pc_03 02 2000LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MARCH 2,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being nine (9)in number.
II.Approval of the Minutes of the February 3,2000 SpecialCalledmeeting.The minutes were approved as presented.
III.Members Present:Pam Adcock
Craig Berry
Judith Faust
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Herb Hawn
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Bill Rector
Rohn Muse
City Attorney:Steve Giles
I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
MARCH 2,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEM:
A.Z-6770 Henderson Road R-2 to R-7A and
Site Plan Review
B.Z-6759 Velez Day Care Center C.U.P.(rehearing)
C.Z-6797 12805 I-30 R —2 to I-2
D.Land Alteration and Landscape Ordinance Review Task Force
E.LU99-16-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter Creek
Planning District from Single Family to
Service Trades District for an area south and
west of the Stagecoach and Baseline Roads
intersection
F.Downtown Zoning
G.Z-6804 6800/6900 Pinnacle Valley Road R-2 to AF
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.LU99-16-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District from Low Density
Residential to Commercial for the
northwest corner of Vimy Ridge Road and
County Line Road.
2.LU99-16-03 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Otter
Creek Planning District from Single
Family to Commercial for an area north of
County Line Road east of Vimy Ridge Road.
3.Z-6811 6400 Patrick Country Road R-2 to 0-3
4.Z-6812 2824 West 12 Street I-2 to C-3
I
I
5.Z-6813 9400 Stagecoach Road R-2 to MF-12
6.Z-6815 8806 Mabelvale Pike R-2 to I-2
7.Pecan Lake,Stagecoach-Dodd,Westwood Neighborhood
Action Plan
8.Otter Creek,Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan
2
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
te
m
s
/
L.
M
M1
LM
MM
,
'
IL
'I
.
'L
"
))
-
1
-'
.M
L
f.
I
)
'l
l
)
4
I
I
LA
&
'
ll
l
B
.M
t
.
.
'.
IL
'I
L
L
'I
l'
V
A
'~
5
M'
.
I
C.
RL
I
'
1
1'
'L
'
M
'I
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ma
r
c
h
2,
20
0
0
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6770
Owner:Cherri Satterfield
Applicant:C.R.Satterfield,Jr.
Location:West side of Henderson Road,
approximately 1,000 feet south
of Raines Road
Request:Rezone from R-2 to R-7A andSitePlanReview
Purpose:Placement of a single-wide
manufactured home
Size:5.00 acres
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Pasture and Single Family;zoned R-2
South —Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Single Family and undeveloped tracts;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped tracts;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline of
existing road.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site were
notified of the rezoning request.There is no neighborhood
association within the vicinity of this site.The propertyisoutsideofthecitylimitsandnodatabaseofaddressesismaintainedtonotifyresidentsinthearea.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for the site.
R-7A is a single family zoning district which allows for
placement of one manufactured home or one on-site
constructed dwelling per lot or parcel.The request
conforms to the adopted Plan.No neighborhood action plan
has been done for this area,nor is one proposed in the near
future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5 acretractfrom"R-2"Single Family to "R-7A"Manufactured HomeDistrictandtoapproveasiteplanforplacementofone,
single-wide manufactured home on the tract.The site is
vacant and mostly cleared.At one time,there were two
mobile homes on the tract.Those were removed sometime ago
and there are utility hook-ups remaining on the tract.
The property is located outside of the city limits but
within the City'extraterritorial jurisdiction.The
predominant land uses in this rural area are single family
homes on large tracts and large areas of undeveloped,wooded
property.There are several nonconforming mobile homes and
manufactured homes located in the general vicinity including
across Henderson Road to the northeast.Single family homes
are located adjacent to the south and across Henderson Road
to the east.A pasture is adjacent to the north and a
single family home is located beyond that.The property
adjacent to the west is wooded.Farther to the south,at
the end of Henderson Road,a Planned Development-Office was
recently approved to allow use of an existing single family
home as an office.
The Land Use Plan recommends single family for this site.
R-7A is a single family zoning district.Staff believes the
zoning request to be compatible with uses and zoning in the
area and to conform to the adopted Land Use Plan.
R-7A zoning requires the submission of a site plan at the
time of the zoning request.The applicant has submitted a
plan showing the placement of one,single-wide,1997 model
manufactured home on the tract.The home measures 16'
72',1,152 square feet.The applicant also proposes to
construct a two-car covered carport and a storage building.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z —6770
All proposed structures exceed required setbacks.Placement
of the home must conform to the siting standards established
by Section 36-262(d)(2).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested R-7A zoning.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan for
placement of a 1997 model,single-wide,16'
72'anufacturedhomeonthetractsubjecttocompliance with
the following siting criteria established in Section 36-
262(d)(2)of the Code:
a.A pitched roof of three (3)in twelve (12)or fourteen
(14)degrees or greater.
b.Removal of all transport features.
c.Permanent foundation.
d.Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the
neighborhood.
e.Underpinning with permanent materials.
f.Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent
structures.
g.Off-street parking per single-family dwelling
standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2,1999)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors
present.Several letters of objection and support had been
received by staff and forwarded to the Commissioners.
Staff presented the rezoning request and site plan and
offered a recommendation of approval as noted in the "Staff
Recommendation"above.At this point in the meeting,there
were only 8 commissioners present.The Chairman offered the
applicant the opportunity to defer the issue.The applicant
agreed to the deferral.It was determined by the Commission
that those persons present in opposition who might not be
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
able to return at a later date would be allowed to enter a
statement for the record.
Kay Hicks,of 7407 Henderson Road,stated that she built her
home 21 years ago.She commented that the one mobile home
now existing on the street was an eyesore.Ms.Hicks stated
that site built homes last longer than manufactured homes.
She acknowledged that there were previously two mobile homes
on the lot but said that she did not want any action
approved that would allow the encroachment of more
manufactured homes into the neighborhood.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lowry,Chairman
Earnest stated that he was giving persons the opportunity to
speak at either this meeting or the later meeting to which
the item was being deferred.
The Commission suggested that the deferral might allow the
two parties to get together to discuss the issue.
Ray Hanley,of 7413 Henderson Road,agreed to get together
with the applicant,if he was willing to do so.Mr.Hanley
stated that the property was zoned to allow for site-built
single family homes.
David Powell,of 7322 Henderson Road,stated that he had
nothing against "trailers"but his experiences with mobile
homes had not been good.
Ed Hicks,of 7407 Henderson Road,stated that he would defer
speaking to a later date.
A motion was made to defer the item to the January 20,2000
meeting.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20,2000)
The applicant was present.One person present f illed out a
card in opposition.A petition signed by several persons
opposed to the rezoning had been received by staff and
forwarded to the Commission.Several letters of support had
also been forwarded to the Commission.
Since there were only 8 commissioners present,the applicant
was offered the option of deferring the item.The applicant
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6770
requested deferral.A motion was made to defer the item to
the March 2,2000 meeting.The motion was approved by a
vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant,C.R.Satterfield,was present.There were
two ob jectors present.Staf f presented the item and a
recommendation of approval.It was noted that numerous
letters of support and objection had been forwarded to the
Commission .
Mr.Satterfield stated that he had nothing new to add and
asked that he might have time to rebut statements from the
opposition.
Ray Hanley,of 7413 Henderson Road,spoke in opposition.He
stated that several old mobile homes had been removed from
the neighborhood in the time he had lived on Henderson Road.
He asked the Commission to deny the request.Mr.Hanley
commented that the Board of Directors had recently denied
every request for a manufactured home which it had seen.
Ed Hicks,of 7407 Henderson Road,spoke in opposition.He
stated that a mobile home in poor condition was located on
the property adjacent to his.Mr.Hicks stated that the
area was zoned R-2 which allowed only site-built homes.He
stated that allowing the proposed manufactured home would
lower property values in the area.Mr.Hicks noted that the
proposed manufactured home would be rented.
Mr.Satterfield responded that the home was nearly new,it
would not reduce area property values and there were
numerous similar homes in the area.
A motion was made to approve the application as applied for,
including staff'recommended conditions.
Commissioner Downing stated that the Board of Directors had
found a difference between site built homes and manufactured
homes and that he would follow their policy.
The vote on the motion was 3 ayes,6 noes,and 2 absent.
The application was denied.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO:Z-6759
NAME:Velez Day Care Center —Conditional Use
Permit
LOCATION:4600 Eastwood Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Sam and Julie Velez
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
day care center for up to 20 children at
4600 Eastwood Road on property Zoned R-
2,Single Family Residential.
ORD I NANCE DE S I GN S TANDARD S:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Vinewood and Eastwood Roads,one block
south of Asher Avenue.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential and
contains an existing single family one story house.The
surrounding zoning is also mostly R-2 and contains
single family houses except for the area to the north
directly across Vinewood which is Zoned 0-1,Quiet
Office,and contains a church.
Staff believes that since this site is on the edge of a
residential area and will be a small day care center,
that this use should be compatible with the
neighborhood.
The Westwood Neighborhood Associations was notified of
the Public Hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
There is an existing driveway from Vinewood on to thissitewhichwillremainthesame.Parking for employees
would be provided off site across Vinewood at the
church.The applicant has provided to Staff written
approval from the church for this arrangement.That.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6759
arrangement would require a variance for 100%of f -site
employee parking.The two required drop-off parking
spaces for the children would be provided on-site along
the existing driveway.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
This site should be screened from the residential
property to the south.This screen would preferably be
a wooden fence with its face side directed outward.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
1.Vinewood and Eastwood are commercial 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 Vinewood and Eastwood.
3.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.Extend sidewalk
on Vinewood Road.
4.Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk
that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted
for approval prior to start of work.
6.Show parking for employees,customers,and drop-off
area.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No ob jection.
Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
AIBA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submi tted.
CATA:Approved as submitted.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6759
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit
for a 20 child day care center in an existing house at
4600 Eastwood Road.The house is to be used entirely as
a day-care center with no residential use.The
property is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and
is surrounded by R-2 residential zoning and uses on
three sides.To the north across Vinewood exists a
church on property Zoned 0-1,Quiet Office.
The center would operate from 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday.No changes to the exterior of
the existing house would be made.A playground and two
parking spaces along the driveway for drop-off would be
added to the rear yard area,along with a screening
fence along the south property line.Since the houseisn't being changed,no other site plan issues exist.
The only other issue is the normal Public Works
requirements for street improvements and dedication of
right-of-way.The applicant has requested a waiver to
the street improvements mainly because of the expense
compared to the small operation,minimal physical site
changes proposed,and the temporary time intended for
the requested use.Public Works does not support the
waiver.
No signage variance has been requested nor additional
exterior lighting shown.If any exterior lighting is
installed,it must be low intensity and be directed
downward and inward to the property and shielded from
and not directed towards any residential area.
The applicant wants to leave the property as close toit's existing residential nature as possible because
their future plan is to move into a larger facility for
a larger day care center and then use this property as
residential again.The reason for using this in the
interim is the urgent need the applicant sees for day
care capability to serve families who are members of
the church across the street of which the applicant is
also a member.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6759
The site is located on the edge of the residential
neighborhood so that activity caused by the use,
including traffic,would remain on the outer edge of
the neighborhood.
