pc_05 25 2000LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
MAV 25,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight (8)in number.
II.Members Present:Pam Adcock
Craig Berry
Judith Faust
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Mizan Rahman
Richard DowningBillRector
Members Absent:One Open Position
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Rohn Muse
City Attorney:Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
MAY 25,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Master Street Plan Amendment in the 36 Street Corridor
B.1999 Ordinance Amendment Package
C .Land Alteration and Landscape Ordinance Review Task Force
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-4343-J 17800-17900 Cantrell Rd.0-2 &OS to C-3
1.1 LUOO —20-01 Land Use Plan Amendment in the Pinnacle
District from MOC to C at 17800-17900
Cantrell Road
2.Z-4686-A St.John Baptist Church C.U.P.
3.There is no Item 3.
4.Z-5936/Z-4807 Village at Chenal PCD,revocation and
re-establishment
III.DISCUSSION ITEM:
Process for Neighborhood Plan Updates
1,
1
H
0
CC
U
H
T
Y
FA
R
M
RD
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
te
m
s
4'
:
~'
i
I-
t
MA
I
AM
MA
.
M
'C
K
PF
C
D
E
Vc
L
L
E
Y
E
1-
6
I-
6
X
KA
M
S
$
61
K
MI
'
)
TH
12
T
H
c
C
I
c
T'l
t
I
C
H
T
V
&
DA
M
RO
O
S
E
VE
I
I
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
D(
'
-
A
J
O
(D
2
LA
Y
k
H
O
I
(2
KJ
FR
A
T
E
R
Pi
K
E
LA
WS
O
M
CC
7F
U
R
R
DA
I
A
D
2
C
0'
0
CO
D
65
'
H
RA
I
H
I
S
C
VA
J
EY
'I
Y
UM
,
'
,
5
65
C
I
6
l
D
I
XO
I
I
OA
S
E
U
H
E
c
i
P.
3
DI
X
O
f
l
HA
R
F
:
R
GT
T
A
R
MU
T
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
V
F
T
F
K
II
E
S
I
Z
YA
C
C
C
5'
R
E
H
R
A
LE
XA
V
DE
R
R
cP
C
S
OJ
IC
F
F
Z
M
.J
I
F
F
KD
o+
jc
5
I'
R
CI
T
Y
UM
I
T
S
16
/
PR
A
T
T
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
Ma
y
25
,
2
0
0
0
1
May 25,2000
ITFM NO.:A
NAMF,:Master Street Plan Amcndmcnt
LOC",ATION:Master Street Plan Revision on the 36"Street C.'orridor
SOIf RC.'f::P u h lie Works Staff
In thc I'all of 1997,Peters P.Associates I ngincers,Inc.was retained to provide
profession;il traffic engineering services associated with thc study of traffic
oper;itions and (raff(c volume projections in the 36"S(rect corridor in aves(em Little
14icl .'I'hc study process ha»involved the use of extensive traffic volume data in thc
apprais;il of the existing;~nd projcc(ed "full development"travel characteris(ics in
(he area of wes(em Little I&ocl generally bound by:
~C'oloncl (llenn 14iad on the south,
~K;(ni»road on (he north,
~'I'he proposed Ou(cr Loop on (he v est;ind
~Sllacklefold 14iail oii tile e;1st.
On I ebru;iry 1,2000,Public Works Departmen(held public mccting.All adjacent
property oivncrs were notified of proposed 36"Street I uturc Alignment changes,
Public Works Staff and Peters and Associates I',ngineers werc prcscnt to answer
questions.'I hirty-seven pcoplc attended mccting (sce attached list of attendants).
~Findin s:
'I'he study has found that.certain changes to the C'ity s Master Street Plan can and
should be made.'I'he recommended changes are generally south of Kani»Road and
west.of 13ownian 14iad.'I'hey should be made to conform to the altcrna(c 36"Street,
C'.apitol Lakes L'states,C'.oopcr Orbit Road and Kirby road alignments as v,ell as
certain yct.unbuilt C'.ollcctor streets.'I'hcsc changes to thc master Street Plan wiII
provide hetter assurance of «n adequate street network,which respects both
development character and densities and topography limitations.'I'he recommended
changes include a major change in the alignment of 36"'treet west of Howman
Road which has much greater potential ot serving as a major east-west arterial route
than the current Master 'Street Plan 36'"Street Parkway alignment and which
recognizes the limitations of topography and established developinent.
Plannin and Deveio lment Comments:
'I'he proposed realignnlcnt ot 36'"Street and related collector nlodilications do not
result in Land Usc I'lan anomalies.There won't bc any "intense area"lcl't,th;it do
not h;Ive;Icccss to a nlajof ro;Idw;Iy.I his is;Ilso fi LIc of the zoning p;IttcIT1.
I hei'e 'lie tvvL)Ina]or sLIbdivisions wit hill thc at c 1 ol sLiggestcd ch;ulgcs:13roLfic
Creel «nd C'lpitol I.al es.The proposeLI changes appear to bc consistent with thc
appioved preliminary plat for Capitol I.akes.13roLlie Creel.would require some
minor changes to thc;Ipproved collector system,'I'he collector through 13rodie
Creel is located in thc proposed ai.tcrial cor.ridor.In order not to have volunle;ind
speed problenls on this collector 'tral fic c;Liming'esign el«incnts shorild be
Inc 1 LILleLI.
Public Work Recommendations:
'I'he Bcpaicment ot I'ublic Worl.s recommends adoption ot an ordinance for the
amendment of the Master Street Plan of the 36"Street Corridor Study.I'igure 8
of the study is attached as an exhibit to be included in the proposed ordinance
depicting the recommended changes.
'I'he applicants stated that.an attempt would be Inade to resolve all ol thc outstanding
issues and bc ready for Coinmission action on I'cbl Liafy 17,2000.
AI'ter the discussion,the Comnlittcc forvvarded the application to thc I'ull
Conlnli s si on.
Plannin Commission Action:
I'I;ulning Comnlission rcqucsted inure inlonnation lor propose West 36"Street re-
;ilignnlcnt StuLly.Coinnlission reqLiested th;it the;ipplic;Ltion bc delerrcLI to thc May
25,20()0;Igcnd'I.
