pc_09 28 2000LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 28,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Mizan RahmanBillRector
Judith Faust
Hugh Earnest
Bob Lowry
Pam Adcock
Fred Allen,Jr.
Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Craig Berry
City Attorney:Steve Giles
'I
\,
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 28,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEM:
A.Z-6861 4819 Stagecoach Road R-2 to C-3
B.Z-6149-B Fellowship Bible Office Building,
Napa Valley C.U.P.
C.Z-6913 Fellowship Bible Parking Lot,
Hinson Road C.U.P.
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z-6897 3524 Mabelvale Pike R-3 to C-4
2.Z-6905 4700 Confederate Blvd.R-2 to 0-1
2.1 LU00-24-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the College
Station/Sweet Home Planning District from
Park/Open Space,Mining,Commercial,Multi
Family,Public Institutional and Single
Family to Office,Single Family,Public
Institutional,Low Density Residential and
Commercial for an area north and south of
the 4500-4800 blocks of Confederate
Boulevard.
3.Z-6915 13000 Chenal Parkway 0-3 to C-3
3.1 LUOO-19-02 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Chenal
Planning District from Multi Family to
Commercial for an area at 13000 Chenal
Parkway.
4.A neighborhood action plan titled "The West Markham
Neighborhoods Plan"for part of the area bounded by I-630,I-430,Rodney Parham Road and John Barrow Roads.
r
H
10
CO
U
N
T
Y
FA
R
M
RO
,
Pu
b
ic
He
a
r
i
n
g
It
e
m
s
B
'i
l
6y
~
LE
E
Ri
v
g
g
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
E
Y
R
1-
6
3
Cl
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
KA
N
I
S
I —63
0
KK
H
I
«
I
7T
H
I
2T
H
9T
H
o
ez
„
h
6
"&
C
A
,
g
WR
I
G
H
T
O~
44
«
4
««
«„
D
A
M
I-
4
3
0
RO
O
S
E
V
E
I
.
T
4+
Q
RO
O
S
E
V
E
L
T
«4
LA
W
S
O
N
1-
4
4
0
'&
+
~
-4
««
1
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
WS
O
N
A
2
ZE
U
B
E
R
DA
V
I
D
1-
3
0
+s
O'
D
O
D
D
65
T
H
d)
65
T
H
««
RA
I
N
E
S
+
VA
L
L
E
Y
Z
TY
LI
M
I
T
S
p
65
4J
16
7
YX
A
c«
D
I
X
O
N
BA
S
E
L
I
N
E
8
BA
S
E
L
NE
4
50
««
DI
X
O
N
3
5
HA
R
P
E
R
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
A
L
E
MA
VA
CU
T
O
F
F
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
J
SL
I
N
K
E
R
«0
MN
S
O
N
OO
I
DR
E
H
E
R
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
w~
YE
R
SP
G
S
.
Q
0
OF
F
~Q
CU
T
O
F
F
CU
T
O
F
F
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
EL
65
36
5
AS
H
E
R
0«
PR
A
T
T
pi
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
28
,
20
0
0
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-6861
Owner:Shirley Brooks
Applicant:Shirley Brooks
Location:4819 Stagecoach Road (T-Bone Inn)
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose:Bring existing,nonconforming
use into compliance with zoning.
Size:1.66+acres
Existing Use:Bar/lounge,res taurant
STAFF REPORT
The applicant is currently in discussions with the City
regarding right-of-way acquisition as part of the Asher
Avenue widening project and asks that the item be deferred
to the August 17,2000 Planning Commission agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 6,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had requested deferral to the August 17,2000 meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to
the August 17,2000 meeting.The vote was 11 ayes,0 noes
and 0 absent.
STAFF UPDATE
The right-of-way issues have not been resolved.Staff
recommends that the item be deferred to the September 28,
2000 commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 17,2000)
The applicant was not present.There were no objectors
present.Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had requested deferral to the September 28,2000 meeting.
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6861
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to
the September 28,2000 meeting.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
In response to staff'suggestion and concerns voiced by the
neighborhood association,the applicant has agreed to
withdraw this C-3 rezoning recpxest in favor of a Planned
Development.A Planned Development to recognize the
existing and historical use of the site has been filed for
the October 26,2000 Commission meeting.Staff recommends
withdrawal of this C-3 recpxest.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn in favor of a
PCD application that had been filed for the October 26,2000
Commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
NAME:Fellowship Bible Office Building—
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:1701,1711,1801,181l Napa Valley Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT:Charles Stein,Ray Rainey,Alberdeen
Little,Shane Smith /Fellowship Bible
Church
PROPOSAL:To amend an existing conditional use
permit to allow expansion of church
property and to allow for a two story
church office building with on site
parking on property zoned R-2,Single
Family Residential,located at 1701,
1711,1801,1811 Napa Valley Drive.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This proposed site is located on the east side of Napa
Valley Drive,a short distance south of the
intersection of Napa Valley and Hinson Road,across
from Asbury United Methodist Church.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is Zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and
is totally surrounded by residential property.The area
to the east is a Planned Residential District (PRD)
containing single family residences,and across Napa
Valley to the west are two churches.The applicant
already has an "L"shaped parking area around the
northwest corner of the PRD to the east.This proposal
would enlarge the existing parking area and add a two-
story church office building.
Staff does not believe this proposal would be
compatible with the neighborhood.Staff feels that the
building is too large to be located this close to a
residential area,would leave too little separation or
transition between this large building and an
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
established residential neighborhood,and would
protrude past a clearly established line on the east
side of Napa Valley Drive that now divides the office
area to the north from the residential zoning.Staff's
position is that the office use should not encroach
further south.
The Rainwood Cove and Glen Eagles Property Owners
Associations,all property owners within 200 feet,
and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
3 .ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed plan includes a divided driveway in the
center of the additional area with 20 foot driveways on
either side.The plan shows 186 parking spaces.The
ordinance would require a minimum of 85 spaces based on
1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area on a
sliding scale after 10,000 square feet.The applicant
has stated the building square footage would be 37,000.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
existing and proposed ordinance requirements.
Under the proposed ordinance this project would be
required to be irrigated.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Napa Valley is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45
feet from centerline is required.
b.Rainwood Drive is listed on the Master Street plan
as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30feetfromcenterline.
c.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is
required at the corner of Napa Valley and Rainwood.
d.Provide design of street conforming to "MSp"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
e.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be
submitted for approval prior to start of work.f.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
property.
g.Easements for proposed stormwater detentionfacilitiesarerequired.
h.Napa Valley has a 1998 average daily traffic count
of 11,000.