Staff believes this would be a reasonable use of this
property and in its small capacity it should not
adversely affect 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 Screening and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments,including
installing two parking spaces as agreed to and
shown on the revised site plan.Right-of-way
dedication must be completed prior to occupancy by
the day care operation.c.All exterior lighting installed must be low
intensity and be directed downward and inward to
the property and shielded from,and not directed
towards,any residential area.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance for 100$off-site employee parking as long as it can remain on the
church property across Vinewood.Staff does not recommend
approval of the waiver of street improvements.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(OCTOBER 21,1999)
Sam Velez,the owner/applicant,was present representing his
application.Staff gave a brief description of the proposal.
Public Works briefly reviewed their comments.The applicant
had some concerns about those requirements.It was suggested
that further one-on-one discussions take place about those
issues.
Staff also briefly reviewed the screening requirements,and
signage and parking comments to make sure the applicant
understood them.
4
'
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6759
The applicant stated that he wished to increase the number
of children to 20 and that he would address the street
improvements and right-of-way issues with Public Works.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 11,1999)
Sam Velez was present representing the application.There
were no registered objectors present at the time the item
was presented as part of the Consent Agenda.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
recommended by Staff.The vote was 9 ayes,0 nays,1 absent,
and 1 open position.
Later during the meeting,at approximately 6:00 p.m.Mike
Kumpuris,President of the Westwood Neighborhood
Association,contacted Staff at the meeting to check on the
status of this item.He was informed that it had been
approved on the Consent Agenda.He stated that he was there
to oppose the item on behalf of the Neighborhood
Association.He stated he had just arrived due to
information provided by someone at the Planning Department
that this item probably would not be considered until after
6:00 p.m.The item originally had been listed in the
regular agenda,but since all known issues had been worked
out,it was moved to the Consent Agenda at the Commission's
agenda meeting held just before the public hearing.
After consultation with Stephen Giles,City Attorney,and
Hugh Earnest,the Chairman of the Commission,it was decided
that since he was present during the time the Commission wasstillinsession,and considering the information that he
was given about the timing of the item's probable
consideration,that he could still qualify as a registered
objector.That would allow him to appeal the Commission's
action to the Board of Directors.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6759
STAFF UPDATE
This issue was appealed to the Board of Directors by the
objectors.At its January 4,2000 meeting,the Board voted
to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration since,at the November 11,1999 meeting,the
objectors arrived late and the Commission did not have the
benefit of their input prior to making a decision.Staff
sent notice of the rehearing to all owners of property
located within 200 feet of the site and to those 8 persons
who attended the January 4,2000 Board meeting in opposition
to the item.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20,2000)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors
present.Since there were only 8 commissioners present,the
applicant was offered the option of deferring the item.The
applicant requested deferral.A motion was made to defer
the item to the March 2,2000 meeting.The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had submitted a letter on February 24,2000 requesting
withdrawal of the conditional use permit application.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-6797
Owner:Capital Truck Service,Inc.
Applicant:Randy Cli f ton
Location:12805 I-30
Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Purpose:Continued use of property for a
trucking company
Size:6.9+acres
Existing Use:Trucking Company
SURROUND ING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Bike and go-cart track;zoned R-2
South —Main-line MoPac Railroad;zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Floodway and undeveloped;zoned OS and I-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City.
Wi th Bui1 din Permi t
2.Access Road to this property must be constructed to City
standards as an industrial street.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29 —186(e)is
requi red.
6.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29 —186 (b)is required.
7.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283
is required.
8.Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is
required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6797
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and Norm Floyd were notified of
the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The property is in the Otter Creek Planning District.On
October 5,1999,the Plan was amended to Light Industrial
for this site (Ordinance No.18,105).The plan amendment
was filed by this same applicant as the required first step
toward rezoning the site.The Plan recommends Open Space
for the small portion of this site which lies within the
regulatory floodway.This I-2 Light Industrial request
conforms to the recently amended Land Use Plan.The area
within the floodway should be zoned OS.The Plan Amendment
to Light Industrial was supported by the authors of the
Chicot West/1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan which was
approved on November 4,1997.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 6.9+
acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "I-2"Light
Industrial.The property has been occupied by a series of
nonconforming uses since its annexation into the City.The
property is now owned by and occupied by Capital Truck
Service,Inc.,a trucking company.One building is located
on the site.The applicant is requesting the I-2 zoning to
make the use conforming and to eliminate the hazards
associated with nonconformity.
The property is fairly isolated,being "sandwiched"between
the main line of the Missouri Pacific Railroad and
Interstate 30.The properties adjacent to the east and west
are undeveloped.Much of these properties lies in the
floodway.The railroad is to the south and a go-cart/bike
track is immediately adjacent to the north.Beyond the
track are several businesses fronting directly onto the
Interstate.Access to the site is gained by a private road.
The nearest residential properties are located several
hundred feet south of the railroad right-of —way.The site
has a history of use which includes a cross-tie company.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6797
Staff believes the proposed I-2 zoning is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan recommends Light
Industrial for the site,the result of a recent amendment to
the Plan which was filed by this applicant as a prerequisite
to the rezoning.The I-2 zoning request conforms to the
Plan.
A portion of the site lies within the regulatory floodway.
That portion should be zoned OS Open Space and protected by
an easement granted to the City.
S TAFF RECOMMENDAT ION
Staf f recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning with
that portion of the site which lies within the regulatory
floodway to be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had put the wrong date and time on the notice to area
property owners and the item needed to be deferred to allow
for proper notification.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the March 2,2000 meeting.The vote was 7 ayes,
0 noes and 4 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
One letter of support had been forwarded to the Commission.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
All notices had been properly completed.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D
NAME:Proposed changes to the Landscape and Tree
Protection Ordinance,Land Alteration Ordinance
and the Buffer Requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance (submitted by the Land Alteration and
Landscape Review Task Force).
STAFF REPORT
The Land Alteration and Landscape Review Task Force was
created in July,1998,to review the City of Little Rock's
Land Alteration and Landscape Ordinances and make
recommendations for possible changes.The Task Force
represented a good cross-section of the community and
included the following:
~Representatives of the Planning and City
Beautiful Commissions
~Landscape Architects
~Developers
~Neighborhood Groups
~Representatives of the League of Women Voters
and Tree Streets
Early on in the process,the Task Force agreed on work
program and to focus first on landscaping,tree protection
and land alteration or excavation.The Task Force members
reviewed the relevant Little Rock ordinances,as well as
ordinances from a number of cities from across the country.
The Task Force also heard from various individuals with
expertise in tree preservation and development standards.
The background work undertaken by the Task Force was very
thorough and was valuable to the members in their decision-
making process.Understanding what other communities had
adopted and implemented proved to be very beneficial in
helping the Task Force develop changes that were reasonable
and considerate of diverse interests.
The changes being proposed are intended to promote strong
development standards that will enhance the desirability ofLittleRockasaplacetoliveanddobusiness.The
recommendations being presented relate to landscaping,tree
protection,excavation and zoning buffer requirements.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
Following are the m~a'or changes for the three ordinances or
sections.
~Calls for use of registered landscape architect for
commercial developments over two (2)acres.
~Increases interior landscaping area requirements for
certain vehicular use areas.
~Increases tree planting requirements within new parkinglots.
~Adds irrigation and soil preparation requirements to
enhance preservation of landscaping.
~Increases perimeter landscaping width requirements for
vehicular use areas.
Tree Protection
~Calls for a permit prior to the removal of trees on all
properties except single family residences of less than
two acres and area zoned agriculture and forestry (AF)
and mining (M).
~Calls for a landscaping and tree preservation plan prior
to issuing a permit.
~Calls for preservation and/or an increase planting of
trees in buffers and parking lots.
~Provides for increased number of trees in large,barren
parking lots.
Land Alteration
~Calls for permits prior to land alteration or tree
clearing.
~Revises grading standards.
~Requires landscaping of slopes and cuts.
~Provides for penalties and corrective measures for
unlawful excavation.
Buffer Re irements
~Increases street and land use buffers.
~Street classifications would no longer be used to
determine maximum buffer width adjacent to the street.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
The Task Force met on a regular basis for approximately
eighteen months and held two public input meetings.In
addition to the community sessions,the Task Force also met
with developers and other interested parties on two
additional occasions.The Task Force took the full 18
months to finalize and agree on the changes because the
members felt it was necessary to try to address the issues
or concerns that had been raised during the process.
Because of the diverse input and comments,every effort was
made to reach an acceptable compromise on a number of the
proposed changes.The Task Force members feel that they
listened and the recommended ordinance amendments are the
result of a comprehensive and open process.
The Task Force members voted unanimously to accept the
proposed changes at their December 29,1999 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20,2000)
Tony Bozynski,Department of Planning and Development staff,
introduced the item and then reviewed several changes that
were omitted from the written drafts included in the
agendas.The changes were found in the Landscape Ordinance
and the tree protection section drafts.
John Baker,a member of the Land Alteration and Landscape
Review Task Force,then made a presentation about the
proposed ordinances.Mr.Baker referred to slides during
his presentation and provided the Commission with some
background and history.He also reviewed the charge of the
Task Force and then reviewed some of the major changes
proposed for the Landscape and Tree Protection Ordinance,
the Land Alteration Ordinance and zoning buffer
requirements.Mr.Baker then introduced task force members
that were present:Dottie Funk,Bob Callans,Troy Laha,
Mark Johnson,Ramsey Ball,Mary Underwood and Herb Hawn.
Ethel Ambrose,a member of the Coalition of Little Rock
Neighborhoods and Central High Neighborhood Association,
spoke in support of the proposed changes.Ms.Ambrose saiditwasagoodbeginningandindicatedtheneedformore
changes in the future.Ms.Ambrose also gave a brief
description of the Central High Urban Forestry Project.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
Sonja McCauley said she supported the changes and thanked
the Task Force members for their time and ef fort.
Ruth Bell,representing the League of Women Voters,said the
League strongly supported the proposed changes and described
various sections.Ms.Bell read from a written statement
and said the modifications strengthened the current
requirements and standards.
Pam Adcock,Planning Commission Chair,read a statement from
Margaret Leigh supporting the changes.
David Jones,a commercial realtor,said that additional time
was needed to review the changes and made reference to a
letter from Dickson Flake.Mr.Jones asked that the item be
deferred.
Hank Kelley,Flake and Kelley,addressed the Commission and
described several existing projects and how the proposed
changes could impact them.Mr.Kelley said that retailers
drive developers and the development.Mr.Kelley also said
that there would be a reduction in floor space on a site
because of the proposed changes.Mr.Kelley also requested
that the issue be deferred.
Jim Irwin suggested using existing developments to review
the proposed changes and said a deferral was needed.
Johnny Kincaid said the task force needed to quantify the
changes and analyze the potential impacts.Mr.Kincaid said
the proposed changes could cause a 20't reduction in
buildable area.Mr.Kincaid indicated that he agreed with
50 to 60 percent of the proposed changes and said a
reasonable solution should be reached on the remaining
portions.
John Flake spoke and a suggested a deferral for further
study.