Thc Ch;Lirm;ul pl;iced thc item helore the coinnlission lor inclusion within ihe
Consent Agenda for dcfcrr;11 to thc Mtly 25,2000 agenda.A Inotion to that cl lect
was m;idc.The motion passed by a vote of 11 aye»,0 nay»,and 0;lbscnt,
Plannin Commission Action:Ma 25 2000
Thc Staff reported to the Commission that thc Master Street Plan Amendmcnt for
propose realignment of '36 Street needs to be deferred until Junc 22,2000 Agenda
to help resolve outstanding issues with neighborhoods in the area outside study
limits.After a brief discussion,the Commission determined to defer this item to
June 22 Agenda.A motion was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,2
absents,and l open position.
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:B
SUBJECT:1999-2000 Annual Zoning Ordinance Amendments
REQUEST:That the Planning Commission receive comment
from interested parties,report from the Plans
Committee,and setting the hearing date for
advertised public hearing and adoption.
HISTORY:In January of 1999 the Planning Commission
staff began assembly of the list of issues to
be included in this work program.
Following the completion of the 1998 program in
May of 1999,the Plans Committee began detail
review of the thirty-three (33)subjects.
During the course of the many work sessions the
committee and staff agreed to delete eleven
subject areas.These eleven involved
litigation or a need to do a broader,more
involved amendment review next cycle and in
some instances there was no need to open the
subject for discussion.
The committee worked through four phases of
amendment proposals,finishing its work on
March 8th at which time staff was instructed to
do the usual distribution of the ordinance
draft to the mailing list.Additionally,the
Commission meeting on April 13'as targeted as
the first hearing by the full Commission.
Attached to this agenda item is the last draft
of a discussion outline that briefly identifies
each change within the ordinance text.
At this time it could be said that the staff
and Plans Committee endorse the package as
drafted.Commentary of contact persons will be
included in this material as it develops.
I
May 25,2000
File No.:B (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13,2000)
Richard Wood,of the Planning Staff,reported a late
submittal of comments and suggested that a deferral is in
order for this item.The Plans Committee will need to
review the material before it returns to the Commission for
a hearing.
A motion was made to defer this item until May 25,2000.
The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
PLANS COMMITTEE REPORT:(APRIL 19,2000)
The Plans Committee met at noon on April 19 at a regular
committee meeting.Four members were in attendance.
The staff offered materials for review of the eighteen (18)
suggested changes offered by Public Works Department.As aresultofcommitteeandstaffdiscussion,there werethirteenthatweredeterminedinappropriateornotneeded tocarryouttheamendmentsatissue.
The remaining were accepted as needed language forclarificationorexpansionofthepertinentamendments.
These were:
~The amendment that creates a prohibition
against buildings in utility easements,
modified by adding language to exclude a
fence from definitions of building or
structure (subsection (a))page 1.
~The amendment on right-of-way purchase
creating nonconformity (subsection (v))
adding two words,"for exception",in thelastsentence,page 6.
~The amendment on right-of-way purchase
creating nonconformity (subsection (w))
adding two words,"for exception",in thelastsentence,page 7.
2
May 25,2000
File No.:B (Cont.)
~The amendment on fence regulation dealing
with placement in easements for drainage.
Add a new paragraph to be no.5 and
requirement that fences not impede the flow
of water in a surface drainage area
(subsection aa(f)),pages 10 —11.
~Correction of typos in subsections (u),(v)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 25,2000)
The staff reported to the Commission that the amendments
remain as presented April 13 with the exception of one
change in items (v)and (w)of the text.These changes are
the same in each and deal with Mr.Norm Floyd's question
about setback when dealing with public acquisition of right-
of-way.
Richard Wood of staff reported that he had discussed the
language change with Mr.Floyd and it was acceptable.
After a brief discussion,the Commission determined public
hearing was in order.A motion to set a public hearing on
July 6 was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position.
3
05/02/00
Draft 5
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1999 PHASES I THROUGH IV
Discussion Guideline
easement by right.This amendment would provide that fences are not
defined as structures or buildings and could be located with in an
easement.
undisturbed area within land use buffers.
ordinance,on buffers.
eating in an automobile or drive through carry out,inside service only.
subsection (d).
drive-in service."
within the ordinance.A definition that closely parallels child day care.
R-2,R-3,R-4 C.U.P.paragraph to permit that review process in the
same maiiner as child day care.
Subsection (i)This inserts adult day care in "O-l"as a use by right as is child care
currently.
Id„
I d
R.W.ORD.'99:Page 1
~sb *'bl I MA&3 'C-I"by 'lb.S~b'B 'A d y ADC.2D by 'gh.
S~l
'TM '
I d y I AC-3A by 'gl .
~tbb 'bl I AA d y 'l-ls *by 'gtl.
~Ab I Tb 'A d y I~Al-2A by 'gl«.
~gb 'l'dldy '13A O'M
~SA I TA p 'd f I'tb PD-O~PODB '
minimum of the development use at 518ys oifice.
~sb 'A p ld 1 d*l 'BM fAdj Ad 'y
to ofi'-site parking,use and access.The Planning Commission would
then hear these cases as land use change issues and perhaps rescuing.
S~b TP I ld f *'*b '
Cl
sll soning classifications.
S~b'bl 3 'd*f 3 Bl ''f tsft ld''
awaiting a dedication deed for rightcof-way.
~Ab 'B 3 ld f *ASSI g Og~f pbg p I f 'gh.
of-way and not creating nonconformity with respect to setback or iot
sfxe.
~sb Th I ld th Mg d b ').
3~bi Tt'3 'd*f dl'fth ll'gf
in definitions.
3~bi Tbp 'd f dll f *fg Il'Sf
funeral home in definitions.
S~b'TA 'dll ''duf Ih AOI fth f
regulations.These are wall structural,wall decorative,fence height.
S~b*'M d1 *Sl I 3 3 d&3 'thf
d'ntirelynewtextreguhtingplacementoffences.
R.W.ORD.'99:Page 2
~pb I b Tt''d ds''d&'8 'tb ''y
listed in the Ordinance.
~hb'Tbtt 'ls'00.20'gs'M
~hb 'd Th 'E '038 '0
Ct'hh't'*'I I 80.20 '
by 'cl«.
~pb 'h '88 'C30 ~by 'gb.S~b'h 3 'd f *2m''ll'C.I"'
by right.Taxi office and taxi service facility.
~SH*'h 3 'd*f I 't d '8'I20
by right.Taxi office and taxi service facility.
~hh*'TH I b d*yt gshsym '
long form planned zoning developments.(No minimum lot size.)
~gb 'Tt'3 '8 f '
~ll'g'H 0 p
section of the word "occupation".Sec.36-253(b)(6)
~80 'l Th 3 'd f 8 fp '8 Hg 'Sp WCP
Ordinance by adding clarification of wireless communication
exception.This section of the Ordinance deals with radio,television
and other than wireless communication.phghht ypbb*~lyly
use.h
~hh*t Thp 'd f 8 f*'f 'Hf S d*f''f
library etc.It doesn't fit with thc language.A new definition is
necessary to separate the uses.