6 UT IL I TY ~FIRE DEPT ~AND CATA COMMENTS
'ater:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies
in addition to normal charges.On-site fire
protection may be required.Any relocation of
existing water facilities will be at the expense of
the developer.
Wastewater:Manhole adjustments will be done by the
developer to utility standards.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:No comments received.
Entergy:A fifteen foot utility easement on either
side of overhead pole line is required if overhead
line is needed.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has requested to amend an existing
conditional use permit to allow expansion of church
property and to allow for a two story church office
building with on site parking on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
The proposed plan would meet ordinance required
setbacks and siting requirements.The parking proposedismorethantwicetheminimumrequiredbyordinance,
186 versus 85.The overall building height is 48 feet
3
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
to the peak.However the ordinance measures the height
to the mid-point of the sloped roof which would be 33
feet compared to the maximum allowed 35 feet.The
offices would be open primarily 8 to 5 Monday through
Friday.The applicant has agreed to use bollard style
lighting in the rear of the building and gate off the
rear parking area behind the building closest to the
residential area so that it would be open only duringofficehoursandprimarychurchservices.
The church has tried to accommodate requests by the
City and has met with the neighborhood,listened to
their concerns and made some adjustments.However,
Staff does not believe this proposal would be
compatible with the neighborhood.Staff feels that the
building is too large to be located this close to a
residential area.The addition of parking surrounding
the building would make the new use even more
overwhelming to the residents to the east,and leave
too little separation or transition between this large
building and an established residential neighborhood.
Even with proper shielding of the lighting and with a
board fence screen around the perimeter abutting the
residential property,the building would loom over
those houses.This office use would protrude past a
clearly established line on the east side of Napa
Valley Drive that now divides the office area to the
north from the residential zoning.Staff'position is
that the office use should not encroach further south.
Staff does not believe this is a reasonable use of this
property.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested conditional
use due primarily to the size of the building,
closeness to the residential area,and encroachment
past the present dividing line between the office and
residential zoning.
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Mike Cruz was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.The applicant
provided the hours of operation and building square footage.
He confirmed that they would gate the rear area and lock it
when the offices were closed and no main church services
were being held.He also made a few comments about meetings
that were held with neighbors.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14 I 2QQQ)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,Randy
Frazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
were present representing the application.There were
several other church leaders and members also in attendance.
There were 2 registered objectors and two other registered
supporters present.
Due to the length of the agenda,and based on the projected
time for the Commission to reach this item,discussions took
place outside of the hearing about deferring the item.It
was felt that the deferral would be better for all parties
by allowing the item to be considered earlier in the agenda
rather than at a -late hour as would occur at this hearing.
The applicant then requested a deferral until the next
hearing.
A motion was made to defer the application until
September 28,2000.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 nay and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(TEMBER 28,2000)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,Randy
Frazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
5
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
were present representing the application.There were
3 registered objectors and one proponent present.Staff
presented the item with a recommendation for denial of the
conditional use permit due primarily to the size of the
building,closeness to the residential area,and
encroachment past the present dividing line between the
office and residential zoning.
Commissioner Nunnley asked for Public Works to give an
update on the proposed widening of Napa Valley Drive.Mr.
Turner,Public Works Director,explained where the process
was and what was still to be done before construction would
begin.He expected it would be ready to go to contract in
approximately one year.Commissioner Nunnley followed with a
question about the effect of this proposed development on
water runoff.Mr.Turner stated that the project would have
to adhere to the storm water detention requirements of the
ordinance.He then showed a grade alignment drawing showing
the impact of the road widening on the properties in the
proposal,showing that the road widening would push out into
the current front yards of these properties about 20 feet.
He added that the new development would have to match grades
with the new road and that Public Works recommended that the
church make an in-lieu payment to the City to meet their
requirement and let the City do all of the street widening
contract at one time.
Randy Frazier,church attorney,began the church's
presentation.He began by mentioning that the President
signed into law on September 22 the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act.He stated that depending on
the interpretation,the law states that the City cannot
place unreasonable restrictions on land use and development
or apply land use regulations unless there is a compelling
governmental interest and it's the least restrictive means,
and cannot place a substantial burden on worship and the
exercise of religion.
Mr.Frazier noted that after the Commission meeting in
January,where the church had applied for a parking area on
half of the property on the current request,the church
completed its long range strategic plan for future
development of the church.The plan addressed several of the
issues that were brought up at that January hearing.He
6
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
stated the church has gone to three services.He said the
church bought 4 small shuttle buses and does shuttle from
Pulaski Academy,Cyprus Plaza,Terry Library,and Smith
Capital Management parking areas during all services.The
church also looked at other land to use as potential parking
areas.Item C,Hinson Road,on this agenda was their prime
choice as an alternate location to use for parking.The plan
also plans to cap the church membership and plans to create
other branch churches if they reach the cap for the current
church location.He stated the church feels that the
proposed office building with the accompanying parking is a
dire necessity for the church to continue its ministry to
the community and to its members and visitors.He added they
feel that not granting the use would pose a substantial
burden on the church.
Mr.Robert Lewis,teaching Pastor,briefly explained the
church'long range plan.He said it includes three Sunday
services with a cap on membership of 7,500 people,a need
for the additional office space and parking areas being
asked for today.He stated they currently have an attendance
of about,5,000 each Sunday.He added that the two requests
before the Commission would be the last asked for.He
committed to no more requests for any further expansion into
the surrounding neighborhood.This would finish the campus
development required in their current long-range plan at
this location and enable them to continue to help people
through the current ministries they are now committed to.He
also stated that they started five other churches in
surrounding communities as growth occurred.He also said,to
relieve concerns of surrounding neighborhoods,that they
will not expand beyond these two projects,they will not try
to "gobble up"any more properties around them.They feel
they have done all they could to mitigate the impact of
these two projects and be good neighbors while meeting their
own needs for facilities.He stated that the only time they
cannot meet the parking requirements within today'
available parking is on Sunday.Regarding traffic problems,
he stated that the policemen they hired to direct traffic
during services have signed statements that it takes only
one to two minutes to move the off-site parking through the
church campus at the height of the alleged congestion.
Regarding noise and crime,the church is unaware of any
problems of consequence,other than an occasional call about
7
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
noise.With regard to property values,their poll of area
realtors revealed that values around the church have gone up
not down,and are comparable to other similar neighborhoods.