Peggy Wilhem,representing the Sierra Club,spoke in support
of the proposed changes.
Nick Holmes said the proposed changes could require 20-25
percent additional land for increased buffers,etc.and
asked for more time.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
Greg Mueller asked that the item be deferred and then
described the potential impact on some existing projects.
Mr.Mueller indicated that a 140,000 square foot development
would be reduced to approximately 82,000 square feet and a
79,500 square foot building would lose about 20,000 square
feet.Mr.Mueller said that the task force'work needed
more analysis.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,expressed
concerns with the possibility of needing additional staff
because of the changes and not having the necessary
resources to fund one or more positions.
Comments were then offered by several commissioners.Hugh
Earnest said it was a reasonable request to develop numbers
based on the changes and mentioned the idea of raising
public funds for open space.Richard Downing questioned
whether the city could require existing parking lots to
conform to the new standards and said the city should
consider acquiring land to preserve open space.Bill Rector
discussed older areas and the potential impacts.
John Baker responded to some of the comments and said the
changes included some incentives for the central city.Mr.
Baker discussed existing parking lots and described some of
the changes.
Commissioner Judith Faust made some comments and said the
bigger issue was preserving green space and there were some
major questions that needed to be addressed.Commissioner
Faust also expressed some concerns with defining mature area
and staff's apparent lack of support.
Hank Kelley addressed the Commission and offered the use of
an engineer to assist with reviewing the changes.
There was a long discussion and comments were offered by
various commissioners.Several commissioners said a
deferral was the right course.
Additional comments were made and the Commission said that
answers were needed on costs and potential impacts.It was
agreed that the following needed to be addressed before the
next meeting.
1.Define mature area.
2.Apply proposed standards to several existing sites.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)
3.Review one or two undeveloped sites using proposed
standards.
4.Develop a budget for enforcing new standards.
5.Whether it is legal to require existing parking lots to
be brought up to the new standards.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 2,2000
Planning Commission hearing.The motion was approved by a
vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
John Baker,a member of the Land Alteration and Landscape
Review Task Force,made a brief presentation and updated the
Planning Commission on the task force efforts to address the
various issues that were raised at the January 20,2000
hearing.Mr.Baker said that the task force had selected
Frank Riggins,with the Mehlburger Firm,to provide the
comparisons for several sites,developed and undeveloped.
Mr.Baker also said that the task force is working with the
staff on defining mature areas and the task force,by vote,
had clarified their position on existing parking lots.
Mr.Baker indicated that the task force should have the
requested information ready for review at the April 13
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Richard Downing asked several questions about
amortization of existing parking lots.John Baker said that
staff had forwarded a request for an opinion to the City
Attorney'Office,but he did not know the status of the
request.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,said that
issue was being researched.Commissioner Downing asked that
the opinion be part of the information presented to the
Commission on April 13.
The item was deferred to the April 13,2000 meeting.
6
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:LUOO-16-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek
Planning District
Location:9010 Stagecoach Road
Receuest:Single Family tc Service Trades District
Source:Bob Richardson,Real Es tate Central
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District
from Single Family to Service Trades District.Service
Trades District provides for a selection of office,
warehousing,and industrial park activities that primarily
serve other office,service or industrial businesses.The
district is intended to allow support services to these
businesses and to provide for uses with an office component.
A Planned Zoning District is required for a development not
wholly office.
The proposed use is office —showroom —warehouse.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is
approximately 5.0 acres in size.To the north are single
family houses in an R-2 district.To the northwest are
areas of C-2 --Shopping Center District and C-3 —General
Commercial District that contain a single family house and a
strip center/gas station,respectively.To the east are
single family residences in an R-2 district.To the south
is a PDC for the golf driving range.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
This property is currently shown as Single Family on the
Land Use Plan.To the east is an area of Commercial with
single family houses and commercial areas.To the south are
areas of Mixed Use and Single Family and to the west,north
and south is Single Family.These areas of Mixed Use and
Single Family have single family residences in them.
August 17,1999,a change was made from Multi Family to
Mixed Use and Single Family along Stagecoach Road that.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-01
includes this application.
October 6,1998,a change was made from Community Shopping
to Commercial at the northwest corner of I-430 and I-30
(Otter Creek Mall site)8 of a mile to the southeast.
May 19,1998,a change was made from Single Family to
Suburban Office on Crystal Valley Road north of Stagecoach
of a mile to the northeast.
October 15,1996,a change was made from Single Family,
Park/Open Space and Public Institutional to Low Multi
Family,Park/Open Space and Public Institutional at the
northeast corner of Baseline Road and Col.Miller Road
(Eagle Hill Apartments)4 mile to the north.
April 2,1996,a change was made on Otter Creek Parkway at
Quail Run form Multi Family to Single Family 8 of a mile to
the southwest.
December 5,1995,a change was made from Mixed Office
Warehouse to Mixed Office Industrial at Baseline at I-430 on
the east side one mile to the east.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Stagecoach Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the plan.
Currently,the State of Arkansas is widening Stagecoach Road
into a four-lane section with turn lanes at the
intersection.A Class II bikeway is designated along
Stagecoach Road from Brodie Creek to County Line Road.This
bikeway,to be on both sides of the road,is part of the
widening project.
PARKS:
The new Otter Creek Park is under development further to the
southwest on Stagecoach Road.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
Currently a city recognized neighborhood action plan for
this area does not exist.The Otter Creek /Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan is in the process of being
formulated.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-01
ANALYSIS:
This application is for the western 5 acres of a 9.33+acre
tract.This tract is rectangular in shape with an average
length of 1234'almost a quarter of a mile depth)and has
approximately 375'f frontage along Stagecoach Road.
Currently,the site is vacant and partially wooded.There
is a small vacant furniture refinishing building on
Stagecoach Road.
This area is a developing suburban area.Otter Creek
subdivision is currently expanding to the northwest along
with the new Westfield subdivision located to the south of
this application and Wedgwood Subdivision located to the
west.New businesses are locating in the area of the
Baseline and Stagecoach Roads intersection and the Otter
Creek Parkway and Stagecoach Road intersection.
This area was included in a Land use Plan Amendment that was
passed on August 17,1999.That change was from Multi
Family to Mixed Use and Single Family.The amendment was
originated in response to the proposal of locating a branch
post office to the south of this site,but mirrored the
desires of the neighborhood plan steering committee.It is
a goal of the steering committee to concentrate non-
residential development along the principal streets.
The vast majority of the area shown on the map west of the
application,east of Otter Creek Subdivision,and south of
Baseline has been preliminary platted for single family
housing.Streets are shown on the graphic for two of the
subdivisions to the west and south (Wedgwood and Westfield,
respectively).Houses in these two subdivisions do not
appear on the graphic because of the coordination lag of
PAGIS and the planning department.
Typically,Service Trades Districts are located along
arterials with direct access to those roads.With no
frontage upon Baseline Road or Stagecoach Road,this
application relies upon access through the existing
commercial area to the east.Access through a dissimilar
use without any common activity is not logical.This
application would be bordered by single family on three
sides and penetrate too deeply into the single family area.
The two categories of Service Trades District and Single
Family are very different in many ways.The bulk,mass and
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-01
density of the buildings and vehicular use areas greatly
different in scale and are not compatible.The traffic
generated by the two is also very different and not
compatible.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood
Association,Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association,Crystal
Valley Property Owners Association.Staff has received five
comments from area residents.None are in support,one is
opposed to the change and four were neutral.The Otter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan,that is
currently being formulated and covers this site,is opposed
to the change.These five include the steering committee
comments.
STAFF RE COMMENDAT I ON S:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The Service
Trades District is too intense a use to be surrounded on
three sides by Single Family,does not have the proper
access to roadways and penetrates too deeply into the
residential areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 20,2000)
This item was deferred at the request of applicant due to
having only 7 commissioners present.This item will be
heard at the February 3,2000 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 3,2000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral.
The applicant requested it so that more time could be spent
to contact with the neighborhoods.This motion was made to
defer to the March 2,2000 meeting and a waiver of the
bylaws was necessary for the late request of the deferral.
The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO —16-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.
A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was
approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:F DOWNTOWN ZONING
REQUEST:Add new zoning classification for
Downtown
LOCAT ION:Generally from Arkansas River to I-630
and Cross Street to old Rock Island
railroad line
STAFF REPORT:
The Planning Commission approved the new classifications for
Downtown in September 1999.The Board of Directors has held
the rezoning in order to permit the Downtown Partnership
more time to examine the proposed ordinance requirements.
The Downtown Partnership formed a committee of their
Executive and Land Use Committees to review the proposals
(City Staff was invited to these meetings to provide
assistance and information).After four to five meetings
from November to early January the Committee discussed
concerns and developed consensus positions.
No changes are suggested for the "R4-A"residential district
nor is the area to be zoned "R-4A"or "UU"an issue.The
Partnership does recommend seven clarification or
improvements to the Urban Use District.They are:
1.Add the four "corridors"not listed as 'PrimaryStreets'o the 'Primary Street'efinition list.
2.Modify the no new drive-in/drive-through facility,so
as not to allow them on 'Primary Streets'but allow
other places).
3.Clarify that street trees are a requirement.
4.Change the transparency requirement back to 60 percent.
5.Require activities other than parking or a building
facade on the first floor of parking decks along
'Primary Streets'(No requirements on other streets)
6.Change the base building height from 3 to 5 stories,
with the "skyscraper zone"from 2"to 9 /Scott to
Broadway.
7.Change the front build-to line from 5 feet to zero
feet,and remove the "Integral Accessory Use"option.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)DOWNTOWN ZONING
The attached letter from the Partnership helps explain some
of the issues related to these changes.
None of the seven issues is new.Several were discussed at
length in September.None of the suggestions conflict with
the basic goals and vision as described by the Downtown
Vision for the Future and the other documents making up the
Downtown Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
Walter Malone,Planning Staf f,reminded the Commission that
last fall a draft Downtown Zoning Ordinance was approved.
Since then the Downtown Partnership has reviewed the draft
and now wishes to make several modifications or changes.
The Board of Directors will review the entire package
(including the commission action today)next Tuesday (March
7,2000).
Mr.Malone reviewed the seven general topics proposed for
changes or modification and explained some of the thinking
behind the changes.Staff is supportive of the requested
changes.
Jane Dickey,vice president of Downtown Partnership,
indicated the Partnership had worked on this for several
months (the end of last year and early this year).After
lively discussions a consensus was built around the issues
presented today.She indicated that she would answer any
questions the Commission might have.
Dickson Flake stated that these changes are an improvement.
On one issue,Mr.Dickson was a minority but would like the
Commission to consider his request,on the Primary Street,
issue.Broadway should not be included as a Primary Street
since it is not a Pedestrian Street and is a major traffic
street.In addition the zoning defines two large an area.
The Primary Streets should be limited to north of sixth and
east of Broadway.In response to a question from
Commissioner Earnest,Mr.Flake stated that the larger area
is a support area to Downtown and these regulations would be
detrimental to those uses.We need to maintain the
pedestrian orientation in the core area to make it more
successful.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)DOWNTOWN ZONING
In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley,Mr.
