Loading...
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