Regarding the details of the proposed office building
development,Pastor Lewis stated that they could still meet
their required square footage and reduce the size from 365
feet long,about 75 feet deep,and 49 feet high to 264 feet
long,about the same depth and 35 feet high,if they changed
the style from residential to a more normal office style.He
added that the church would be willing to place whatever
type and density of vegetation the neighbors and the City
wanted in the 25 foot buffer to provide screening and be a
good neighbor.They agreed to work with the surrounding
neighbors in the selection of the type and height of
screening fencing to provide security and be pleasing to
look at.They agreed to use bollard lighting rather than
pole lighting to prevent lighting from spilling into the
surrounding neighborhoods.He said they would gate the rear
parking area and shut it after 5 p.m.during the week and
non-service times on weekends to provide an extra buffer.
Regarding the Hinson parking area,Pastor Lewis stated no
Pulaski Academy use would be allowed.The parking areas
would be gated and locked at all times other than for church
use.He added that lighting would again be bollard type
along the west side.He stated that the buffer between the
parking area and Pleasant Valley Estates would be heavily
screened and landscaped.He also mentioned they have agreed
to tie the use specifically to Fellowship Bible use.He
agreed that if it was sold or used for anything other than
church parking,the C.U.P.could be terminated.He continued
by saying the church has signed a contract to do a study to
ensure that drainage from both the Adkins development and
the Fellowship Bible development would not negatively impact
the downstream flow.He also stated they would construct a
brick and iron fence along Hinson to blend with the existing
and proposed fencing.
Pastor Lewis stated in response to a neighbor's question as
to why not just move the church to an area with more room,
he responded that would cause an inward focus of time and
resources to accomplish that,and take away from focusingallofthatenergyintocommunityservicewhichtheyare now
8
Sept.ember 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
able to do.They are unwilling to do that now.They don'
want to move,but if they grow beyond the stated cap,they
would move the excess membership to another location and
keep this site too,with its important ministries.
Mike Cruz explained more details of the office building
structure and exterior features.He stated that the new
building would have about 22,600 square feet compared to
19,300 square feet in the existing 4 houses.He added that
the new building would be about 90 feet from the back
property line,which is about the same as the houses are
setback now.
Rick Sowell,project architect,spoke about the design
philosophy of the building.He stated that the overall
intent was to make it look as residential as possible with a
sloped shingle roof,brick,stone and siding mix,and a
brick chimney.He commented that the height,while high
overall at the peak,does meet City requirements for a
sloped roof at 33 feet.In response to a question from
Commissioner Allen,he stated that the pitch of this roof
would be about a 12 in 12 in comparison to houses today that
range from 7 in 12 to 12 in 12.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about how the building would lookiftheyreducedthesizeasmentionedearlier.Mr.Sowell
stated that would reduce the overall footprint,but it would
be more rectangular and have a more commercial look.He
added that the length would shorten some,the depth would
increase,but still fall within the roof footprint of the
residential building shown in the model.
Commissioner Lowry asked the City Attorney about the impact
the Act mentioned earlier would have on this proposal,andifthisdoesn'change the ground rules for the Commission's
decision.He added that if they don'know the new ground
rules this Act generates,how could they make a decision.
Mr.Giles,City Attorney,responded that he had not had time
to evaluate the meaning of this new Act,and he agreed that
Commissioner Lowry's question of how to decide without
knowing the new ground rules was a good one.
9
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
Commissioner Lowry moved that Item B &C be deferred until
the rules based on the new Act be presented to the
Commission.It died for a lack of a second.
Commissioner Rahman stated that he felt the Commission
should hear the opposition presentation and then decide
whether to defer or not.
Commissioner Lowry questioned how the Commission could
proceed without knowing what was the "least restrictive"
thing they can do in order to accomplish the good of the
City as referred to in the Act.
Mike Callahan,Rainwood Cove Neighborhood Association
Executive Committee member,spoke in opposition on behalf of
himself and the Neighborhood Association.He stated that the
overwhelming majority of their neighborhood opposed this
proposal,and that only one or two people were ok with it.
He presented the following seven reasons why he felt this
building should not be built:1)inappropriate building
size;he showed a scaled model which demonstrated that the
size of the proposed building was much larger and out of
context in scale to the adjacent houses;2)negative sight
impact;loss of most of the mature trees,possible drainage
problems,and complete change to the topography of the site;
3)security concerns;large number of people transiting the
new site day and night,and possible physical security and
visual privacy concerns;4)noise and light pollution;noise
from traffic and overflow lighting from the parking area;5)
increased traffic problems;significant increase in traffic
congestion caused during rush hours entering and exiting the
single access point into the new development;6)decreased
property value,particularly of the 9 homes abutting the
proposed site;7)perpetuating unstructured growth of the
church at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods.He
concluded by suggesting Fellowship Bible move to another
site for its primary location and make this location a
satellite.
Harlan Weber,resident abutting the proposed site,spoke in
opposition.He asked how denying this large office building
would interfere with worship and the exercise of religion as
mentioned in the new Act.He submitted petitions from three
10
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
reiterated the point with their own scale model of how big
the new building would be compared to his house.He askediftheappealoftheoriginaldenialinJanuaryofthe
parking area had been withdrawn.Mr.Frazier stated that
the church had abandoned the original application,which
was for only a parking area on half of the properties in
the current request.Mr.Weber suggested that the church
move to a larger site.He also noted that Fellowship Bible
owned the Cloud,Cloud and Carter office building on the
southeast corner of Hinson and Napa Valley.
Hill Sloan,representing the Countrywood Condominium
regime,spoke in opposition.He stated that the
overwhelming majority of their complex residents opposed
this proposal.He commented that the goals of the church
were laudatory,but he felt that the needs of the residents
and the church's neighbors would be paramount.He added
that as stated in Countrywood's petition,this development
would denigrate and/or destroy the ambiance and atmosphere
of the neighborhood,plummet the property values of the
surrounding area causing financial hardship and loss to the
area residents,and the project would create intolerable
traffic conditions for the children and all residents of
the area.He also referred to the new law Mr.Frazier spoke
of and its referral to burdens to the church.He asked what
about burdens to the residents?What about the needs of the
neighborhood not just the needs of the church?