Dickson stated Broadway should be eliminated and North-South
Streets south of 6 and East-West Streets south of 6
Street.Commissioner Berry asked Mr.Flake to point out the
"core"on the map (generally).Commissioner Rahman stated
the regulations are there to encourage the area to become
more pedestrian friendly.
Commissioner Berry asked Ms.Dickey to review who is on the
Partnership.Ms.Dickey explained the membership and the
groups "Mission".Commissioner Berry asked if the group was
aware and supports the drafts main element —mix use
developed.Ms.Dickey stated they did.Commissioner Berry
asked why the Partnership believes height restrictions are
important.While the Partnership would welcome any major
new development downtown,it might be wise to have some
review because there may be other concerns or issues which
should be considered.Fire safety was an issue but so was
visual impact on some of Downtown'important structures and
areas.
The Partnership will look at the corridors one at a time and
bring back ideas for consideration by the Commission.In
response to Commissioner Nunnley,Ms.Dickey stated that the
corridors are the entrances to Downtown,what visitors see,etc.Therefore,it is important that these streets present
the best images of Little Rock.(Important in our "civiclife")
Commissioner Faust thanked the Partnership for their work.
Commissioner Downing asked about the timing for the
"overlays".Mr.Malone responded that the Partnership would
take the lead and staff would work with them.Christie
Godwin,Executive Director Downtown Partnership,indicated
that either Main or Capitol would be first.Commissioner
Downing stated it would be premature to except Mr.Flake's
request to reduce the Primary Streets.
Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,was called to the
microphone.The League has been involved from the beginning
of this process and would just like to clarify a few issues.
The first issue was the building height,exactly how high
could you build.Mr.Malone responded that the bonuses werestillinthedraft.The base height is two stories greater,
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)DOWNTOWN ZONING
one bonus is gone (parking decks),thus the result is about
one or two stairs higher than before,11 or 12 stairs.Mr.
Malone noted that the Partnership wishes to look further at
the bonuses and in the future this could change with
amendments .
Ms .Bell asked about the requirements on parking decks .Mr.
Malone stated that only the frontage along the Corridors had
requirements,anywhere else there is no requirement.Ms.
Bell indicated the League did have concerns about that
setting up two standards and the impact that would have on
pedestrians.Finally,Ms.Bell asked that the League be
included in the development of any "overlay districts"for
downtown.
Commissioner Hawn moved that the Commission endorse the
seven proposals presented by the Downtown Partnership and
that the Board include them in the new Downtown Zoning
Ordinance (second Commissioner Faust).By a vote of 9 for
0 against,the item was approved.
4
RECEIVED
,j)-'tN 3 i Pl|09
Iit l
January 27,2000
Mr.Cy Carney
City Manager 't4
City Hall
500 West Markham,Room 204
Little Rock,AR 72201
gU'e:
Inclusion in Development Goals in the Zoning Ordinance
Dear Cy:
I certainly want to convey my appreciation for you allowing us the time to review the
proposed zoning ordinance,and to work with the City Planning Staff to incorporate
input from the Downtown Partnership.We'e completed a series of four meetings with
members of various Partnership committees,and I am submitting a list of changes to
the proposed zoning ordinance we recommend be incorporated before they are adopted
by the City Board.The specific language for these proposed changes was drafted by
Walter Malone to be compatible with the existing ordinance,and I hope they meet with
vour approval.I don't feel these are major changes to the ordinance,but do provide
additional important steps in a strong direction towards development goals dow'ntown.
I v'ould be happy to meet xs ith the Planning Commission and present these ideas,
discuss them and ask for adoption,or I w ill proceed in any manner you might deem
appropriate in order to expedite acceptance of these proposed changes.Again,I
appreciate your willingness to allo~i us the time to discuss and propose these changes,
and I urge you to adopt what I think are very important items in the new ordinance.
While the primary goal of the Partnership and our discussions in the last few weeks has
been to expeditiously agree upon and present to vou any specific changes we think
should be n&ade in the zoning ordinance before it is approved by the Board,our very
strong secondary recommendation to you and the City Board,is to continue discussions
of the newly adopted ordinance and develop an ongoing process to continue making
changes in this ordinance as development occurs in the downtown area.As you know,
zoning requirements are very complex and specific,and we feel should be monitored
and revised as required in a grooving and dynamic area such as downtown Little Rock.
101 South Main,Little Rock,Arkansas 72201
PHONE (501)375-0121 FAX (501)375-1377
Mr.Cy Carney
City Manager
January 27,2000
Page Two
YVe think it v ould be prudent to discuss the implementation of an overlay district for
certain areas of downtown in order to insure compatible development,and address
specific needs and requirements of our urban core.To this end,v e would propose the
Planning Commission designate the Downtown Partnership to take the lead in chairing
meetings of representatives from the Planning Commission,the City Planning Staff,and
the pertinent Partnership committees,to discuss the merits of and develop,if needed,a
specific overlay district,as well as discuss the various developments approved in the
downtown area and the effect of our nev zoning ordinance on the type of development
we are all striving to achieve.
YVe think this is the most important part of our quest to conform to the vision plans of
the Six Bridges Plan,the Corridors Study,and the Framer,ork Plan adopted by the City
Board,and the continual monitoring of the permitting process should be done to assure
conformance to these plans.M'e think this continuing review process will help us
encourage development and not stifle it v ith over-burdensome regulations,and also
will develop the downtown in a manner compatible with our long-term goals.
W/e believe the following goals of development for a revitalized urban center in Little
Rock should be followed in granting any building permit
1.The planning principles of the Corridors Study and Six Bridges Plan,
and the Framework Plan will guide all development concepts;
2.Projects v ill recognize the original,and in some cases existing,built
street frontage by creating a continuous building facade on the street
at the property line;
3.Existing buildings of any historic age or having architectural character
will be viev ed as significant in any new'evelopment plans,and every
effort to preserve them or reuse them will be made;
4.New projects in the downtown will conform to the existing,and often
older,built form where possible,avoiding unnecessary front setbacks,
placing parking in the rear of projects,coupling auto access with the
parking areas and avoiding development styles typically designed for
lower density areas outside of the urban center;
Mr.Cy Carney
City Manager
January 27,2000
Page Three
5.Landscaping and streetscaping will be incorporated in projects to
the fullest degree possible,and;
6.New building facades will be as transparent as is feasible,utilizing
window openings in their street facades to encourage lively pedestrian
interaction.
Again Cy,I appreciate you and the planning commission allowing us this time to study
these ordinances.We feel we'e offered some good suggestions to incorporate into the
zoning plan,along with ideas for monitoring this plan in the future.But one of the
most important achievements of this discussion has been the interaction betv een public
and private groups,and serious input from all concerned who will be affected by this
ordinance,and who care about a viable downtown Little Rock.We believe this
discussion is healthy and necessary for all parties to work toward a common goal.I
realize this process is not quick or necessarily pleasant to execute,but we feel is very
necessary in achieving our common goal of a viable downtown Little Rock.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed with these proposed changes.
Sincerely,
~Jd
Robert East
President
RE/sic
Ordinance Changes:
Section 2:Definitions
Drop 'Integral accessory
use'rimarystreetdefinitionadd Ninth,Cumberland,Cross and Byrd streets to read as
follows:
Primary streets —means Capitol Avenue,Broadway,Byrd,Center,
Chester,Commerce,Cross,Cumberland,Main,Markham,Scott,
Spring,State,7 (west of Center),and 9 Streets.
Section 6:Urban Use District
C.3 Drop second sentence,read as follows:
No new drive-in or drive-through facilities may be visible or take
direct access from a primary street.
C.5 Add sentence stating street trees are required,read as follows:
Street trees a minimum of 3"caliper shall be required (type of trees
listed in landscape ordinance).The trees shall be Icoated a minimum
of 2'-0"off back of curb and shall be 30'-0"on center and no closer
than 30'-0"to street intersections,with a water source provided.The
tree canopy shall be maintained at least 8 feet above the sidewalk.
C.8 Change (first paragraph only)transparency requirement from 35 to 60
percent,read as follows:
Street-level floor.The ground-level (street-fronting)floor for non-
residential structures shall have a minimum of 60 percent facade area
transparent or window display.
C.10 A change parking structure requirement (remove entire subsection and
replace)to just the six corridors,read as follows:
Parking structures.Any parking structure with frontage along Capitol
Avenue,Broadway,Chester,IVlain,Markharn and Ninth Streets shall be
required to have active uses other than parking
(such as office,light retail,personal services and entertainment)
or a first floor building facade constructed to meet the standards of this
section along said frontage.
E.Change 'base'uilding heights to 5 stories and change the western boundary
of the no height area to Broadway,read as follows:
Height regulations.No building hereafter erected or structurally altered
shall exceed a height of five (5)stories or 75 feet,whichever is less.
Developments that provide residential uses are entitled to add two stories
to the structure.Any structure that is certified by CATA (Central Arkansas
Transit Authority)as providing a portion of the structure for mass transit
(such as a bus stop,etc.)is entitled to one bonus floor.All building height
bonuses are cumulative no to exceed fifteen (15)stories or 225 feet.
For those structures within the area described as,2"Street south to 9
Street and Scott Street west to Broadway,the structural height shall
governed by the "Adams Field Airport Zoning Ordinance"(Little Rock Code
of Ordinance"(Little Rock Code of Ordinances 7-57).
F.1 Change the front build-to-line to zero and remove the 20 foot option,the first
paragraph should read as follows:
Front yard.No setback,zero (0)foot build-to-line.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-6804
Owner:Lee and Greg Hatcher;Rush
Harding;Bob Alexander
Applicant:Lee Hatcher
Location:6800-6900 Pinnacle Valley Road
and adjoining property
Request:Rezone from R-2 to AF
Purpose:Residential,equestrianfacilitiesandprivate,soccer
practice field
Size:3 tracts totaling 133 .9+acres
Existing Use:Residential and equestrianfacilities
SURROUND IN G LAND US E AND ZON IN G
North —Undeveloped and Maumelle River;zoned AF and R-2
South —Railroad and Sparse Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Undeveloped and Sparse Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Railroad and undeveloped;zoned R-2
PUBL I C WORKS COMMENT S
1 .Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the Public.
With Buildin Permit
2.Grading permit and development permits for special
flood hazard area are required prior to construction.
3.NPDES and grading permits are required prior to
construction,site grading and drainage plan will need
to be submitted and approved.
4.Provide parking and access to soccer fields.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located outside of the City and is not on a CATA
bus route .
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6804
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site
were notified.Staff has no database to notify residents
located outside of the City.The River Valley Property
Owners Neighborhood Association was notified of the
rezoning.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Pinnacle Planning District.The
adopted Plan recommends Single Family for the site with open
space recommended for that area within the floodway.AF is
an appropriate zoning for this property on the Urban Fringe.
Single family is an allowable use in AF and no plan changeisrequired.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The owners of three tracts totaling 133.9+acres located at
6800-6900 Pinnacle Valley Road are requesting that the
zoning be reclassified from "R-2"Single Family to "AF"
Agriculture and Forestry District.The property is located
on the west side of Pinnacle Valley Road and is bounded by
the Little Rock and Western Railroad on the south and theLittleMaumelleRiveronthenorth.The property is outside
of the city limits but is within the City'extraterritorial
zoning jurisdiction.
