUP and the West
Baseline Neighborhood Association.Staff presented the items
2
Mal 3,2001
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7000
and outlined the concern with having two day-care family homes
located so near each other.
Applicant Renee Jones,of 8607 Crofton Circle,addressed the
Commission.Ms.Jones stated that she had been issued a state
license and that she was not advised by the state that she had
to have a city permit.Ms.Jones stated that she had quit her
job of 15 years to do the day-care in her home.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,asked Ms.
Jones how it was that she and her neighbor Zorana Brown,of 8606
Crofton Circle,had started day-care family homes at around the
same time.Ms.Jones responded that it was just a coincidence
and Ms.Brown may have gotten her state license first.
Zorana Brown addressed the Commission and stated that she had
also been issued a state license and not been advised that she
needed City approval.She also stated that she had quit her job
to begin the day-care business.Ms.Brown stated that she had
received her state license in June 2000.She stated that the
business did not generate much traffic.
Mr.John Brockway,representing the West Baseline Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition to both applications.He
stated that the association had voted at its April 30,2001
meeting to "strongly oppose"the applications.He read from the
letter that had been submitted to the Commission from the
association.Mr.Brockway stated that,as a neighborhood
resident,he was concerned about the businesses creating
additional traffic.
Norm Floyd,representing SWLRUP,spoke in opposition.He also
voiced concerns about traffic.Mr.Floyd stated the businesses
were too intense and were inappropriately located deep inside
the residential neighborhood.
In response to questions,Ms.Brown stated she currently kept 8
children and Ms.Jones stated she currently kept 6 children.
Both stated that they had kept 10 children in the past and
expected to keep 10 once school let out for the summer.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he had concerns that the state had
licensed both individuals and they each had given up their jobs
to operate the day-cares.He stated the applicants had probably
planned on the income from keeping 10 children.He stated his
intent to support the applications.Commissioner Nunnley then
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7000
asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles to send a letter to the
appropriate state agency asking them to follow the rules and
make sure the City has approved the day-care family homes prior
to issuing a license.
Commissioner Lowry commented that the Commission would not
support a 20 child day-care at this location.He stated that he
felt the impact of 2,10 child day-cares so close to each other
was the same as a single,20 child day-care.
Commissioner Allen asked if there was not some way to reach a
compromise or to put a cap on the number of children.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he agreed with Commissioner
Nunnley.He asked where else you could put a small day-care if
not in a neighborhood.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she agreed with Commissioner
Lowry;that the two businesses would create a commercial
atmosphere in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Rahman responded that the applicants would be
providing an essential service.He stated he lived near a large
school/day-care and he felt it was just a part of living in an
urban environment.
Commissioner Faust echoed Commissioner Rahman's comments.She
stated it was unfortunate that these two day-care family homes
were so close to each other but she was not compelled that the
only course of action was to say no.
Commissioner Lowry asked Ruth Bell,of the League of Women
Voters,for a comment from the League.Ms.Bell stated the
League was very supportive of women's issues and wanted the
Commission to lean toward making safe,constructive home day-
care available.
Commissioner Lowry asked if approving these two special use
permits would set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Steve Giles responded that each application is taken on its own
merit and the Commission had discretion.
A motion was made to approve item no.23,file no.Z-7000
subject to compliance with staff's recommended conditions.The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe and 3 absent.
4
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:23 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7000
A motion was made to approve item no.24,file no.Z-7001
subject to compliance with staff's recommended conditions.The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe and 3 absent.
5
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:24 FILE NO.:Z-7001
NAME:Brown Day Care Family Home
LOCATION:8606 Crofton Circle
OWNER/APPLICANT:Zorana Brown
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 propexty at 8606 Crofton Circle.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Neighbors located within 200 feet of the site and the SWLRUP,
and West Baseline Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
request.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The owner/occupant of the single family home located on the R-2
zoned property at 8606 Crofton Circle is requesting approval of
a Special Use Permit to allow her to operate a day-care family
home.
8606 Crofton Circle is located at the end of a short cul-de-sac
in the Merrivale Subdivision.Seven single family homes front,
onto Crofton Circle.All surrounding properties are zoned R-2
and are occupied by single-family homes.The applicant's home
is typical of those in the neighborhood;one-story,brick and
frame construction.The house has a single driveway that flares
out to a double carport with room for 3 cars.The xear yard is
partially enclosed by a fence.The fence can be easily
completed to provide a safe play axea.The applicant proposes
to operate the day-care from 6:00 a.m.until 6:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.
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 states that her home has
been licensed by the state for the care of 10 children.
Section 36-54(e)(3)of the Code establishes the site and
location criteria for day-care family homes as follow:
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7001
a.This use may be located only in a single-family home,
occupied by the caregiver.
b.Must be operated within licensing procedures established by
the State of Arkansas.c.The use is limited to ten (10)children including the
caregivers.
d.The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6)
children from households other than the caregivers.
e.This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts
where day care centers are not allowed by right.
Special Use Permits are not transferable in any manner.Permits
cannot be transferred from owner to owner,location to location
or use to use.