Commissioner Nunnley asked the applicants what their plans
were to redevelop the site should they move.Pastor Lewis
answered that they don't plan to leave the site so they
don't have any redevelopment plan.In response to a
restatement of the question,Pastor Lewis said that if they
had to abandon the site they would work with the community
to redevelop it.Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr.Weber if he
could accept the scaled down building mentioned by the
church.Mr.Weber said that he couldn'accept any other
building there besides the existing houses.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Frazier if he was saying that
the new law would require the Commission to allow this use
because it is for a church.His answer was that if the
church has shown a substantial burden on the exercise of
religion would occur by denying this application,then that
action would seem to violate the new law.
11
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
Commissioner Downing asked Mr.Frazier what burden denying
this application would place on the church activities whereitexistsrightnow.He answered that the existing burden is
that the church can'provide enough parking and space for
the members and visitors that come to the church,that the
existing site impedes church growth,and members were
turning away from attending because they can'find parking.
Pastor Lewis added to the answer that currently areas that
were set aside for children in the current church building
were being used for offices,and even with that,people were
doubling up in offices and working from their homes.The newofficebuildingwouldalleviatetheofficecrowdingand
allow space to be used as originally intended,for children.
Commissioner Lowry asked for more specifics on the actualofficespaceneededataminimumtoadequatelyfunction.
Pastor Lewis stated that they are trying to meet the needs
of current staff and staff growth to 150 persons over the
next three years with the square footage in the new
building.
Commissioner Rahman asked if they had room to build on
existing church property near the student fellowship hall.
The conclusion was no,it was already fully developed.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Pastor Lewis why they couldn'
open other branches now rather than wait until they reach
their new cap of 7,500 members.Pastor Lewis responded that
they had devoted a lot of time and resources over the last
several years to build up their facilities and programs at
this current location.These last two projects would
complete that effort.Now they could devote their resources
to applying those ministries to the community,not fund
raising and internal facility construction.He continued
that if they try to set up another major branch now,then
that would take much of the time and resources away again
from those ministries in order to set up the branch.That
goes against their plan and desire of where to expend theireffortsandresources.
Commissioner Faust stated that she felt the question the
Commission had to answer was what would be the affect of
this project on the surrounding neighborhoods,and would it
12
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
be compatible with,and impact the integrity of the
neighborhood.She understood the church does not believe the
new office building would have any undesirable affect on the
surrounding neighborhood.Pastor Lewis agreed with her
assessment of the church's position.She stated she had
trouble reconciling the compatibility of the proposed
building with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Earnest asked Pastor Lewis if they had
considered building multiple story buildings and parking
garages on the current property.Pastor Lewis responded that
he felt those approaches would be more unattractive and
undesirable to the neighbors,and more negatively
impact the overall visual appearance of the area,plus be
much more expensive for the church.
Commissioner Lowry asked Mr.Frazier if he would like toenterintotherecordanyspecifictenantofthereligion
which requires this growth and expansion.Mr.Frazier
responded that the burden would be reduced access to the
premises for the people who would visit,limited future
growth of the church,limitations on the use of thefacilitiesandministriesthechurchcanprovidebecause of
the limited available space.
Commissioner Rector said he saw the problem to be the size
and location of the proposed building and asked if theofficeadministrationcouldn'be done elsewhere.Pastor
Lewis responded that would separate those functions from
where the daily business of the church occurs and wheretheirsupportisapplied,to the ministries and people at
the church,and he said he felt that would be an undue
burden on the church.
Commissioner Downing asked how many staff members there were
currently,how many offices there were on and off site,and
was some standard square footage figure used to match
requirements to arrive at the required size of the proposedbuilding.The response from Pastor Lewis was approximately
110 staff members and 110 offices now,with the future plantoinclude150staffmembers.The architect stated standardsizeswereusedtodesignthenewbuildingbasedonthe
requirements given to him by the church.Commissioner
Downing continued by stating that he had concern about.the
13
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-B
size and the footprint of the proposed building and he feltitwouldbetoomuchforthesurroundingneighborhood.
Chair Adcock asked if the church owned any office space it
had leased out to others.Pastor Lewis responded that they
owned a building near the corner of Hinson and Napa Valley
which contained about 9,000 square feet,but it was under a
lease to be used 'by doctors until the year 2003.However,he
added that that building was already planned for use by
existing ministries of the church when the lease expires.
He said they would be relocating these ministries so they
can move out of space the church is leasing now at Smith
Capital Management.
Commissioner Nunnley brought up the fact that the Commission
approved the Immanuel Baptist Church C.U.P.,which he felt
was very invasive to that neighborhood,and he felt the
Commission should be consistent in their decisions.
Commissioner Rahman made the point that the difference in
these two applications was that the neighborhood had come to
an acceptable compromise agreement with the church in that
case,but not in this case.
Chair Adcock made the comment that she read that some
members in Congress stated this new law would cause churches
and neighborhoods to be at each other's throats and she felt
that was coming true.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
to include Public Works'omments and recommendations and
the Pastor'statements as to proposed changes.The motion
failed by a vote of 1 aye,8 nays,abstention by
Commissioner Nunnley and 1 absent.
14
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:Z-6913
NAME:Fellowship Bible Church —Conditional
Use Permit
LOCATION:12824 &12900 Hinson Road
OWNER/APPLICANT:Bob Adkins /Fellowship Bible Church
PROPOSAL:To obtain a conditional use permit for a
paved parking area for the church at anoff-site location at 12824 and 12900
Hinson Road on property zoned R-2,
Single Family Residential.
ORDINANCE DES IGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The proposed site is located on the north side of
Hinson Road,northeast of Pulaski Academy School.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This proposed site is zoned R-2,Single Family
Residential,and is surrounded by R-2 zoning.The landiscurrentlyvacant,but is surrounded by developed or
developing residential single family homes except -for
Pulaski Academy which is to the southeast of this site
on the opposite side of Hinson Road.
Staff believes this use would be compatible with the
surrounding area.Staff feels that the measures the
church has proposed to control traffic and use the site
only for church parking during primary church services
and activities,would minimize the impact to the
neighborhood.
The Marlow Manor and the Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Associations,all property owners within 200
feet,and all residents within 300 feet that could be
identified,were notified of the public hearing.
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
The proposed plan would include improving an existing
gravel driveway that serves three houses on property
1
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
behind the proposed site by paving and widening it.
Access to the parking areas would be taken from that
driveway in order to maintain only one access point
onto Hinson.The parking areas would be gated in order
to maintain open access to the houses while keeping the
parking areas from being used other than for church
needs.The proposal would add 189 parking spaces.