Ownership of the tract is roughly divided into thirds.The
southern 41.9+acre tract is owned by Greg and Lee Hatcher.
The Hatchers are in the process of building private soccer
fields on the property for the exclusive use of their
children's soccer teams.The fields will not be for public
use and are to be used for practice and scrimmage games.
The middle 52+acre tract is owned by Rush Harding.The
Hardings have recently built equestrian facilities on thistract,including barns,stalls,pastures and riding areas.
The northern 40+acre tract is owned by Bob Alexander.Thistractisundevelopedandnospecificplanshavebeen
submitted for the property.
The property is located in a sparsely developed area on the
fringe of the City.The City limits follow the railroad,
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6804
south of the tract.Large areas of undeveloped property
abut the site on the west and north.Scattered single
family homes on larger tracts and larger undeveloped
properties are to the east of the site.A newer,single
family residential subdivision is being developed south of
the tract,beyond the railroad tracks,in the City.A
substantial portion of the 133.9i acres is in the floodplain
and is impacted by the Little Maumelle River and its
tributaries and drainage-ways.Portions of the site are in
the regulatory floodway.
Staff believes the requested AF zoning is appropriate for
the site.The viability of single family development on the
property is questionable,due to floodway/floodplain
concerns.The AF district is intended to provide a smooth
transition between purely rural areas and newly urbanized
areas.Permitted uses in AF 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.
The requested AF zoning is compatible with uses and zoning
in the area.No Land Use Plan Amendment is necessary to
accommodate the rezoning.Those portions of the site whichliewithintheregulatoryfloodwayshouldbezoned"OS"Open
Space and protected by a floodway easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staf f recommends approval of the requested AF zoning with
that portion of the site which lies within the regulatory
floodway to be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 1 7,2 0 0 0 )
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6804
submitted a letter on February 9,2000 requesting that the
item be deferred to the March 2,2000 meeting.The
applicant had a previously scheduled out of town commitment.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the March 2,2000 meeting.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicants were present.There were several persons
present both in support and in opposition.One letter of
opposition had been forwarded to the Commission.Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Earnest noted that he had met on the site with
Greg Hatcher,the applicant;Dr.Laura Otter,a neighboring
property owner;and Director Larry Lichty.Several other
commissioners commented that they too had had contact with
the applicant.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if this issue could have been
addressed through a process other than AF zoning.Jim
Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,responded that
AF zoning was the appropriate action to accommodate the
proposed uses.In response to a question from Commissioner
Nunnley,Mr.Lawson described the proposed uses for two of
the tracts and noted that no specific use was being proposed
for Mr.Alexander'tract.
At Commissioner Rahman's request,Mr.Lawson and Dana
Carney,also of the Planning Staff,further discussedstaff'reasoning for supporting the AF zoning.
Scott Trotter,attorney representing the applicants,
addressed the Commission.He recognized the children'
soccer team and their parents who were present at the
meeting.Mr.Trotter described the proposed use of the
property.He noted the letter of opposition from Drs.Otter
and Henry and stated that the applicants were not even aware
that a house was located nearby,due to the distance and thetrees.He noted the offers made by the Hatchers to the
Doctors (outlined in a March 1,2000 letter)to help
mitigate any impact from the soccer fields.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6804
Rush Harding,the owner of the tract occupied by the
equestrian facility,addressed the Commission.He stated
that he was surprised at any objection,considering that the
entire property was considered at one time for development
of a City Soccer complex.Mr.Harding stated that he had a
seven figure investment in his property and he would not
have sold the land to the Hatchers if he thought it would
impact his investments.He asked the Commission to look at
the Hatcher'motivation,which in his opinion was
sacrificial interest,not profit.Mr.Harding stated that
he felt the project would be a quality addition to
development of the overall area.
Greg Hatcher addressed the Commission.He stated that he
did not want a conflict with neighboring property owners and
had tried to address their concerns.
Mrs.Regina Norwood,of 7311 Hidden Valley Road,stated that
she had suspicion about where this development would end.
She asked if this use was related to the City's past effort
to develop soccer fields in the area.Ms.Norwood commented
on her concerns about traffic,noise and lighting.
Rosanna Henry,of the area property owners association,
stated she had concerns about the proposed soccer fields.
She cited traffic problems on Pinnacle Valley Road.
Robert Henry,of 6000 Rummel Road,addressed the Commission
in opposition to the rezoning.He stated his primary
opposition was to the soccer fields but that there were
other uses in AF that were objectionable.Mr.Henry
suggested a Planned Development to allow the soccer fields,
with no lights.He stated that he was fine with the AF
zoning proposed for the Alexander and Harding tracts.In
response to a question from Commissioner Rahman,Mr.Henry
stated that his home was located 250-300 feet from the
soccer field.
Laura Otter,of 6000 Rummel Road,also spoke in opposition.
She complemented Mr.Harding's equestrian facility.Ms.
Otter stated that although you cannot see her home from the
soccer fields,you can see the soccer fields from her home.
She expressed concerns about noise and lighting.Ms.Otter
stated that Mrs.Hatcher did come to her home to discuss the
issue and she was appreciative of Mr.Hatcher'letter and
his offers.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6804
A motion was made to approve the rezoning,as presented.
Commissioner Berry asked if the Hatcher letter constituted
conditions to be attached to the zoning.Steve Giles,of
the City Attorney'Office,responded that it did not.
Commissioner Downing commented that the letter may be an
agreement between the parties.
Commissioner Earnest stated that he supported staff'
recommendation and that he felt it would be a good use of
the land.
In response to a request from Commissioner Berry,staff
listed the permitted uses in AF.
The vote on the motion was 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
6
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:LUOO-16-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning
District
Location:13600 Vimy Ridge Road
Recenest:Low Density Residential to Commercial
Source:Ken Harper,Harper Development
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District
from Low Density Residential to Commercial.The Commercial
category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale of
products,personal and professional services,and general
business activities.Commercial activities very in type and
scale,depending on the trade area that they serve.The
applicant wishes to develop the property for general retail
business.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family
Residential and is approximately 8.41+acres in size.The
property is surrounded on the north and west side by vacant
tracts of land zoned R-2 Single Family Residential.The
Quail run subdivision is located in the R-2 zone about a
half mile north of the applicant'property.Vacant land to
the east is zoned R-2 Single Family Residential while to the
Southeast is a piece of property cleared for retail
development zoned C-1 General Commercial.A gas station /
convenience store is also located in a C-3 General
Commercial zoning district located across the street to the
southeast.The property to the south is located in Saline
County.It is zoned R-1 Single Family.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 4,1997 three changes took place from Low
Density Residential to Single Family along both sides of
Vimy Ridge Road within a mile north of the applicant's
property.
On November 4,1997 a change was made from Low Density
Residential to Commercial at the northwest corner of the
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-02
Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection east of the
applicant's property.
In November 21,1995 various changes were made on both sides
of Vimy Ridge Road on large tracts of land within a mile
north of the applicant's property,one of those changes
included the change from Single Family to Low Density
Residential on the applicant's property.
Areas shown as Single Family surround the site under review
on the west,north,and east.Southeast of the applicant's
property are two areas shown as Commercial on the northwest
and northeast corners of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line
Road.The area to the south of the applicant'property is
located in Saline County.The Shannon Hills Comprehensive
Development Plan shows the southwest corner of the
intersection as Commercial and the southeast corner as
Park/Elementary school.The remainder of the area along
Vimy Ridge Road and County line road is shown as
Residential.
MAS TER S TREE T PLAN:
Vimy Ridge Road is shown as a minor arterial from Alexander
Road to the Saline County line.County Line Road is shown
as a minor arterial from Vimy Ridge Road with a proposed
extension east as a minor arterial to connect to the
proposed South Loop.Vimy Ridge Road is also shown as
continuing south from the County Line through Shannon Hills
as a minor arterial on the Central Arkansas Transit System
(CARTS)Future Classification Plan.The CARTS Future
Classification Plan shows County Line Road as a major
collector from Vimy Ridge Road to the Donnie Drive /Joan
Drive intersection in Shannon Hills.Both the Master Street
Plan and the CARTS Future Classification Plan show County
Line Road continuing west from the intersection with Vimy
Ridge Road as a residential street.
PARKS:
The Master Parks Plan does not show any parks,existing or
proposed,effected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The Chicot West /1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan states
the recommendation of concentrating "...development efforts in
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-02
the more urbanized northern portion of the study area..."and
"...view the southern portion of the study area as an 'urbanreserve'o be developed as market forces become stronger in
the area."This amendment is located next to the southern
boundary of the study area.
ANALYSIS:
Much of the area surrounding the Vimy Ridge /County Line
Road intersection consists of large tracts of undeveloped
land in a semi-rural setting.This site is located on the
southern edge of the city limits as well as the southern
edge of the county.Carrington Place and Southfork Ranch
subdivisions lie about a half-mile to the west on County
Line Road in Saline County.Combined,the preliminary plats
for the subdivisions show 551 proposed single family homes.
Both subdivisions are in the process of developing and have
not achieved full build-out.Approximately 165 have been
built to date.
The southwest corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road
intersection is shown as Commercial and is a vacant piece of
property that could be zoned for potential commercial
development in the future.In addition,the buffer provided
by the Low Density Residential located between the
applicant's property and the Quail Run subdivision would be
greatly reduced.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood
Association,and Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association.
At time of printing,Staff has received no comments from
area residents or neighborhood associations.
S TAF F RE COMMENDAT I ON S:
Staff believes the change is premature and therefore not
appropriate.The area shown as Commercial on the southwest
corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection
provides an area for future Commercial uses.This area will
be reviewed in a year or so as part of the Chicot West I-30
South Neighborhood Action Plan review.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-16 —02
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Randy Manus for Ken Harper Development represented the
applicant.Mr.Manus presented the applicant'request to
the commission and described the applicant's proposed
development.The applicant's representative argued that
there is not enough commercial development in the area to
meet the growing demands of residence in the area.In
addition,Mr.Manus stated that the applicant'proposal had
the support of area residents and the Mayor of Shannon
Hills.
Jeff Harper,the applicant,added that his development would
serve the new residential growth occurring in Saline County.
Troy Laha spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Laha
expressed a complaint about the width of Vimy Ridge and
County Line roads.Mr.Laha argued that property in the
area around the Vimy Ridge /County Line intersection
violated erosion control ordinances.Mr.Laha stated that
the area was not growing because of the schools.The schools
in Saline County are already and the Little Rock School
District does not have plans for expansion in this area.
Norm Floyd spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Floyd's
primary objections centered on the applicant's clearing of
land without a grading permit.The buffers were all
bulldozed.Mr.Floyd stated that he would only support
commercial development in the area as a conditional use
permit.Mr.Floyd closed with a comment that area residents
did not support the zone change.
Janet Berry spoke in opposition to the item.Ms.Berry
stated residents in the area struggle with changes caused by
developments in the area.Ms.Berry stated a preference
for Neighborhood Commercial land uses in the area as opposed
to Commercial land uses.