~hh*'h 3 td f ds lt CTH
8 b 83 Th ~d f Ph tb'.ill gbRS ftb Cf
station"as a conditional use.
~hh 'hp 'd f pl *'S'g,IH d'd 'I
of the use Hfne station"as a by right use.
R.W.ORD.'99:Page 3
g~b'h p 'd f I g fib M"'Ih 'I IM
''se
listing and definition are not sales but lease or rent.The definition
and district placement has "rentaL"It is only CMI with the retail entry.
~gb TM p d f Md II 2 g gd pl f
accessory buildings on double fiunt lots,where there is potential for
one lot to have a garage or other structure near the rightMsf-way line
beyond the fiunt setback for principal structures.The solution being to
disallow accessory buildings closer than the principal building setback
on either side.(See attached graphic.)
~pb I Th ~'d*f M d*f ''d&''S b I*dg M
which is not now included specifically in the ordinance.
~gb 'M p 'd*f g pl 'd~I 2by 'gh,fd
definition "Bottled gas,sales and service."
S~b**'M p Id I g pl '-2 by 'gl«fib**d*g '
"Bottled gas,bulk storage,nonflammable or nonhazardous."
R.W.ORD.'99:page 4
19 9 9 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
D RAFT
DATE Februa 3,2ppp
Double frontage lots —accessory building conflict
(36-156.(a)2.(c))
c.Accessory buildings or structures in
the R-1 through R-4 districts shall not
be located closer than sixty (60)feet
to the front property line,fifteen (15)
feet from a street side line and may
not occupy more than thirty (30)percent
of the required rear yard area.
Meets 30%rule
Meets side street rule,75 ft.
Meets 60 ft.rule,this lot
Meets 30%rule
Meets 60 ft.rule,this lot
"A"STREET
LLJ I I I I LLJ
I I I I I CC
C/3 STORAGE CJ3
C/3
t
B STREET
-No Platted Building Lines
-Which Face Of Block Controls
-Oo Both Out Buildings Need to Comply With
60ft.Rule From Both Streets
R.H.ORD.Z99:Page 31-
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C
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'
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,treeprotection,excavation and zoning buffer requirements.
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
Following are the a~a o'z 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.
2
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
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.
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 said
3
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
it was a good beginning and indicated the need for more
changes in the future.Ms.Ambrose also gave a brief
description of the Central High Urban Forestry Project.
Sonja McCauley said she supported the changes and thanked
the Task Force members for their time and effort.
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 aletterfromDicksonFlake.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%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 supportoftheproposedchanges.
4
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
Nick Holmes said the proposed changes could require 20-25
percent additional land for increased buffers,etc.and
asked for more time.
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's 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.
5
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
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.
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 thestaffondefiningmatureareasandthetaskforce,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 thatstaffhadforwardedarequestforanopiniontotheCity
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
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 13,2000)
Tony Bozynski,Department of Planning and Development,made
some brief comments about the task force report analyzing
several sites and prepared by the Mehlburger Firm.Mr.
Bozynski then introduced Frank Riggins,of the Mehlburger
Firm,and said Mr.Riggins would review the report developed
for the Land Alteration and Landscape Review Task Force.
Frank Riggins addressed the Planning Commission and said the
report studied five sites and compared current requirements
against the ordinance changes being proposed by the taskforce.Mr.Riggins said that every site was unique.
Mr.Riggins indicated that some assumptions were made in the
study and some basic cost information was found in the
report,but it was difficult to quantify all costs because
the sites were different.Mr.Riggins then proceeded to
review each of the five sites.The first site was the
credit union development at Chester and West Capitol.
Mr.Riggins said the proposed standards would require some
modifications to the site plan.Next site was the Bristol
Park Apartments on Mara Lynn and Mr.Riggins said the
development meets or exceeds the proposed requirements,
except along Mara Lynn.The third site was the Arkansas
Heart Hospital on Shackleford Road,a 12 acre development,
and Mr.Riggins said the impacts from the proposed changes
would be minimal.The next site to be reviewed by Mr.
Riggins was Chenal Place,a 4 lot retail development on
Chenal Parkway.Mr.Riggins said the project would lose
some parking and the site plan would require some minormodifications.Mr.Riggins indicated that Chenal Place
would experience more impacts from the proposed ordinance
changes.The final project was the proposed Immanuel
Baptist Church site on Shackleford and Mr.Riggins said the
plan meets all the new requirements.
Mr.Riggins continued his presentation by discussing costs
and said the development costs for the five sites wouldincreasefrom2.4%to 16%.He said each site was going todifferandthatwaswhythecostincreasesvarysomuch.
At this point,questions were asked by the Planning
Commission.Mr.Riggins responded and said saving existingtreescouldbeasignificantcostandadditionalcost
7
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
increases would come from fees,survey work,etc.He also
indicated the review process would probably take more time.
Mr.Riggins felt that professional fees could increase 30%
to 40%because of the proposed changes.
John Baker,a member of the task force,addressed the
commission and responded to the study and comments made by
Frank Riggins.Mr.Baker then said the task force had
answered specific questions that were raised by the
commission at the January hearing.Mr.Baker discussed tree
preservation and funding for enforcement and said it could
be done.Mr.Baker then asked the supporters of the
proposed changes to stand and a large number in attendance
did.Mr.Baker continued by commenting on the
developers'roposalandsaidthetaskforcehadfourmeetings with
developers.He also said the task force held two public
meetings.Mr.Baker concluded by saying he was against a
deferral and asked the commission to recommend approval to
the Board of Directors.
Matt Bradley spoke in support of the proposed ordinances and
presented a slide show.Mr.Bradley discussed the Highway
10 and Sam Peck Road site and made some general comments
about trees.Mr.Bradley said that Little Rock needs
development with lasting value and the existing ordinances
need to be improved.
Ann Nicholson said the proposed ordinances address all that
was needed and asked the Commission to approve the
ordinances in their entirety.
Eulalia Araoz,member of the group supporting the
ordinances,spoke and expressed concerns with future costsiftheordinanceswerenotadopted.Ms.Araoz said lawsuits
would be filed and the clear cutting would continue.Ms.
Araoz said the ordinances impact the quality of life and
asked the Commission to make a positive recommendation to
the Board of Directors.
Vivian Davis,Little Rock Garden Club,said the Garden Club
voted to endorse the ordinances.