4.SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet
current requirements.However,130 linear feet of the
western buffer drops below the proposed ordinance
minimum buffer width of nine feet.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
a.Hinson Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45
feet from centerline is required.
b.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"
(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street
improvement to these streets including 5-foot
sidewalks with planned development.Existing
street is less than 59 feet wide.c.Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec.31-175
and the "MSP".
d.Dedicate Regulatory Floodway easement to the City.
Provide hydraulic study for floodway relocation and
submit to FEMA for approval.e.Provide 45 feet wide easement and 24 feet wide
pavement &or property owners directly north.f.Hinson has a 1998 average daily traffic count of
15,000.
6 UT IL I TY ~F IRE DEPT /AND CATA COMMENTS
Water:An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in
addition to normal charges.
Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with
easements to serve property.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
2GKLA:No comments received.
2
I
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant has request a conditional use permit for
a paved parking area for the church at this of f -site
location at 12824 and 12900 Hinson Road on property
zoned R-2,Single Family Residential.
All siting requirements are met by the proposed plan.
The church'main sanctuary seats 1819,plus they can
seat 500 students in their own service at the 'same
time.Many of the students do drive their own cars.
Giving them credit for half of those seats generating
parking requirements,that would increase "seating"to
2,069.That would generate an ordinance parking
requirement of 517 spaces.The church currently has 790
spaces it owns,plus an agreement with Pulaski Academy
to use 253 spaces on the school's property for a total
of 1,043 parking spaces.That represents a current
ratio of about one space for every two people when
looking at only the main sanctuary seating.
The additional parking requested in this proposal would
increase the total available spaces to 1,158.That
would result in a ratio of about one space for every
1.75 people.However,Fellowship Bible has many other
ministries going on at the same time as the main
service.As many as 1200 volunteers and participants
are involved in the other Sunday activities during the
main sanctuary service.They also require parking thatisn't accounted for by looking at only the sanctuary
seating capacity.The actual situation is that current
parking is inadequate on Sundays.The church has stated
they are currently busing members from another parking
area at Cypress Plaza with a temporary arrangement
until December 2000.There is a good chance the church
will loose that option (65 spaces)after December.That
loss would make approval of this requested area even
more critical for the church.
3
I
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
Staff realizes that increased traffic is a concern of
the neighborhood.The church intends to use this area
primarily for the main Sunday services and special
activities at Easter and Christmas.They have stated in
writing that they would limit the use of this parking
area for only Fellowship Bible Church functions.While
there certainly would be a spike in traffic volume when
this area is used,that would usually occur on Sunday
when other traffic is much lighter and nearby Pulaski
Academy is not in session.The church would provide a
policeman to direct traffic whenever this area is used
and the increased volume would be for a short duration.
Staff believes their proposed measures to limit the
frequency of use and control the situation when it is
used,would be reasonable and minimize any negative
impact.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a.Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances.
b.Comply with Public Works Comments.c.All exterior lighting must be low intensity and
directed downward and inward to the property and
not towards any residential zoned area.
d.Ensure that traffic control is always used whenever
the parking area is in use.
e.The use of this parking area is limited to use for
Fellowship Bible Church functions only.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:(AUGUST 24,2000)
Mike Cruz was present representing the application.Staff
gave a brief description of the proposal,briefly reviewing
the comments provided to the applicant.
The applicant provided numbers for seating capacity and
existing parking spaces.A short discussion took place
regarding the Public Works comments.Of particular interest
were concerns over the size of the access driveway,
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
complying with floodway requirements on the site,limiting
the amount of lighting when the area was not in use,and
control of traffic when it would be in use.
There being no further issues,the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final action.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 14,2000)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,Randy
Frazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
were present representing the application.There were
several other church leaders and members also in attendance.
There were 11 registered objectors present.
Due to the length of the agenda,and based on the projected
time for the Commission to reach this item,discussions took
place with both sides outside of the hearing about deferring
the item.It was felt that the deferral would be better for
all parties by allowing the item to be considered earlier in
the agenda rather than at a late hour as would occur at this
hearing.The applicant then requested a deferral until the
next hearing.
One objector,Connie Hall,asked if she could make her
comments for the record now because she would not be able to
attend on September 28.The Chair agreed.
Mrs.Hall stated %hat she was also representing her mother
who has owned property to the north of the west half of the
proposed site for about 35 years.Mrs.Hall stated her
primary concerns and objections were:traffic from 185 cars
would be in their "driveway"when they enter or exit;
concern over Pulaski Academy using the area causing daily
use;increased traffic on Hinson;obstruction of her access
to Hinson,which she would need even on Sunday morning since
that is a work day for her as a nurse;noise from the
parking area;devaluation of their property resulting in
being "squeezed out"by the church.She then asked for all
persons present in opposition to stand,there were about
12 who stood.
5
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
A motion was made to defer the application until
September 28,2000.The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes,
1 nay and 0 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28 g 2000)
Robert Lewis,Pastor,Mike Cruz,Campus Director,RandyFrazier,Church attorney,the architect and the engineer
were present representing the application.There were 15
registered objectors present.Staff presented the item with
a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.
Mr.Frazier opened the applicant's presentation by referringtothegeneralcommentsheandPastorLewisgaveduringItem
B of this agenda and asked they be made part of this item
record also.He reiterated as explained earlier that there
was a real need for additional parking for the church.
Mike Cruz presented the details of the planned construction
on their 2.2 acre vacant site.He stated the church has
agreed to the following items:1)comply with the new
landscape and buffer ordinance requirements throughout the
development;2)install a brick and wrought iron fence along
Hinson to blend with the other subdivision fences on both
sides of this site,and make the proposed site look moreresidential;3)dedicate 45 feet of right of way for the
access drive to the houses in the rear,and build it to City
standards;4)meet City landscape and buffer requirements
along the east side,but at the request of Mr.Adkins,the
property owner of the development along the east side,they
would not put in a wood privacy fence;5)they would install
low intensity lighting in the parking area using 18 foot,
poles in the interior and bollard lights along the
perimeter;6)perform a floodway study to ensure all FEMA,
requirements are met and that no problems would be createdfortheneighborsdownstream;7)the site would include 185
parking spaces with one gated entrance into each side from
the new access road down the middle to the houses in the
rear;8)the church would install a sidewalk along Hinson
meeting City standards;9)the parking area would be for
Fellowship Bible use only as primarily overflow for the
large events and for Sunday mornings,no Pulaski Academy
6
I
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
use;10)the gates would be closed whenever the area was not
being used by Fellowship Bible.