Chair Pam Adcock expressed concern about the removal of
buffers on the property and asked if a grading permit was
issued for the applicant's property.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-16 —02
Bob Turner,city staff,stated that a grading permit was not
issued.
Norm Floyd gave a brief description of the clearing and
grading of the property in question and also stated that the
Public Works Department issued a stop work order.
Commissioner Downing asked a question about who performed
the grading on the property.
Jim Lawson,city staff,stated that the Landowner cleared
the land and a stop work order was issued.
Jeff Harper stated not all of the trees were cleared from
the land and that he received a permit from the state.Mr.
Harper stated that the property on the hill behind the site
of the Dollar General Store remained wooded.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
denied with a vote of 0 ayes,9 noes and 2 absent.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU00-16-03
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Otter Creek Planning
District
Location:12800 County Line Road.
R~e eat:Single Family to Commercial
Source:Doug Loftin
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Otter Creek Planning District
from Single Family to Commercial.The Commercial category
includes a broad range of retail and wholesale of products,
personal and professional services,and general business
activities.Commercial activities very in type and scale,
depending on the trade area that they serve.The applicant
wishes to develop the property under review for a day care
center and a mini-storage warehouse.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2 Single Family
Residential and is approximately 3.54 +acres in size.The
property to the north and east is zoned R —2 Single Family
Residential and is occupied by the Irish Spring subdivision.
A convenience store is located to the west on a piece of
property zoned C-3 General Commercial at the northeast
corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection.
The property to the south lies in Saline County and in the
city limits of Shannon Hills.It is zoned R-1 Single
Family.Directly across county Line road lies Davis
Elementary school,part of the Bryant School district.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 4,1997 three changes took place from Low
Density Residential to Single Family along both sides of
Vimy Ridge Road with in a mile north of the applicant's
property.
On November 4,1997 a change was made from Low Density
Residential to Commercial at the northwest corner of the
Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection about 300 feet
west of the applicant's property.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
In November 21,1995 various changes were made on both sides
of Vimy Ridge Road on large tracts of land within a mile
north of the applicant's property,one of those changes
included the change Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial
west of the applicant's property on the northeast corner of
the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection west of the
applicant's property.
The applicant'properties,as well as the property to the
north and east,are all shown as Single Family on the Land
Use Plan West of the applicant'property are two areas
shown as Commercial on the northwest and northeast corners
of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road.The area to the
south of the applicant's property is located in Saline
County.The Shannon Hills Comprehensive Development Plan
shows the southwest corner of the intersection as Commercial
and the southeast corner as Park/Elementary school.The
remainder of the area along Vimy Ridge Road and County line
road is shown as Residential.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Vimy Ridge Road is shown as a minor arterial from Alexander
Road to the Saline County line.County Line Road is shown
as a minor arterial from Vimy Ridge Road with a proposed
extension east as a minor arterial to connect to the
proposed South Loop.Vimy Ridge Road is also shown as
continuing south from the County Line through Shannon Hills
as a minor arterial on the Central Arkansas Transit System
(CARTS)Future Classification Plan.The CARTS Future
Classification Plan shows County Line Road as a major
collector from Vimy Ridge Road to the Donnie Drive /Joan
Drive intersection in Shannon Hills.Both the Master Street
Plan and the CARTS Future Classification Plan show County
Line Road continuing west from the intersection with Vimy
Ridge Road as a residential street.
PARKS:
The Master Parks Plan does not show any parks,existing or
proposed,effected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The Chicot West /I-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan states
the recommendation of concentrating "...development efforts in
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-16-03
the more urbanized northern portion of the study area..."and
"...view the southern portion of the study area as an 'urban
reserve'o be developed as market forces become stronger in
the area."This amendment is located next to the southern
boundary of the study area.
ANAL YS I S:
Much of the area surrounding the Vimy Ridge /County Line
Road intersection consists of large tracts of undeveloped
land in a semi —rural setting.R.L.Davis Elementary
School lies across the street from the applicant's.
Commercial uses across from a school on a street may cause
traffic conflicts from both the loading and unloading of
school students and the commercial traffic throughout the
day.The undeveloped tract of land on the southwest corner
of the intersection provides for future development of
commercial areas.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association,Otter
Creek Homeowners Association,Quail Run Neighborhood
Association,and Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received 17 comments from area residents.None
are in support and 17 are opposed to the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is premature and therefore not
appropriate.The area shown as Commercial on the southwest
corner of the Vimy Ridge /County Line Road intersection
provides an area for future Commercial uses.This area will
be reviewed in a year or so as part of the Chicot West I-30
South Neighborhood Action Plan review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Doug Loftin,the applicant,stated that the property was
improperly zoned R-2 residential instead of multi-family.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
The applicant would prefer a commercial zoning,but if
denied,would want a multi-family zoning.Mr.Loftin gave a
description of his proposed development.
Joe Longinotti spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.
Longinotti opposed the development of either commercial
property or a day care center,next to his property.
Donna Jones spoke in opposition to the item.Ms.Jones
expressed concern that a the proposed development would
flood her property and complained that the gas station on
the corner of Vimy Ridge and County Line Road caused
flooding on her property.
Michelle Ready spoke in opposition to the item.Ms.Ready
stated that development of the applicant's property would
cause drainage problems and added concerns about noise form
a daycare facility.Ms.Ready closed by adding a concern
about the potential for increased traffic in the area.
Chair Pam Adcock asked if several options could work to
develop the property without a land use plan change to
commercial.The applicant expressed an interest in
construction of either a day care center or development of
residential units.
Winston Simpson,Superintendent of Bryant School District,
spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Simpson expressed
concerns about the safety of children attending,and walking
to Davis Elementary School.Mr.Simpson stated that he did
not oppose development of a day care on the property,but
opposed commercial development on the property.
Mack Blann spoke in opposition to the item.Mr.Blann
stated that any development would hurt the property values
of area residents and added that he would prefer that the
property in question would be developed for residential
purposes.The speaker closed his remarks with concerns
about drainage.
Doug Loftin requested a deferral on the item.Mr.Loftin
wanted time to arrive at a consensus with the area property
owners on the issue of how to best develop the property in
question.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO ~:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-16-03
Commissioner Mizan's expressed thanks for participation and
comments made by a representative of the Bryant Schoal
District in the meeting.
Commissianer Hawn requested that the Public Works Department
study the drainage issue in the vicinity of the property
discussed in this item.
Commissioner Downing expressed concern abaut impraperly
zoning of the property in cyxestion made by Mr.Loftin.
Mr.Lawson,city staff,stated that the property in question
is zoned R-2 Single Family,but if a mistake was made,city
staff would request that the Board of Directors change the
zoning of the property back to the original zoning.
A motion was made ta defer the item to the April 13 meeting
and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 naes and 2 absent.
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6811
Owner:Estate of Patrick Henry Sullivan/
Thelma Sullivan,Administrator
Applicant:Ed Willis,Financial Center
Corporation
Location:6400 Patrick Country Road
Request:Rezone f rom R-2 to 0-3
Purpose:Future Office Development
Size:8.64+acres
Existing Use:Single Family residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
South —Wooded and Church Site;zoned R-2 with C.U.P.
East —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned MF-18 and R-2
West —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned 0-3 and R-2
PUBL I C WORKS COMMENT S
1.Patrick Country Road is listed on the Master Street Plan
as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
With Buildin Permit
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development (including 100%bridge construction).
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.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29-186(e)
will be required.
7.A Grading Permit per Secs.29-186(c)and (d)will be
required.
8.Contact the ADPC&E for approval.
March 2,2000
I
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6811
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site and the
Johnson Ranch and Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Associations
were notified of the rezoning.There are no residences
within 300 feet of the site.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Pinnacle Planning District.The
Land Use Plan was amended on November 16,1999 (Ordinance
No.18,138)to Office for this site.The amendment was
instituted by the applicant as the required prerequisite to
this rezoning.The 0-3 request conforms to the recently
amended Land Use Plan.The property is not within an area
covered by a neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 8.64+
acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "0-3"General OfficeDistrict.The property is currently occupied by an older,
single-family residence and several outbuilding.The
structures are located on the southern half of the property.
The northern half is currently wooded.No specific
development is proposed for the site at this time.
The property is located on the west side of Patrick Country
Road,approximately 1,100 feet north of Cantrell Road (Ark.
Hwy.10).The surrounding area is rural in nature,
characterized primarily by large tracts of undeveloped land.
The R-2 zoned property to the south is occupied by a church.
The portion of the church property nearest the applicant's
tract is currently wooded and undeveloped.A conditional
use permit has been approved showing future phases of the
church being built in this area.Across Patrick Country
Road to the east is "The Ranch",a mixed use development.
The MF-18,R-2 and 0-2 properties east of Patrick Country
Road are undeveloped and mostly wooded."The Ranch"is
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6811
being developed by this applicant.The R-2 and 0-3 zoned
properties to the north and west of this site are wooded and
undeveloped.These 100+acres to the north and west are
also owned by the applicant.
On November 16,1999 the Pinnacle District Land Use Plan was
amended to Office for this site.This 0-3 General Office
rezoning request is the appropriate follow-up action to that
plan amendment.
Staff believes the requested 0-3 zoning is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area and conforms to the recently
amended Land Use Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6812
Owner:Norma Fay Nash
Applicant:Norma Fay Nash
Location:2824 West 12 Street
Request:Rezone from I-2 to C-3
Purpose:Redevelop the site for a liquor
s tore
Size:.11 acres
Existing Use:Vacant commercial building
SURROUND ING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Organ builders shop and parking lot;zoned I-2
South —EZ Mart;zoned C-3 and I-2
East —Gas station and auto repair;zoned C-3
West —Liquor store and furniture sales business;
zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.West 12 is listed on the Master Street as a minor
arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 40 feet from
centerline is required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the Capitol Hill,Pine to
Woodrow,Central High and Stephens Area Faith Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-630 Planning District.The
adopted plan recommends Commercial for this property and the
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6812
adjacent properties which front onto West 12 Street.The
C-3 zoning request conforms to the adopted plan.The siteiswithintheareacoveredbytheStephensAreaNeighborhood
Action which was adopted by resolution of the Planning
Commission on July 22,1999 and by resolution of the Board
of Directors on October 19,1999.The Action Plan
recommends Commercial for this tract.An action statement
within the Economic Development Goals of the Plan is to
"bring business to 12 "and Woodrow Streets (establish as a
high-priority Economic Development Concentration Area)."An
action statement within the Neighborhood Revitalization
Goals of the Plan is to "work with Zoning and Code
Enforcement to eliminate liquor stores."Although the two
action statements do appear to create a conflict for thisspecificapplicant,staff believes the C-3 zoning request
conforms to and meets the spirit of the neighborhood action
plan.The applicant's proposal will not result in an
additional liquor store but is to result in the
redevelopment of the corner.