Alice Andrews spoke in support of the proposed changes.
8
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
Hank Kelley,acknowledged the task force'work and said
that the task force,in his opinion,was not balanced.Mr.
Kelley commented on the Mehlburger report and discussed
other sites.Mr.Kelley said the parking for office
development by Pavilion in the Park would be reduced by 23%
because of the new requirements and a 24%reduction in
building mass for the Bowman Curve development would occur.
He mentioned some changes being suggested by the developers
and said the development community met with the task force
several times and they still had concerns with several
aspects of the proposed ordinances.Mr.Kelley went on to
say that some of the provisions come close to being a
taking.
Jack McCray addressed the Commission and said the work of
the task force has a lot of merit,but moves the bar toofar.Mr.McCray asked the Commission to consider the
amendments being suggested by the development community.
Jim Irwin spoke and said that some developments would
experience a decrease in available land because of the new
requirements.Mr.Irwin asked the Commission to consider
incorporating the amendments suggested by the developers.
Ramsay Ball,a task force member,spoke and said the taskforcedevelopedabasisforagoodordinance.Mr.Ball
suggested that more time would benefit both sides and thetaskforcecouldcontinuetheirwork.
Jim Whitmore,a small property owner downtown,requested adeferral.Mr.Whitmore said there was no real opportunityforinputandmoretimewasneeded.Mr.Whitmore went on to
say that the task force and developers were very close andrefertheordinancesbacktothetaskforcefor90days.
Mr.Whitmore made some additional comments and asked thatDottieFunkresignfromthetaskforce.
Bob Shults voiced concerns with some of the proposed changes
and said that Children'Hospital could lose between 100 and
160 parking spaces because of the new standards.
Gene Pfeifer indicated that the developers now agree with
80%of the changes being suggested by the task force and hefeltthetwosideswerecloseenoughtohaveajoint
agreement.Mr.Pfeifer then expressed some concerns withthedriplineandcriticalrootzoneprovisions.
9
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
At this point,the Planning Commission took a break.
(During the break,the League of Women Voters submitted a
written statement to the staff.)
The meeting was called to order.
A motion was made to defer the item to the May 11 meeting
and for the task force to meet with the developers to
discuss the list of suggested changes submitted by the
developers.The motion was seconded.An amendment to the
motion was made and seconded to hire a facilitator in five
calendar days to meet with both sides to attempt to reach
agreement on the ordinances.(The amendment dies if the
individual is not hired during the five day period.)
There was lengthy discussion before a vote on the motion.
Commissioner Craig Berry voiced concerns with the proposed
ordinances including some of the items that did not meet
good urban design standards;the 25%reduction for the
mature areas was not enough;the buffer requirements should
be variable buffers and the task force's proposal was
flawed;and suggested that the in lieu provision should be
50%private and 50%public.
Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the two sides to work together
and come back with an ordinance that could be approved.
Commissioner Bill Rector said he had some problems with the
appeal procedure and the joint and several liability
provision.Commissioner Rector also voiced some concerns
with enforcement of the ordinances.
Jane Dickey,president of the Downtown Partnership,
requested more time to allow the Partnership to study the
ordinances and make a report.
Gene Pfeifer spoke again and commented on Matt Bradley's
slides.Mr.Pfeifer said he would prefer to plant trees and
not be subject to having to save the trees.Mr.Pfeifer
made some comments about enforcement and an adequate budget.
Commissioner Judith Faust said that she supported the
deferral so the ordinance that goes to the Board of
Directors was not divided.
10
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
The Commission voted on the motion to defer the item to May
11 and to hire a facilitator in five calendar days.The
motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays.
Chair Pam Adcock announced a special Planning Commission
meeting on April 27,2000.(The meeting will be held in the
Board of Directors Chambers,2"floor,City Hall,and beginat3:30 p.m.).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 11,2000)
John Baker,a member of the Land Alteration and Landscape
Review Task Force,spoke and said that the task force met
with members of the development community using the
mediation process as suggested by the Planning Commission.
Mr.Baker said the two sides met with Nancy Mathews,the
mediator;and four sessions were held.He went on to saythatthetwosideshadreachedanagreement,but the final
language was not in written form and both sides compromised
on issues.Mr.Baker indicated that the proposed changes
should benefit the city because the new ordinance requires
6%buffers and 1 tree per 750 square feet on the streetside;1 tree per 12 parking spaces;and increase the size of
the trees and the size of the land use buffers.
Mr.Bakers said that the new provisions did not include a
mandate to save trees and then discussed the in-lieu
account.Mr.Baker concluded by saying the city should see
an improvement in development because of the proposed
changes and the agreement.
Hank Kelley,a member of the development community mediation
group,said the developers were happy to go through the
process and substantial compromises were made.Mr.Kelleysaidthedevelopmentcommunitywouldcontinuetoworkwith
the task force and that they support the negotiated
se t tlemen t .
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,offered
some comments about the mediation process.
Kate Althoff,representing a citizens group supporting the
Landscape and Land Alteration ordinances,read a letter intotherecord.
11
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
Ruth Bell,with the League of Women Voters,spoke and said
both sides took a big step by agreeing to use the mediation
process.Ms.Bell then voiced some questions and concerns
about several issues including the mature area,
implementation of certain provisions and measures to protecttrees.
Nancy Mathews then addressed the Commission.Ms.Mathews
described the mediation process and said the mediator had no
power to make a decision.She said the mediator can ask
questions and the role of the mediator was to manage the
process.Ms.Mathews then read from the agreement and saiditmetanumberoftheconcernsidentifiedearlyinthe
process.
Commissioner Bob Lowry thanked Commissioner Hugh Earnest for
suggesting the mediation process.
Commissioner Craig Berry asked several questions of John
Baker and Hank Kelley.Commissioner Berry said that hestillhadissueswithsomeoftheproposedchangesand good
urban design standards and was concerned with the 6%buffer
requirement for all sites.
John Baker responded and said the task force understood theissuewithmatureareasandtheywerealsointerestedinthe
concepts of new urbanism.Mr.Baker said that he understood
Commissioner Berry's concern with the buffers and one sidefitsall.
Hank Kelley also responded and made some comments about the
new requirement to use a registered landscape architect forsitesovertwoacres.
Commissioner Berry made additional comments about variable
buffers and the proposed in-lieu account.
There was a lengthy discussion about a number of issues and
comments were offered by John Baker and Hank Kelley.
Commissioner Rohn Muse spoke about budget and enforcement.
Commissioner Muse questioned the need for additional stafftoapproveplansbecauseoftherequirementforaregistered
landscape architect to do the plans.