If it were not for one unusual situation,staff would feel
comfortable recommending approval of the application.A similar
application has been filed by the occupant of the home at
8607 Crofton Circle,one lot south of this site.Staff is
uncomfortable with the prospect of concentrating two day-care
family homes in such proximity to each other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff cannot offer a recommendation of approval at this time.
If the Commission votes to approve the Special Use Permit,staff
would recommend that the following conditions be attached:
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 day-light hours.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001)
This item was discussed concurrently with Item No.23,Z-7000.
The applicants were present.There were two objectors present.
Letters of opposition had been received from SWLRUP and the West
2
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7001
Baseline Neighborhood Association.Staff presented the items
and outlined the concern with having two day-care family homes
located so near each other.
Applicant Renee Jones,of 8607 Crofton Circle,addressed the
Commission.Ms.Jones stated that she had been issued a state
license and that she was not advised by the state that she had
to have a city permit.Ms.Jones stated that she had quit her
job of 15 years to do the day-care in her home.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,asked Ms.
Jones how it was that she and her neighbor Zorana Brown,of 8606
Crofton Circle,had started day-care family homes at around the
same time.Ms.Jones responded that it was just a coincidence
and Ms.Brown may have gotten her state license first.
Zorana Brown addressed the Commission and stated that she had
also been issued a state license and not been advised that she
needed City approval.She also stated that she had quit her job
to begin the day-care business.Ms.Brown stated that she had
received her state license in June 2000.She stated that the
business did not generate much traffic.
Mr.John Brockway,representing the West Baseline Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition to both applications.He
stated that the association had voted at its April 30,2001
meeting to "strongly oppose"the applications.He read from the
letter that had been submitted to the Commission from the
association.Mr.Brockway stated that,as a neighborhood
resident,he was concerned about the businesses creating
additional traffic.
Norm Floyd,representing SWLRUP,spoke in opposition.He also
voiced concerns about traffic.Mr.Floyd stated the businesses
were too intense and were inappropriately located deep inside
the residential neighborhood.
In response to questions,Ms.Brown stated she currently kept 8
children and Ms.Jones stated she currently kept 6 children.
Both stated that they had kept 10 children in the past and
expected to keep 10 once school let out for the summer.
Commissioner Nunnley stated he had concerns that the state had
licensed both individuals and they each had given up their jobs
to operate the day-cares.He stated the applicants had probably
planned on the income from keeping 10 children.He stated his
3
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7001
intent to support the applications.Commissioner Nunnley then
asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles to send a letter to the
appropriate state agency asking them to follow the rules and
make sure the City has approved the day-care family homes prior
to issuing a license.
Commissioner Lowry commented that the Commission would not
support a 20 child day-care at this location.He stated that he
felt the impact of 2,10 child day-cares so close to each other
was the same as a single,20 child day-care.
Commissioner Allen asked if there was not some way to reach a
compromise or to put a cap on the number of children.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he agreed with Commissioner
Nunnley.He asked where else you could put a small day-care if
not in a neighborhood.
Commissioner Adcock stated that she agreed with Commissioner
Lowry;that the two businesses would create a commercial
atmosphere in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Rahman responded that the applicants would be
providing an essential service.He stated he lived near a large
school/day-care and he felt it was just a part of living in an
urban environment.
Commissioner Faust echoed Commissioner Rahman's comments.She
stated it was unfortunate that these two day-care family homes
were so close to each other but she was not compelled that the
only course of action was to say no.
Commissioner Lowry asked Ruth Bell,of the League of Women
Voters,for a comment from the League.Ms.Bell stated the
League was very supportive of women's issues and wanted the
Commission to lean toward making safe,constructive home day-
care available.
Commissioner Lowry asked if approving these two special use
permits would set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Steve Giles responded that each application is taken on its own
merit and the Commission had discretion.
A motion was made to approve item no.23,file no.Z-7000
subject to compliance with staff's recommended conditions.The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe and 3 absent.
4
May 3,2001
ITEM NO.:24 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7001
A motion was made to approve item no.24,file no.Z-7001
subject to compliance with staff's recommended conditions.The
motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe and 3 absent.
5
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
DA
T
E
C.
od
s
c
+
7
ME
M
B
E
R
7+
,I
&.
E
.
0
(
/
l5
1
(p
3'
2.
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
K
|"
—
(j
-
(A
.
+
A
ME
M
B
E
R
I
a
+"
-"
g
X
6
RE
C
T
O
R
,
BI
L
L
o
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
~~
,
~
~
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
~
~"
'
f
e
o
e
u
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
e
0
~
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
0
~
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
f
i~
e
~
y
e
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
f
g
~
~
~
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
o
ee
g.
7
f
g
o
AL
L
E
N
,
FR
E
D
,
JR
.
e
e
~
e
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
~
e
e
o
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
'9
P.
M
.
AY
E
NA
Y
E
AB
S
E
N
T
AB
S
T
A
I
N
RE
C
U
S
E
May 3,2001
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
I ~~-&(
S cr ary Chairman