STAFF ANALYS I S
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .11 acretractfrom"I-2"Light Industrial to "C-3"General
Commercial district.The property is occupied by an older,
frame and masonry,commercial building.The lot is part of
a larger ownership owned by the applicant.The applicantalsoownsthepropertyadjacenttothewest,directly at the
northeast corner of West 12 and Woodrow Streets.A liquorstoreislocatedonthecorner,C-3 zoned property.The
applicant proposes to relocate the liquor store into the
building on the west (on the I-2 zoned property)as a
temporary measure while the current liquor store building is
removed and a new store built in its place.At that time,
the store will relocate to the new building and the building
on the east will be removed to provide additional parking.
In order to accommodate the temporary move and the future
use of the tract as parking for the liquor store,the
property needs to be rezoned from I-2 to C-3.
The property is located within the Woodrow Street/12Streetcommercialnodeandissurroundedbyavariety on
nonresidential uses and zoning.As was previously
mentioned,a liquor store is located on the C-3 zoned
property adjacent to the west.An appliance and furniturestoreislocatedonC-3 zoned property farther west,across
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)PILE NO.:Z-6812
Woodrow Street.A gas station/auto repair business is
located on the C-3 zoned property adjacent to the east.An
EZ Mart convenience store occupies the C-3 and I-2 zoned
property across West 12 Street to the south.An organ
building business is located on I-2 zoned property adjacent
to the north.Numerous other commercial businesses are
located in the immediate vicinity,along West 12 and
Woodrow Streets.
The I-630 District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for
the property.The commercial zoning request also conformstotheStephensAreaNeighborhoodActionPlan.
Staff believes the C-3 zoning request is compatible with
uses and zoning in the area and conforms to the adopted Land
Use Plan and Neighborhood Action Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning forthis.11+acre tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by avoteof9ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6813
Owner:Terry-Pincus
Applicant:Jim Gray
Location:9400 Stagecoach
Request:Rezone from R-2 to MF-12
Purpose:Add to adjacent property for
future multifamily development
Size:4.98+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,wooded
SURROUND ING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Golf driving range;zoned PCD (proposed for
rezoning to PCD and R-2)
South —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned MF-12
East —Church;zoned MF-18 and Single Family;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Stagecoach Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from new centerline is required.
With Buildin Permit
2.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development .
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.
6.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29 —186(e)
will be required.
7.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29-186(b)will be required.
8.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283
will be required.
9.Contact the ADPC6E for approval prior to start of work.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6813
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the Otter Creek and Crystal
Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The property is located within the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The adopted plan recommends Mixed Use for the
eastern 600+feet of the tract nearest Stagecoach Road and
Single Family for the remaining 270+feet to the west.MX
does allow for residential uses,including multifamily.A
100 foot wide easement runs east to west through the
property.The easement renders the northern half of the
tract virtually unbuildable.Of the remaining property
south of the easement,only a very small portion lies within
the area designated single family.In staff's opinion it is
appropriate to tie the development of this tract to the MF—
12 property to the south since the easement prohibits full
development of the tract on its own and also acts as a
barrier to tying development of the tract to the property on
the north.
Prior to August 17,1999,the Land Use Plan recommended
multifamily for the tract.On that date,the plan was
amended to its current mixed use/single family designation
in response to a proposed post office development on nearby
property (Ord.No.18,091).The Mixed Use/Single Family
designation conforms to the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan which was a work in progress at the
time and is on the Planning Commission's March 2,200Q
agenda.A stated goal of the Action Plan is to limit future
multifamily development to those properties which are
currently zoned multifamily.
At staff's suggestion,the applicant has offered to zone the
area of the easement and the small portion of the tract
north of the easement to OS Open Space,leaving only a
relatively small area south of the easement to actually be
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6813
zoned MF-12.This further strengthens staff's opinion that
the zoning request is appropriate.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 4.98+
acre tract from R-2 to MF-12.The property is currently
undeveloped.Once rezoned,the property will be added to
the 10.2 acre,MF-12 zoned tract adjacent to the south for
future multifamily development.The tract averages 248 feet
in width and 920 feet in depth.A 100 foot wide easement
covers the north half of the eastern 650 feet before it
angles downward to the southwest corner of the tract.
The property is bordered by an undeveloped,wooded,10+
acre,MF-12 zoned tract to the south.Undeveloped R-2 zoned
property is adjacent to the west.A church is located on an
MF-18 zoned tract across Stagecoach Road to the east.The
large tract to the north is zoned PCD and contains a golf
driving range.On February 17,2000,the Commission was
scheduled to review several issues related to the driving
range property.These included:a revocation of the PCD,
returning the property to R-2;a preliminary plat creating 4
nonresidential lots nearer Stagecoach Road and setting aside
a 14+acre tract to the rear for future single family
development;and a short form PCD to allow C-2 uses on one
of the 4 nonresidential lots.
Staff believes the applicant's rezoning request to be
appropriate for this tract.The 100 foot wide easement
impacts the tract to the degree that it is virtually
unbuildable for a freestanding use.The location of the
easement along the north half and western portion of the
tract limits the developable portion to the south,adjacent
to the MF-12 tract.It appears to be reasonable to develop
this area in conjunction with development of the tract to
the south.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Use
(MX)for the eastern 600 feet of the tract.Mixed use
allows for residential development,including multifamily.
The western 300+feet of the tract lie within an area
designated single family by the Land Use Plan.Of this 300
foot area,only a small portion lies outside of the 100 foot
easement.
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6813
The applicant has agreed to zone the area of the easement
and the small portion of the tract north of the easement to
Open Space (OS).This leaves only a small area south of the
easement to actually be zoned MF-12.The area of Open Space
zoning may be counted in determining the allowable density
for the tract.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION
Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-12 zoning,
with the area of the easement and the area north of the
easement to be zoned OS,Open Space.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicant was present.There were several objectors and
interested parties present.Many letters of opposition had
been received and forwarded to the commissioners.Staff
presented the item and recommended approval of the MF-12
zoning with the area of the easement and the area north of
the easement to be zoned OS,Open Space.
The applicant,Jim Gray,stated that he would reserve his
comments to respond to the opposition.Cathy Coston,chair
of the Steering Committee for the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Action Plan,addressed the Commission.On
behalf of the committee,Ms.Cos ton asked the Commission to"stick to the Plan."As an individual,Ms.Coston stated
that she supported the zoning request.She stated that the
best possible use of the property was to tie development of
the tract to the property adjacent to the south.Ms.Coston
stated that there would be some increased impact from the
additional multifamily but not so great as to warrant
denial.She stated that there were other Steering Committee
members who agreed with her.
Janet Berry,of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,
stated she was neutral on the issue but she did support the
OS zoning in exchange for an increased number of units.
Norm Floyd stated he also supported the requested
multifamily zoning.Mr.Floyd stated it was a "sense of
doing what's right"to tie development of this tract to the
adjacent 10 acre multifamily site.
4
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z —6813
Larry Welch,of 16001 Crystal Valley Road,spoke in
opposition.Mr.Welch said the area did not need more
mobile homes or more apartments.
Oley Rooker,president of the Crystal Valley Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition.He asked those present
who were in opposition to stand.Approximately 12 persons
stood.Mr.Rooker voiced concerns about area stormwater
drainage,increased residential density and traffic.
David Henning,of 9301 Stagecoach Road,stated he was also
concerned about drainage problems in the area.
Barbara Price,of 9608 Stagecoach Road,also voiced concerns
about drainage problems and traffic.
At this point in the meeting,there were only 8 commissioners
present.Chair Pam Adcock offered Mr.Gray the opportunity
to defer the item.Mr.Gray chose to continue.
In response to a question from the Commission,Public WorksDirectorBobTurnerdiscussedthedrainageissuesinthe
area and the City's stormwater detention ordinances.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the discussion of drainage and
runoff issues was germaine to the issue of rezoning.Deputy
City Attorney Steve Giles responded that it should not be
the controlling issue but it should be an issue to be taken
into consideration.
Lynn Love,of 5 Westfield Circle,spoke in opposition.
Commissioner Earnest asked Mr.Turner to respond to a
statement that the drainage structures under Stagecoach Road
were causing an impediment to drainage in the area.Mr.
Turner responded that the ongoing expansion of Stagecoach
Road was an Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department
project and he could not immediately address construction
issues related to the project.
Commissioner Hawn commented that the zoning request did
conform to the Land Use Plan.
A motion was made to approve the MF-12 and OS zoning.The
motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,1 noe,3 absent and
1 abstaining (Nunnley).
5
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6815
Owner:Delta Coleman,Inc.
Applicant:John Fendley and Terrance Dolan
Location:8806 Mabelvale Pike
Request:Rezone from R-2 to I-2
Purpose:Future,unspecified light
industrial development
Size:20+acres
Existing Use:Vacant,undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped,partially wooded;zoned R-2
South —AHTD Facilities and Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Single Family,Chemical plant and AHTDfacilities;zoned R-2
West —Undeveloped,partially wooded;zoned R-2
PUBLI C WORKS COMMENTS
1.Mabelvale Pike is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector.A dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline is required.
With Buildin Permit
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
4.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec.29 —186(e)
will be required.
5.A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec.
29 —186 (b)will be required.
6.A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec.8-283
will be required.
7.Contact the ADPC6E-LRD for approval prior to start work.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6815
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property within 200 feet of the site,all
residents within 300 feet and the Town and Country
Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning
request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located within the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan was amended on December 20,
1999 to Light Industrial (Ordinance No.18,172).The plan
amendment was initiated by the applicants as the required
prerequisite to this rezoning request.The I-2 rezoning
request conforms to the recently amended Plan.The
applicant has agreed to zone a 50 foot wide OS Open Space
strip along those portions of the property adjacent to
single family residences.The site is not within an area
covered by a neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped,20 acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to "I-2"
Light Industrial and "OS"Open Space.The property is
mostly wooded,with some cleared area on the east end.No
specific development is proposed at this time.Access to
the property is via a private,60 foot road easement off of
Mabelvale Pike.The applicant has proposed to zone two,50
foot wide OS strips at the southwest and southeast corners,
the only portions of the tract adjacent to single family
developed properties.
The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Departmentfacilitiesarelocatedonalarge,R-2 zoned tract adjacent
to the south.The southwest corner of the tract abuts one
single family residence.The R-2 zoned tracts adjacent to
the north and west are undeveloped.Portions of these
tracts are cleared although they are mostly wooded.One
single family home is adjacent to the southeast corner of
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6815
the tract,at the entrance to Mabelvale Pike.The applicant
has proposed a 50 foot X 200 foot OS strip in this area
closest to the residence.A chemical manufacturing plant
and additional AHTD facilities are located across Mabelvale
Pike to the east.Just south of the AHTD facilities are the
I-30 Frontage Road,the Mabelvale Pike/1-30 interchange and
numerous commercial businesses.Just east of this tract is
another I-2 zoned area occupied by businesses including a
trucking company and a casket company.
On December 20,1999,the Geyer Springs West District Land
Use Plan was amended to Light Industrial for this site.The
Plan Amendment was initiated by the applicant as the
required prerequisite to this I-2 Light Industrial rezoning
application.The request conforms to the newly amended Land
Use Plan.