12
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)
Commissioner Hugh Earnest addressed the issue of acquisition
of open space.
Commissioner Judith Faust made some additional comments
about several issues including enforcement.
There was some discussion about the Downtown Partnership's
position on the mature areas and the proposed 25%staff
flexibility.Hank Kelley said that he would meet with the
Partnership to confirm their position.
Other comments were made by John Baker and Kate Althoff.
Jim Lawson said staff was in the process of drafting the
ordinances and there were still some issues that staff
needed to review.
The item was deferred to the May 25,2000 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 25,2000)
Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,presented two drafts
of the Land Alteration Ordinance;the Mediation Team Draft
and Staff's Draft.Mr.Turner put the drafts on overhead
projectors and went through each,line by line.The
Commission was informed that staff was still in the processofdraftingtheLandscapeandBufferOrdinances.The
Commission determined that the Ordinances would be reviewed
in a work session at the June 8,2000 informal meeting.
13
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
Owner:Ranch Properties,Inc.and FCC
Tract D Partnership
Applicant:Ed K.Willis
Location:17800-17900 Cantrell Road;either
side of Chenonceau Blvd.;north
of Cantrell Road
Request:Rezone from OS and 0-2 to C-3
Purpose:Future commercial development
Size:32.6+acres in two parcels;23.4i acres and 9.2+acres
Existing Use:Undeveloped,former pasture
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned MF-18 and
undeveloped,pasture;zoned 0-2
South —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned C —3 and Single
Family;zoned O-l and R-2
East —Vacant;zoned PCD,Offices;zoned 0-2 and
small,commercial center;zoned C-2
West —Church;zoned R-2 with conditional use permit
PUBL I C WORKS COMMENTS
1.Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline is required.
2.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
3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps
brought up to the current ADA standards.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approved prior to start of work.
6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
are required.
8.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
9.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31—403 of the Little
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on the CATA Hwy.10 express bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet and the Aberdeen Court and
Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the
rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Pinnacle Planning District.The
adopted Plan currently recommends Mixed Office Commercial
(MOC)for the property.A Land Use Plan Amendment has been
filed asking that the Plan be changed from MOC to C
(Commercial).That Plan amendment is item no.1.1 on this
agenda,file no.LUOO-20-01.Staff is supportive of the
requested plan change.The property is within an area not
covered by a neighborhood action plan.No action plan is
proposed for the area in the immediate future.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone 32.6+acres
located at 17800-17900 Cantrell Road from "0-2"Office and
Institutional and "OS"Open Space to "C-3"General
Commercial District.The property is in two tracts located
on the north side of Cantrell Road,either side of the
proposed extension of Chenonceau Blvd.The property is
undeveloped,having previously been cleared and used as
pasture.The bulk of the land is zoned 0-2 with a 50 foot
OS strip along the Cantrell Road frontage.The property is
2
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
at the southwest corner of The Ranch,a large mixed use
development.The Ranch contains a variety of uses including
single family,proposed multifamily,a large school,large
and small offices and commercial.
The original zoning pattern for The Ranch was established in
January 1985,prior to the adoption of the Highway 10 Land
Use Plan in 1986 and the Highway 10 Overlay District in
1989.The 1985 zoning action established 63.25+acres of
C-2 zoned land at The Ranch.Numerous rezoning actions have
occurred at The Ranch since that time,most notable of which
was the downzoning and development of 33.55i acres of the
C-2 zoned properties as Office.These past actions haveleft29.7+acres of the original 63.25+acres zoned
commercial.The applicant now proposes to restore the
amount of commercially zoned property available at The Ranch
to nearly what it was under the original 1985 zoning plan.
The Commercial Zoning is to be located at a node established
by the intersection of Cantrell Road (a principal arterial)
and Chenonceau Blvd.(a minor arterial/commercial street).
The properties at the southeast and southwest corners of the
Cantrell Road/Chenonceau Blvd.intersection are zoned C-3.
The 32.8+acres proposed for rezoning by the applicant are
bordered by office and commercial zoning on the east and
office and multifamily zoning on the north.A church is
located on the property to the west,across Patrick Country
Road.
A 1999 Land Use Plan Amendment changed the Land Use
Designation of the subject property from Office to Mixed
Office Commercial.The City agreed to support the proposed
amendment on the condition that the owners and the City
reached an agreement as to commercial zoning on The Ranch
and that the same be reflected in the Ordinance adopted by
the Board of Directors.That agreement,included in the
Ordinance,stated that the total of commercially zoned (C-2)
lands lying north of Hwy.10 and south of the railroadtractsbetweenPatrickCountryRoadandKatilliusRoad would
not exceed 63.2+acres,the amount of commercially zoned
property under the 1985 zoning plan.This proposed rezoning
will bring the total of commercially zoned property in The
Ranch to 62.5+acres.
A 50 foot wide Open Space zoned strip lies along the
southern perimeter of the property,abutting Cantrell Road.
The OS strip was included in the 1985 zoning,prior to
3
May 25,2000
ITEM NQ.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
adoption of the Highway 10 Overlay District,to strengthen
the scenic corridor quality of Highway 10.The overlay
standards now require a 40 foot landscaped area along the
Highway 10 frontage and a 100 foot building setback.The
Ranch properties are the only ones along Highway 10 to have
this 50 foot OS strip.All other developments along Highway
10 have been built to conform to the overlay standards or
have been developed under a Planned Zoning District.The
restrictive covenants for The Ranch contain a requirement
that a green belt be maintained along the south line of the
property for a distance of 50 feet north and parallel to the
north right-of-way line of Highway 10 as it existed on
December 17,1984.
Staff believes the proposed rezoning is reasonable for this
property.C-3 zoning is appropriate at this node and is
compatible with uses and zoning in the area.The commercial
zoning request meets the spirit of the agreement reached at
the time of the 1999 Land Use Plan Amendment and conforms to
the proposed land use plan amendment which changes the
designation from MOC to C.Development of the site must
conform to the Highway 10 Overlay District Standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAV 25,2000)
Ed Willis and Hal Kemp were present representing the
application.There were several persons present,both in
support and in opposition.Numerous e-mails and faxedlettersofoppositionandsupporthadbeenreceivedby staff
and forwarded to the commissioners.Dana Carney and Brian
Minyard,of the Planning Staff,presented the rezoning
request and the accompanying Land Use Plan Amendment (LUOO-
20-01).Each offered a recommendation of approval.The
items were discussed concurrently with the majority of the
discussion focusing on the rezoning request.