Commissioner Earnest asked for verification that the access
road to the houses in the rear would be turned over to the
City as a "to standard"street.Mr.Cruz said it would
within about one year.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if the driveway being installed
by the church would continue all the way to Mrs.Hall'
property if the property owners would like to have that
done.Mr.Cruz responded that the church would not want to
incur that expense,they would just complete the portion
along their property.
Commissioner Muse asked what generated the church's decision
to not allow any one else to use the parking area.Mr.Cruz
said that decision came after discussions with the neighbors
to the immediate north and Pleasant Valley Estates
residents.The residents were concerned about access to
Hinson if the school used the site,and added congestion
particularly twice a day during the week when the school
would be open.Commissioner Muse said he felt the area
should be open to use by Pulaski Academy since the church
uses the school parking area.Mr.Frazier commented that the
church would be willing to open it to Pulaski Academy ifthat's what the Commission wanted,but the neighbors said
they didn'want that.
Commissioner Lowry asked what established the access
easement dedication that has been mentioned.Mr.Cruz
responded that their title search revealed that there is a
15 foot dedicated private right of way easement on the two
properties that forms a 30 foot access between the two
properties on the application to the properties in the rear.
Mr.Frazier added that the church would dedicate the 45 foot
easement to the City to make it a City street,no longer
just an access easement.
Mr.Frazier made the additional comment he fe]t
reason this site had remained unapproved is the floodway
through it,which made residential development of this
property cost prohibitive.He made the point that the church
has agreed to go to the expense to correct that prob]~for
their intended use.
7
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
Chair Adcock asked about lights from the cars shining into
nearby homes.Mr.Cruz responded that they would have a six
foot high wood privacy fence and heavy vegetation on all
sides abutting residential zoning to prevent that
possibility.
Commissioner Nunnley asked about the need for ],8 foot ta]]
light poles in the parking area if the area wou].d on].y be
used during the Sunday morning services and locked the rest
of the time.Mr.Cruz responded that there would be times
occasionally during the year,and particularly at Easter and
Christmas when they would have some special evening services
when the lighting would be needed for security.
Commissioner Nunnley also asked what would happen to thesiteifthechurch's C.U.P.is terminated,what would be the
church's obligation for restoration.Staff responded that
the intent is that the church use the parking area only for
their use,no other users.If they leave the site the next
user would have to come back to the Commission to permit the
new owner to use the area.The site would remain as it was
developed,but the Commission would get another look at any
new proposed use.
Dr.Richard Wilhelm spoke in opposition.He stated he owns alotthatabutsthisproposedsiteonthewestside.His main
concerns were that the parking area would be bad for the
environment,he was concerned over flooding caused by this
development,and that abutting property owners bought their
properties with the understanding that this area was zoned
for residential use not a parking area,and that there were
no plans then for anything other than residential use.He
also felt Fellowship Bible had other options such as their
members carpooling,or using other existing parking areas
east of the church.He stated it should be used as a City
park,or to encourage a developer to develop it for houses.
He said it was wrong to force the property owners behind
this site to loose property value and to have to drive
through a parking lot to enter or leave their property.
Russell Haney spoke in opposition.He owns property behind
the proposed site.His concerns were increased difficulty
getting onto Hinson Road,worsened traffic congestion,and
decreased property value.He said he knew of developers that
would like to develop this property with single family homesifthecurrentownerdoesn'want to.His primary concern he
reiterated would be decreased property value,possibly even
8
September 28,2000
ZTEM NO.:C (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6913
to zero.He said he talked to developers who said they
wouldn't touch it with a parking lot between it and Hinson
Road.
John Davis spoke in opposition.He lives in Pleasant Valley
Estates and spoke for the neighborhood association.He
stated that the neighborhood is united in its opposition to
the proposed project.He stated that there was only one
house that borders the area around the proposed parking
area that did not oppose the project,and that person is a
member of Fellowship Bible.His main points of concern were:
1)strong neighborhood opposition;2)inappropriateness of a
commuter parking lot in a residential neighborhood area;
3)the change in the character of the area that would result
from this type of use of the property,including noise,
lights,reduced level of privacy,and the traffic;and
4)that alternatives may be available.He commented that,
Fellowship constructed buildings on its campus on areas that,
had been reserved for parking,thereby making a conscious
decision to reduce available parking at the same time they
were increasing the need for parking.Now they want to buy
up more land in an existing residential neighborhood area to
fix the problem they created by building an off-site
commuter parking lot in a residential neighborhood,in spite
of the impact it would have on the families living in and
around the neighborhood.He added his concerns that starting
about 7:30 a.m.every Sunday,several hundred cars would
begin using the parking area with the accompanying noise of
running engines and doors slamming,and the noise from
several shuttle bus runs.This would be occurring on a,day
and at a time that.for many is a quiet day of rest,Sunday,
plus whenever other church events occur.He continued that
the zoning laws exist to separate incompatible land uses and
when they are properly enforced,you don't expect to find a
commuter parking lot in a residential neighborhood area.He
added that the proposed privacy fence would not provide much
privacy,particularly because several of the nearby houses
are 20 feet higher in elevation.They would look straight
down into the parking area no matter what kind of fence was
put in.Zn addition,he addressed the issue of alternatives.
He stated that with one phone call they were able to
identify 200 parking spaces in one location that could very
well be available for lease to Fellowship.He said a second
9
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6913
call found an area that could be purchased and offered
parking for 100 cars and 7,000 square feet of office space.
Both areas were within a mile of Fellowship and they did
offer them as alternatives to Mr.Cruz.
Commissioner Rahman asked Mr.Davis if he had any idea why
the properties in this site had never been developed.Mr.
Davis said he did not know why.Mr.George Collins,a
resident in the neighborhood since 1987,offered as an
explanation that the properties had no water or sewer
available to them.Commissioner Rahman asked the church
representatives if they had pursued the alternatives
suggested by the neighborhood.Mr.Cruz responded that
Mr.Davis didn'give him the specifics of the locations
they had identified,but knowing now where they are,he
feels they are too far away to provide a reasonable commute.
He said that Cyprus Plaza is the limit of the distance they
feel would be reasonable.