The requested I-2 zoning,with OS adjacent to the single
family residences,is compatible with uses and zoning in the
area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning with a
50 foot X 180 foot OS strip to be zoned at the southwest
corner and a 50 foot X 200 foot OS strip to be zoned at the
southeast corner,as proposed by the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
The applicants were present.One person was present with
questions about the issue but had left prior to the item
being discussed.One letter of opposition and one letter of
support had been forwarded the Commission.Staff presented
the item and a recommendation of approval.
Richard Wood,of the Planning Staff,stated that he had
spoken with R.M.Cratty of 8515 Winston Drive prior to the
meeting.Mr.Wood stated that after he had explained the
issue to Mr.Cratty,that Mr.Cratty was satisfied and hadleftthemeeting.Public Works Director Bob Turner stated
that he had spoke with William Tully of 8804 Mabelvale Pike.
Mr.Turner stated that Mr.Tully was satisfied after seeing
the proposed OS zoning near his property.Janet Berry,of
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,spoke in support
3
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6815
of the zoning and asked if the OS zoned area would be left
undisturbed.Dana Carney,of the Planning Staff,stated
that it would.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
4
NAME:Pecan Lake,Stagecoach —Dodd,Westwood Neighborhood Plan
STAFF REPORT:
1999,the City of Little Rock met with the Pecan Lake,
Stagecoach —Dodd,and Westwood Neighborhood Associations to
discuss the development of a neighborhood plan.In April 1999,
a mail survey and in May 1999,a phone survey were conducted to
assess the opinions of residents and business owners with
regards to their neighborhood.There were 249 mail survey
respondents and 320 phone survey respondents.
Forty-three residents and business owners who completed the
survey returned the provided postcard acknowledging interest in
serving on the neighborhood plan development committee.This
committee divided itself by neighborhood associations and agreed
to meet collectively each month for informational meetings
sponsored by various city departments,such as Police,Planning,
Housing and Neighborhood Programs,and Public Works.After each
informational meeting,the neighborhoods met separately to
address issues of importance to their particular area.At these
meetings,each neighborhood used the information taken from the
surveys and from other sources,such as the Rental Inspection
Program data to develop the goals,objectives and proposed
actions for their portion of the plan.
The three areas shared concerns with regards to housing,public
safety,transportation and traffic,infrastructure,parks and
recreation,zoning and land use,and education.The residents
of Pecan Lake seem most concerned about correcting drainage
problems and speeding through their neighborhood.Stagecoach-
Dodd residents are concerned with eliminating city code
violations —citing in particular "junk yards"and litter.The
residents and business owners in Westwood are most
concerned with aesthetically improving Asher Avenue and limiting
non-residential activities to Asher Avenue.
The committee has decided to pursue requests to change land use
and zoning for a couple of parcels after the Planning Commission
and City Board of Directors have accepted its plan.
The Pecan Lake,Stagecoach-Dodd,and Westwood Neighborhood Plan
Committee is presenting to the Planning Commission and Board of
Directors a draft plan with hopes that it will be supported by
resolution,
PECAN LAKE /STAGECOACH DODD ~WESTWOOD NE I GHBORHOOD PLAN
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(March 2,2000)
Chandra Foreman,Department of Planning and Development staff,
introduced the Pecan Lake,Stagecoach-Dodd,and Westwood
Neighborhood Action Plan for endorsement by the Planning
Commission.She described the plan area boundaries and
described how the plan development committee was formed.
Ms.Foreman gave an overview of the process,which included mail
and phone surveys,informational meetings,plan development
meetings and a final town hall meeting.Ms.Foreman then
introduced two representatives of the plan development committee
Mr.Mike Kumpuris and Mr.Charles Tanner.
Mr.Kumpuris introduced himself as a representative of the
Westwood Neighborhood Association and explained that his
neighborhood was very dedicated to this planning process and
will use it to encourage better development along Asher Avenue.
Mr.Tanner introduced himself as a representative of the
Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association and he said that the
plan development process was a good experience for his
neighborhood and that they hoped that the plan would help to
make his neighborhood better for the younger families that were
migrating there.
Commissioners posed questions regarding the use and reliability
of Rental Inspection Data,as provided by the Department of
Housing and Neighborhood Programs;the neighborhood's opposition
to high density multifamily developments;and specific
implementation priorities of the neighborhood.All questions
were addressed by Planning and Development staff.
The Planning Commission approved a resolution of support for the
vision and goals of the Pecan Lake,Stagecoach-Dodd,and
Westwood Neighborhood Action Plan (8-0).
2
RESOLUTION NO.132
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS IN
SUPPORT OF THE PECAN LAKE,STAGECOACH-
DODD,AND WESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION
PLAN.
WHEREAS,the area Residents and Neighborhood Associations
formed a Planning Committee to develop a Neighborhood Plan;and
WHEREAS,after several months of work by the Planning
Committee,a set of goals,objectives,and proposed actions were
developed and presented to the neighborhood at a town hall
meeting and were distributed to various groups and individuals in
the neighborhood;and
WHEREAS,this Plan (Goals,Objectives,and Proposed Actions)
provides a way for both neighborhood-based group and others
working in and around the neighborhood to advance the desires and
meet the needs of the residents,property owners,and business
owners;and,
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City of Little Rock
does support the vision and goals as expressed in the Pecan Lake,
Stagecoach-Dodd,and Westwood Neighborhood Action Plan.
ADOPTED:March 2,2000
ATTEST:
X Jim Lawson X Pam Adcock
SECRETARY CHAIRMAN
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:8
Name:Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In the October of 1998,the Planning and Development
Department met with representatives of the Crystal Valley
Neighborhood Association,the Otter Creek Neighborhood
Association,a developer in the area,a representative from
the Hardscrabble area and others about starting a
neighborhood plan for their area.
The survey forms used by the City of Little Rock were a
refinement of previous neighborhood surveys and edited by
community representatives.A saturation mailing was
performed with addresses obtained from a local commercial
mailing service.Surveys were mailed along with a brief
explanation of the planning process and were designed to be
self mailers with return postage paid by the city.They
were designed to be anonymous,but citizens had the option
of requesting to serve on the committee or asking for survey
results.
Of the 2,412 surveys mailed,359 were returned to the city
by December 11,1999.The 14.8%percent return rate
provides a good response for a mail survey and should
provide a good representation of the study area.The survey
was conducted to identify concerns and problems so that they
could be addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to
lessen the negative impacts.
Informational meetings were held at area churches from
January 1999 through March 1999.Those who responded to the
survey,developers,churches and all businesses in the area
were invited to attend these meetings.From these meetings,
goals and objectives were developed and refined.
After a draft plan was finished,a "Plan Preview"meeting
was held on February 2,2000.This meeting was to present
the plan back to the residents and business leaders.All
persons who attended one or more meetings,in addition to
area businesses and churches were invited to attend.
Comments from the "Plan Preview"meeting as well as comments
from planning commissioners and other city departments were
discussed and the draft edited for a final time prior to
presentation for this agenda.
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)
As part of the neighborhood planning efforts,changes to the
Future Land Use Plan are forthcoming.These plan changes
are scheduled to be presented at the April 13,2000 planning
commission meeting.
At this time,the steering committee requests the city via
the Little Rock Planning Commission and the Board of
Directors accept the action plan as a resolution and help
the neighborhood work toward the goals presented in the
plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 2,2000)
Brian Minyard,of Staff,presented the item to the
Commission.
Commissioner Downing began a discussion between the
commission and staff about the call for a three year
moratorium on Land Use Plan amendments in the Otter Creek /Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.Commissioner
Downing stated his opposition to a three-year moratorium.
Brian Minyard,city staff,responded with comments that the
committee would be flexible on the issue of Land Use plan
amendment moratoriums.Commissioner Hawn stated that he
supported the idea of three-year moratoriums.
Commissioner Downing asked a question about who willinitiateandpayforLandUsePlanamendmentsrecommended byplan.Mr.Minyard,city staff,stated that the recommended
Land Use Plan amendments would be initiated and paid for bythecityonbehalfoftheneighborhood.
Cathy Coston,Steering Committee Chair,spoke on behalf of
steering committee and addressed the goals and objectives of
the plan.Ms.Coston stated that the three-year moratorium
was listed to give the plan a chance to work but that the
steering committee was flexible regarding language.Ms.
Coston stated that the steering committee did not want to
prohibit multi-family housing,but wanted to encourage a
mixture of types of housing.The steering committee
expressed a strong desire to implement the plan in a manner
intended to preserve the quality of the neighborhood.The
steering committee feared the plan would be ignored.
2
March 2,2000
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)
Commissioner Earnest expressed concerns about using the plan
as a guideline to implement smart growth.Commissioner
Earnest stated his overall support for the plan and
appreciated the work of the steering committee.
Commissioner Faust said she missed the language about a
three-year moratorium.Commissioner Faust stated that she
understood the spirit and intent of the three-year
moratorium but did not believe that it could be implemented.
Nicole Kreie spoke in support of the plan and expressed
thanks to the Planning Commission and City Staff.
David Henning expressed his concerns about language
addressing office and commercial development as well as
wetland protection.He felt that office and commercial
developments might adversely effect his property.
Janet Berry spoke in support of the plan and reminded the
commission and members of the audience that a neighborhoodactionplanwasonlyasgoodaslongascitizenswere
willing to defend it when issues come before the Planning
Commission.
Cathy Coston made a final statement to explain that theinterestinamoratoriumwasintendedtoallowtheplan to
have time to work and was willing to make modifications onthefinaldraft.
A motion was made to approve the item as presented and was
approved with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent.
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,AXGGLNSAS ZN
SUPPORT OF THE OTTER CREEK/CYRSTAL VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTZONPLAN.
WHEREAS,the area residents and Neighborhood Associations
formed a Steering Committee to develop a neighborhood Plan;and
WHEREAS,the residents and other "stakeholders"in the areaparticipatedinapublicmeetingstodiscussandidentifyarea
concerns to include in the plan;and
WHEREAS,After several months of work by the Steering
Committee,a set of goals and objectives were developed and
presented to the neighborhood at a Plan Preview meeting;and
WHEREAS,this Plan (Goals and Objectives)provides a wayforbothneighborhoodbasedgroupsandothersworkinginand
around the neighborhood to advance the desires and meet the
needs of the residents.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,2QQGQRSAS.
SECTION 1.The Planning Commission of the City of Little
Rock does support the vision and goals as expresses in the OtterCreek/Crystal Valley Area Improvement Plan.
ADOPTED
%arch 2,2000
TEST:
CHAIRMAN E TAR
lA
~XL~M
~~~~~~0 ~~E
I
o 0
~X ~~~~h ~~
CI CD
CLO I
UIi-i I
O
Z g0(gl
O
o oILILZzg
-ICL.zzom~+&mml=Z -I K z o 2 g —CO CQ —Z
IQ -QCL~OKOX CQ -„„QCLXOCL'OX-di &-+o m IU o o -8i&=o --m»oKZCOIUR$-Z CL'CL Z CO IU k'-Z &ty'U
CU O —cU a &-"0 &-"CU O IU a &-0 &&m I-z z z IQ o 2 x z ~cU m I-z z z IQ o 2 IQ z ~z UI
r'arch
2,2000
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Date -6G
//
Secret r Chairman