In response to a request from Commissioner Downing,Dana
Carney discussed the differences between C-2 and C-3 zoning.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,continued
by describing the pattern of C-3 zoning which had developed
since the adoption of the Highway 10 Overlay standards.Mr.
4
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
Lawson stated that C —2 and 0-2 zoning required site plan
review which was necessary to preserve the scenic quality of
Highway 10 prior to adoption of the Overlay.In response to
a question from Commissioner Downing,Mr.Lawson stated that
the subject property was subject to the Design Overlay
District and he was comfortable with recommending approval
of C-3 zoning.
Commissioner Rahman commented that the letters of opposition
seemed to express a fear that the site would be developed as
a "big box"commercial use.He noted that there would
potentially be no further review by the Commission if the
site were zoned C-3.Mr.Lawson responded that some of the
letters expressed concern about commercial zoning in
general.He noted that The Ranch had 62+acres of
commercially zoned land prior to the first home being built
in the area.
Hal Kemp addressed the Commission in support of the item.
He commented that The Ranch was the genesis of and model for
the Highway 10 Overlay Plan.Mr.Kemp made reference to the
October 1999 Land Use Plan Amendment and stated that the
Plan was to concentrate the commercially zoned property at
node established by the arterial intersection.He stated
that The Ranch could do a "big box"commercial development
on its existing C-2 zoned property.Mr.Kemp stated that
The Ranch had no intention of doing a "big box"because it
would impact their ability to develop and market the balance
of their property.He stated that The Ranch was asking for
C —3 zoning so as to be able to compete with other property
owners who have C-3 zoned properties in the area.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr.Kemp what the functional
difference was to his client between C-2 and C-3 zoning.
Mr.Kemp responded that the difference was in the perception
of a prospective buyer,since C-2 requires the additional
step of site plan review by the Planning Commission.
Tom Hoffman,president of the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood
Association,spoke in opposition to the rezoning.He stated
that the property was the proposed site for a Wal —Mart
Supercenter.Mr.Hoffman expressed concerns about loss of
property values,traffic safety and having so much
commercially zoned property in one large block.He stated
5
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
that he wanted the property zoned to C —2,not C-3.Mr.
Hoffman stated that,with C-3 zoning,the developer could do
"whatever he wants"and that the developer's assurances
"mean nothing."
Mark Malcolm,of ¹9 Iviers Drive,spoke in opposition.He
stated that he was opposed to C-3 zoning and the possibility
of a "big box"development.Commissioner Downing asked Mr.
Malcolm if he was aware that the Board of Directors had made
an agreement to grant C-2 zoning and that the question
before the Commission was whether to zone the tract C-2 or
C-3.Mr.Malcolm responded that C-2 zoning required site
plan review.He also noted that the Board could change its
position on the commercial zoning.
George Thompson,of 26 Calumet,spoke in opposition.He
also noted that C-2 zoning required greater review than C —3.
He noted that the current 0-2 zoning allowed quiet office
development in a park-like setting.Mr.Thompson voiced
concern over the proposed increase in intensity of
development on the site.
John Towne,of 27 Westchester Court,spoke in opposition.
He stated that he was chairman of the Highway 10 Alliance,a
group formed over concerns about a pending Wal-Mart
development at Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road.He statedthathehadnoproblemswiththeexistingRanchdevelopment
but that he felt a contiguous 20+acre,C-3 zoned site was
dangerous in view of what could be developed on the site.
Mr.Towne voiced concerns about traffic safety.He statedthathewouldprefertoseethecommerciallyzonedland
broker into smaller pieces.
Hank Kelley,of 13609 St.Charles,spoke in support.HestatedthatTheRanchhadatremendousinvestmentinthe
area and was concerned about maintaining quality
development.Mr.Kelley stated that the Commission should
"reward developers who do what they are supposed to do."
Kate Althoff,of ¹3 Longtree,stated that the developers
should not be afraid of C-2 zoning if they are going to do
high quality work.
In response to a question from Commissioner Faust,Jim
Lawson briefly discussed the standards of the Highway 10
Overlay District.
6
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Kemp what his client would doiftheBoardofDirectorswentbackonitsordinance
agreeing to 63+acres of C-2 zoning.Mr.Kemp responded
that his client would view such a move as a "Taking"and
would seek compensatory damages.Mr.Kemp noted that The
Ranch was as concerned about traffic as anyone in the area.
Mr.Kemp stated that Wal-Mart had approached The Ranch 3
times and his client had turned them down 3 times.Mr.Kemp
stated that his client would publicly state that he would
not sell any property to Wal-Mart.Commissioner Adcock
asked if The Ranch would make that same statement about
other potential "big box"users.Mr.Kemp responded that
his client could not make that commitment but that they had
not been approached by any other "big box"users.
Commissioner Berry asked if there were any weaknesses in the
Highway 10 Overlay from Public Work's viewpoint.Bob
Turner,Director of Public Works,responded that he was not
aware of any.
Hal Kemp commented that the existing 0-2 zoning allows for
intensive,high-rise office development.He reiterated his
statement that The Ranch had much more land to develop and
would not do anything to hurt their investment.
Commissioner Rahman,in a conversation with Mr.Kemp,
expressed his concerns about C —3 zoning and the lack of
subsequent site plan review.He stated his concern about
the development of 32 acres of commercially zoned property.
Commissioner Rahman commented that times had changed and the
Commission was more concerned about the impact of zoning and
development.
Hal Kemp asked the Commission to look at the quality of
development at The Ranch.
Commissioner Berry commented that the question was to zone
the property C-2,as required by the Board,or to zone itC-3.
Commissioner Adcock asked staff what would happen if the
Commission denied the C-3 request.Dana Carney respondedthattheapplicanthadstatedthattheissuewouldbetakentotheBoardofDirectors,regardless of the Commission'
vote.
7
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4343-J
Ed Willis spoke in support of his application.He stated
that he had no prospective buyer for the site.He stated
that all he was trying to accomplish was to move the
commercially zoned property to a logical location,that
being the arterial intersection of Cantrell and Chenonceau
Blvd.He noted that Chenonceau Blvd.had been brought into
Highway 10 by Chenal Properties at a point west of where it
was originally proposed.Mr.Willis asked the Commission to
look at the quality of development at The Ranch.He stated
that he had turned down Wal-Mart because it did not make
sense to bring in Wal-Mart and to destroy the rest of his
investment.
Commissioner Earnest asked Mr.Willis why he wanted C-3
zoning instead of C-2.Mr.Willis responded that the
requirement for site plan review would put him at a
competitive disadvantage when there are other C-3 zoned
properties in the area.
A motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan Amendment.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes,1 noe,2 absent
and 1 open position.
A motion was then made to approve the C-3 zoning request.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,2 noes,
2 absent and 1 open position.
8
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-20-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Pinnacle Planning
District
Location:17800 &17900 Cantrell Rd.
Re&euest:Mixed Office Commercial S Park/Open Space
to Commercial
Source:Ed Willis,Ranch Properties,Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUE ST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Pinnacle Planning District
from Mixed Office Commercial to Commercial.The Commercial
category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale
sales of products,personal and professional services,and
general business activities.Commercial activities vary in
type and scale,depending on the trade area they have.The
applicant wishes to use the property for future Commercial
development.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned 0-2 Office and Institutional
and is approximately 32.61 +acres in size.Generally north
of the property line are areas zoned MF-18 Multifamily
District,a Planned Commercial District,and 0 —2 Office and
Institutional.A C-2 Shopping Center District is located on
the east side of Ranch Blvd.,east of the property in
question.An Open Space zone occupies a strip of land along
the south side of the applicant's property along Cantrell
Road.The south side of Cantrell Road is zoned R-2 Single
Family,C-3 General Commercial,and 0-1 Quiet Office.To
the west of the property is an R —2 Single Family zoned with
a Conditional Use Permit occupied by a church and an 0-3
General Office District.
Most of the land between Cantrell Road and Ranch Blvd.is
vacant.The nearest uses to the north are four one storyofficebuildingsoccupiedbyaninsuranceclaimsofficeand
a mixture of medical and legal firms.Further north is the
campus of the Arkansas Baptist High School.East of Ranch
Blvd.is the Saddle Creek shopping center.South of
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.FILE NO.:LUOO-20-01
Cantrsll Rd.is laxge lot residential subdivisions.West of
Patrick Country Road is a small churah and a fsw residences
built on lazgs lots.
FUTURE LAND USE PIJLN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On November 16,1999 a ahange was made fram Single Family to
Office at 6400 Patrick Countzy Road on the wast sids of
Patrick Countzy Road across the street fram the area under
review.
On October 5,1999 a chango was made fxom Office to Mixed
Office Coxsxercial for the pzaperty currently under zevisw.
On October 5,1999 a ahange was made from Commercial to
Mixed Office Commercial on ths east side of Ranch Blvd.
directly east of the axes in question.
On Zu1y 21,199S,a change was made fram Single Family to
Suburban Office and Office to the west at 18600 Cantrsll Rd.
with the change to Office located 380 feet west of the site
in question on Noxthzidge Road while the change ta Subuzban
Office took place about 1500 feet to the west on Cantrell
Rd.
On July 21,1998,a change was made fram Single Family to
Office at Chanel Parkway and Nwy 300 about a mile to the
west of the proposed amendssnt.
Ths Future Land Uss Plan shows both pisces of property on
the application as Mixed Office Caamercial with a strip of
Park/Open Space along Cantrell Road.Ths px'operties
suzzounding the northezn side of the application azea are
shown as Multi-Family,and Office.The prapezty to the east
is shown as Mixed Office Cassxsrcial with a strip of
Park/Open Space next to Cantrsll Road.Single Family,
Commercial,and Suburban Offi.aa is shown on the south side
of Cantrell Road.The west side of Patrick Country Road is
shown as Public Institutional and Office.
MASTER STREET PION:
Ths Master Stzeet Plan shows Cantrell Road as a Principal
Artezial and Patriak Country Road as a Collector.The plan
shows Chenonceau Blvd,Ranah Blvd.and Ranch Dx'ive as local
streets.Chsnonasau Blvd.changes into a Minor Arterial
south of Cantrsll Rd.A Class II Bikeway is shown along
Cantzell Road on the Mastez Street Plan fram Chenonceau
Boulevard to Ferndals Cutoff that would he effected hy this
proposed amendment.
2
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-20-01
PARKS:
The Master Parks Plan does not show any existing or proposed
parks in the area.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant'property does not lie in an area covered by
a neighborhood plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant'property is located on the edge of a large
vacant area that extends to the north and west next to at
new development north of Cantrell Road along Ranch
Boulevard.The area is located at an intersection with newoffice,commercial and residential development occurring at
the edge of the amendment area.
The applicant's property also falls under the regulations of
the Highway 10 Design Overlay District.The Highway 10
Design Overlay District could offset the loss of the
Park/Open Space proposed by this amendment through a one
hundred-foot setback from Highway 10,landscape buffers,strict sign regulations,and limited curb cuts.The
regulations of the design overlay district also regulates
the lighting of properties along Highway 10 to maintain a
parkway atmosphere and also limits the amount of buildings
to 1 building for every two acres on site.The Highway 10
Overlay District applies to the entire tract of land if itisdividedintomultiplelotsforcommercialdevelopment.
The Park/Open Space strip would provide for no access alongCantrellRoadwheretheDODprovidesforlimitedaccess.
The original ordinance implementing zoning for the
development known as the Johnson Ranch was passed on January16,1985.Ordinance 14,809 established zoned 63.3 Acres C-2
Shopping Center,57.7 Acres 0-2 Office and Institutional,19.1 Acres MF-12 Multifamily,and 7.8 Acres MF-18
Multifamily.Numerous zoning changes have taken place inthisdevelopmentoveritshistory.
The latest zoning Ordinance 18,226 dated February 22,2000
changed the zoning for this development from C-2 ShoppingCenterto0-3 General Office for 9.2831 acres.This changebringsthetotaldevelopmentto29.7 Acres of C-2 Shopping
3
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-20-01
Center,74.3831 Acres 0-2 Office and Institutional,212.4
Acres R-2 Single Family Residential,43.4 Acres MF-18
Multifamily,and set aside 8.5 Acres for a Marine Reserve,
and 202.5 Acres for a Development Reserve.Ordinance 18,226
reduced the current amount of land zoned C-2 Shopping Center
by 23%while increasing the amount of land zoned 0-3 General
Office by 13%.
On October 5,1999 a Land Use Plan Amendment,Ordinance
18,106,resulted in two changes from Office and Commercial
to Mixed Office Commercial.The change from Office to Mixed
Office Commercial resulted in the current Mixed Office
Commercial shown for the property currently under review.
This Ordinance,18,106,also contained language to set alimitonacreagetobezonedC-2.The amendment allowed
zoning of C-2 up to,but not exceeding,the limit of 63.2516
acres unless additional property was zoned from commercial
to other less intense zoning classifications.The zoning
change of February 22,2000 took place on Ranch Drive at
Cantrell Road in which 9.2831 acres were zoned from C-2
Shopping Center to 0-3 General Office.This zoning of9.2831 acres allows for a maximum of 33.63 acres to be zoned
commercial as stated in Ordinance 18,106.