Chair Adcock asked if the church had checked into any other
parking areas where they were closed on Sunday.Mr.Cruz
responded again that currently they have leased some parking
space at Cyprus Plaza and they felt that was the limit of
the distance their people would be willing to shuttle.
added that the problem with leased space was the uncertainty
of how long the lease would last.
Commissioner Rahman asked if the church would like more
to look at other alternatives,or that they weren't
interested in looking at other alternatives.Mr.Cruz
responded that tHey were set on the Hinson site,it's close
to their campus,and was a reasonable shuttle distance for
their people.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
include staff comments and recommendations and the
concessions stated by the applicant.The motion failed by
vote of 5 ayes,4 nays and 2 absent.
10
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6897
Owner:Crispin Arcedera
Applicant:Crispin Arcedera
Location:3524 Mabelvale Pike
Request:Rezone from R-3 to C-4
Purpose:Develop property as a plant
nursery
Size:.38 acre
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Book Bindery;zoned I-2
South —Floodplain,outside of city limits;no zoningEast—Auto repair and entrance to Quality Foods
Distribution Center;zoned I-2
West —Church School Gymnasium;zoned 0-1
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Mabelvale Pike is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
minor arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet
from centerline is required.
2.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City ofLittleRock.
With Buildin Permit
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance¹18,031.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
September 28,2000
ZTEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:Z-6897
PUBLZC NOTZFZCATZON
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the South of Asher,
Curran-Conway,Geyer Springs and SWLR UP Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Z-630 Planning District.The
adopted Plan recommends "LZ"Light Zndustrial for this
property and the abutting properties that front onto
Mabelvale Pike.The uses permitted in "I-2",the zoning
designation which corresponds to the Plan designation,and"C-4",the zoning requested by the applicant,are very
similar.Both allow similar outdoor display uses and have
similar setback requirements.C-4 does prohibit open
display within the first 20 feet of the front yard setback.
Zn staff's opinion,allowing the C-4 zoning should not
require an amendment to the Plan.The proposed plant nursery
could be viewed as more of a "holding use"for the site withitstruedevelopmentpotentiallyingwithexpansionof
either the industrial use or school use that abut the site
on the north and west.
The site is not within an area currently covered by a
neighborhood action plan.This area lies south of the
boundary of the Oak Forest Neighborhood Action Plan and the
Asher Avenue Corridor Study.
STAFF ANALYSZS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these twolots,totaling .38+acres,from "R-3"Single Family to "C-4"
Open Display Commercial district.The property is currently
vacant.The dilapidated structures that previously existed
on the site have been removed.The applicant proposes to
develop the site as a plant nursery.
The property is located on the west side of Mabelvale Pike,several lots south of West 35 Street.The city limitslineabutsthepropertyonthesouth.The property to the
south is not zoned and is vacant,being mostly floodway.A
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6897
book bindery is located on the I-2 zoned property adjacent
to the north.A church-school gymnasium is located on the
0-1 zoned property to the west.The gymnasium fronts onto
West 35""Street so that the rear of the building abuts the
subject property.A large area of I-2 zoned properties is
located across Mabelvale Pike,to the east.Uses in that
area include an auto repair garage and the entrance to a
large food distribution company campus.Numerous other
industrial,commercial and non-residential uses are located
in the immediate vicinity.Mabelvale Pike is a heavily
traveled minor arterial street.
Staff believes this site is an appropriate location for the
proposed use and that the requested C-4 zoning is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
The applicant was present.There was one interested party
present.A letter had been received from Janet Berry,of
Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,in which she
voiced support for the proposed use but urged the Commission
to consider a Planned Development or a conditional use
permit rather than C-4 zoning.Staff presented the item and
a recommendation of approval.
Norm Floyd spoke on behalf of Janet Berry and reiterated her
concern about C-4 zoning.
A motion was made to approve the requested C-4 zoning.The
motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent.
3
\
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6905
Owner:Louis Nalley,Jr.
Applicant:Ricky Toney
Location:4700 Confederate Blvd.
Request:Rezone from R-2 to 0-1
Purpose:Develop as a mortuary
Size:.74 acre
Existing Use:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned R-2
South —Vacant;sparsely wooded;zoned R-2
East —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Confederate Blvd.is listed on the Master Street Plan as
a minor arterial.Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from
centerline.
With Buildin Permit
2.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance¹18,031.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.There is a
route located one block west of the site,at Gillam Park and
Confederate Blvd.
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6905
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet and the Granite Mountain
Neighborhood Association were notified of the rezoning
request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the College Station/Sweet Home
Planning District.The adopted Plan currently recommends
PK/OS,Park/Open Space,for the site,part of a larger PK/OSareawhichservesasabufferbetweenthesinglefamilyon
the west and the mining on the east.A land use plan
amendment has been filed,proposing Mixed Use for an area on
the north side of Confederate Blvd.,including this site.
(See LUOO-24-01)Staff is supportive of the proposed change,
allowing the MX to serve as a transition between the Mining
and Confederate Blvd.The larger PK/OS buffer will remaintothenorth,between the Mining and the single family.0-1istheleastintensiveofficedesignationandisappropriateincloseproximitytoresidentialuses.The proposed use,a
mortuary,requires a conditional use permit in 0-1.The
requested 0-1,Quiet Office,zoning with the added level of
review through the conditional use process meets the spiritoftheMXdesignation.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped .74+acre site from "R-2"Single Family to "0-1"
Quiet Office district.The property is currently heavily
wooded.The applicant proposes to develop a mortuary on thesite.A mortuary requires a conditional use permit in 0-1.
The property is located just east of the Granite Heights
Subdivision,on the north side of Confederate Blvd.The R-2
zoned properties adjacent to the north and east are
undeveloped and heavily wooded.Single family homes arelocatedontheR-2 zoned properties to the west.The R-2
zoned property across Confederate Blvd.to the south is nowvacantandsparselytree-covered.Other uses in the area onthesouthsideofConfederateincludeseveralchurches,a
neighborhood grocery store and a barber shop.3M Mining
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6905
Commissioner Rector asked staff to confirm that the mortuary
was not an issue on this agenda.Staff responded that the
two issues were the proposed Land Use Plan Amendments and
the requested 0-1 rezoning;that the conditional use permit
for the mortuary would have to come on a later agenda.