The proposed zoning application,to be heard on this agenda,
could fulfill the spirit of Ordinance 18,106.This requestiswithinthepreviouslyagreedtoamendmentasfarasareaisconcerned.However C-2 (Shopping Center Uses)not C-3
(General Commercial Uses)would be required.As C-3
(General Commercial)with the entirety of the rezoned tractsfallingundertheHighway10DesignOverlaydistrictfor
multiple lots in a tract could also meet the spirit of the
October 1999 ordinance.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhoodassociations:Johnson Ranch N.A.,and Aberdeen Court P.O.A.
Staff has received 1 comment from area residents.Thesinglecommentwasneutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staf f believes the change is appropriate .
4
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:1.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-20-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 25,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.This item was present immediately after the
presentation for item 1,presented by Dana Carney,so the
discussion of item 1.1 could coincide with the discussion
for item 1.See item 1 for a complete discussion concerning
the zone change from 0-2 Office &Institutional and Open
Space to C-3 General Commercial.Commissioner Bob Lowry
made a motion to approve the item as presented.The item
was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,1 noes,2 absent and
1 open position.
5
May 25,2000
ITEM NO.:2 PILE NO.c Z-4686-A
Name:St.John Baptist Churah ParkingLotC.U.P.
Location:109 West Roosevelt Road~/St.John Baptist Church/
Reba Cazgile,Arahiteat
Pzorosal c
A conditional uss permit is requested to allcnc for
development of a church parking lot on the R-4 ancE C-3 zoned
pzopezty located at 109 West Roosevelt Road.
STAPP REPORT:
On May 5,2000,the applicant contacted staff and requestedthattheitembedeferredtotheJune22,2000 meeting.A
question has arisen concerning the ownership of a small
portion of the site which shuts Roosevelt Road.The site
plan may have to be xevised to address that issue.Staff
zscosssends deferral of the item to June 22,2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONc (MAY 25,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectorspresent.Staff presented the applicant's request to deferthsitem.
The item was placed on ths Consent Agenda and approved fordsfezraltotheJune22,2000 commission meeting.The vote
was 8 ayss,0 noes,2 absent and 1 open position.
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:5-5936/5-4807
NAME:The Village At Chanel —Long-Poms Planned Commercial
Development (Revocation and Re-establishment)
LOCATZOM:On the west side of Chanel Parkway,approximately0.75 mile north of the Basis Road intersection.
DEVELOPER:ENGINEER:
Jack MoCzay Joe WhiteDelticFarm6TimberCo.,Inc.White-Daters 4 Associates,Zno.
97 Chenal Club Circle 401 S.Victory StzeetLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rook,AR 72201
AREA:138.4 acres NUMBER OP LOTS:80 FT.NEW STRBET:20,000
SONING:PCD PROPOSED USES:Mixed uses including
Commercial,Office,and
Residential uses
PLANNING DISTRICT:19
CENSUS TRACT:42.02
VARZAMCES RE STED:None
BACKGROUND:
This PCD zeceived preliminary approval fzom the Planning
Commission on Januazy 10,1995 and by the Board of Dizeotozs onFebruary21,1995 a companion ordinance was passed by the Board
on Pebruazy 21,1995 providing for certain street designstandardstobevariedfreeordinancereguizements.Ordinance
No.16,851 establishing the PCD and 16,S52 reducing standardsrequirerevocationandre-establishment in a modified form.
PILE NO.:5-5936 5-4807 (Cont.
This plan was a new concept mixed use project with specialstreetdesign,mixed structures and a controlled environment.
STATS UPDATE AND OWNERS PROPOSAL:
This PCD did not develop as proposed and requizad within thzeeyears.Therefore,ths planned developesnt requires
modification.The owner desires to pursue uses on portions ofthalandthatwillreverttoC-2 and stay within the pezmittadusesofthatdistrict.A site plan review by the Planning
Cosxxission would follow on the C-2 parcel.
Tha developer proposes to x'stain the commercial,office andresidentialelementsasincludedwithintheoriginalPCD,northofRahlingRoadextendedandsouthwestoftheC-2 tzact,(47.88acres).The C-2 pax'cel would be developed separately from the
PCD and on a different time schedule.
The PCD as re-established along with ths several designvarianceswouldbegrantedanadditionalthreeyearsas aconceptualplanneddevelopment.
What this means is that the 1995 planned use and design remainsthecontrollingplanwiththePlanningCoxxxissionxeviewingfinalplansinapublichearingpriortobuildingpszmits.
Although there will be two ordinances going to the City Board;one soning and one on street variances,the Planning CcsxxissionshouldactwithonemotionsincethestreetdesignmattersareanintegzalpartofthePCDPlan.The Board will act on twoordinancestoappzovetheplan.
STAPP RECEPTIONS:
The staff recosxxends appxoval of the requested xastzuctuxe andreinstatementofthisPCD(concept only)with the understandingthatthephasesofdevelopmentshalleachbepzssentadtothsPlanningCommissionfoxfinalplanandplatreview.
PIANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAZ 25,2000)
The staff zeported to the Commission that there was only onepersonofzecozdwithoppositionandthatletterfx'cm William
Thomas.After briefly discussing ths issue,it was determinedthatthefinalPlanandplatwillhavetoreceivepublichear'ingandnoticeandthatthisitemshouldbaplacedontheconsent
2
EIIEEIIE EIIEEIIII .IIEEEIEIIN5 NIIOIEIIIII,IEEISIEIlllll Illlllllllill)1 '.
IlllillllltHEE llllilllllRI3 .
,H511LIQ%8888L4 Illll~lllllili%-:
,N%8IJ0805E'lk'IIIRIIEELIEL1:''Rill/IF!8%15%5 IIII)JEIEllllll
U115'I5858ilm EllltlllllSlllllllllllllllllllltlllllilNlIlllilllllitllIlllllllll(1RIIIIILllllllllLlIIIEEIIEIQELl
~EIIERIIII511 Illllllllllllli,.585ÃI8888tiÃfi NIEHNNHIREIIIQIIIltCIIEIEIEEEIISI&i
558RI118%3%1 lllllllllillllemareaaaaeeEElamalllele
~IIK~IEIIREI EIIEHIIEIIJIH
1
I
0
May 25,2000
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Date 0
P
&3'ecretaryChairman
3