Commissioner Faust questioned why staff was supporting 0-1
zoning when the proposed Mixed Use Land use designation
requires a Planned Zoning District.Mr.Carney responded
that 0-1 was the least intensive,most restrictive office
zoning category and that 0-1 was appropriate in close
proximity to residential uses.Mr.Carney stated that it
was staff's opinion that the 0-1 zoning,with the additional
level of conditional use permit review for the proposed
mortuary,met the intent and spirit of the Mixed Use
designation.
The applicant,Ricky Toney,briefly discussed his plans for
the property.He stated that he proposed a small building
that would not impact nearby residential uses.
A neighborhood resident,Ms.Williams,spoke in opposition
to the rezoning.She stated that area residents had worked
to "bring back"the neighborhood and this rezoning would
hurt that effort.
Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked Ms.Williams if she and
the other residents would be interested in a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the proposed land use and zoning changes.
Ms.Williams responded that she would.
Commissioner Allen asked the residents present at the
meeting if they were opposed to the proposed mortuary
specifically.The residents responded that they were
opposed to a mortuary.
A motion was made to defer the item to the November 9,2000
meeting to allow staff to arrange a neighborhood meeting
to discuss the issues.The vote was 9 ayes,0 noes and
2 absent.
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —College Station /Sweet
Home Planning District
Location:4500 —4800 Confederate Boulevard
Recenest:¹1.Park/Open Space tc Mixed Uae,¹2.Park/Open
Space to Mixed Use,¹3.Single Family to Mixed
Use,¹4.Single Family and Commercial to
Commercial,¹5.Commercial to Single Family,¹6.
Single Family to Public Institutional,and ¹7.
Commercial,Public Institutional,Multi-Family,
Single Family to Low Density Residential.
Source:Ricky Toney
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
A Land Use Plan amendment request located in the College
Station /Sweet Home Planning District from Park/Open Space
to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides for a mixture of
residential,office and commercial uses to occur.A Planned
Zoning District is required if the use is entirely office or
commercial or if the use is a mixture of the three.The
applicant wishes to develop the property for a mortuary.
This is the original application area.It is referenced as
Area ¹1on the graphics.
Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning
Staff expanded the area of review to include areas 2 —6 aslistedbelow.The areas south of Confederate Boulevard
(areas 3-6)are to acknowledge existing uses and adjust the
lines to more adequately reflect the zoning pattern.The
Land Use Plan for this area has not been reviewed in more
than three years.
¹2.Mining and Park/Open Space to Mixed Use.Mixed Use
provides for a mixture of residential,office and commercial
uses to occur.A Planned Zoning District is required if the
use is entirely office or commercial or if the use is a
mixture of the three.This change is to provide a buffer
between the Single Family shown south of Springer Boulevard
and the area to the north shown as Mining.
¹3.Single Family to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides for a
mixture of residential,office and commercial uses to occur.
1
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is entirely
office or commercial or if the use is a mixture of the
three.This change is to recognize existing uses along the
highway frontage.
¹4.Commercial to Single Family.The Single Family Category
provides for single-family homes at densities not to exceed
6 dwelling units per acre.Such residential development is
typically characterized by conventional single family homes,
but may also include patio or garden homes and cluster
homes,provided that the density remain less than 6 units
per acre.This change is to move the Commercial line north
to recognize existing uses of commercial uses to the north
and residential uses to the south.
¹5.Single Family to Public Institutional.The Public
Institutional category includes all public and quasi-public
facilities,which provide a variety of services other
community such as schools,libraries,fire stations,
churches,utility substations,and hospitals.This change
is to recognize the existing church and parsonage at the
campus of Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church.
¹6.Commercial,Public Institutional,Multi-Family,
Single Family to Low Density Residential.The Low Density
Residential category accommodates a broad range of housing
types including single family attached,single family
detached,duplex,town homes,multi-family and patio or
garden homes.Any combination of these and possibly other
housing types may fall in this category provided that the
density is between six (6)and ten (10)dwelling units per
acre.This change will recognize the proposed Granite
Mountain Homes four-plex housing project.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
On the north side of Springer Boulevard,area ¹2,is zoned
R-2 Single Family Residential and is characterized by large
tracts of vacant land and three single-family houses built
on large lots.To the east and north are mining activities.
Outside the city limits,on the south side of Springer,are
scattered commercial structures between Caroline and Marion.
To the south of these commercial structures are single
family houses as shown in area ¹4.To the south of 2"~
Street,along the old highway,are industrial building shown
on the lower right of the graphics.In the city limits,a
vacant lounge is located on property west of Caroline Street
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
and zoned I-2 Light Industrial is shown in area 43.Also in
area 4 3,is a small vacant motel at the corner of Springer
Boulevard and Caroline Street that is zoned C-3 General
Commercial.The land on the south of Springer Boulevard
between Caroline Street and Edge Street consists of vacant
property,houses,churches and three commercial structures
(two vacant and one barber/beauty shop)zoned R-2 Single
Family.The land on the south side of Springer Boulevard
between Gillam Park Road and Edge Street consists of a
grocery store,liquor store,and a church and vacant land
zoned C-3 General Commercial.A large vacant tract of land
south of the C-3 General Commercial zone is zoned Planned
Residential Development.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On April 20,1999,multiple changes took place along
Confederate Boulevard and Roosevelt Road about a mile
northwest of the applicant's property.
The Future Land Use Plan shows a variety of uses in the
neighborhood of the applicant's property.The Granite
Heights subdivision located between the Confederate
Boulevard /Baltimore Street intersection and the Springer
Boulevard /Detroit Street intersection is shown as Single
Family.The applicant's property,east of the Granite
Heights subdivision,is shown as Park/Open Space.A strip
of land on the north side of Springer Boulevard between the
applicant's property and Caroline Street is shown as
Park/Open Space.The large area north of the Park/Open
Space strip is shown as Mining and continues along the
north side of Springer Boulevard stating at the Springer
Boulevard /Walters Road intersection.Outside the city
limits,the south side of Springer Boulevard east of
Caroline Street is shown as Commercial while a large area to
the east and south of 2nd and Springer is shown as
Industrial.A large tract of Park/Open Space is shown as
forming the southern boundary of the entire neighborhood.
Single Family is located between Springer Boulevard to the
north and Park/Open Space to the south.A tract of Public
Institutional located on the east side of Gillam Park Drive
at the site of the former school.The houses located on
Avon Place and Younger Place are shown as Single Family.
The Booker Heights complex west of Gillam Park Road is shown
as Multi-Family.A smaller area of Multi-Family is shown
between Gillam Park Road and Edge Street.A small tract of
Public Institutional is shown at the southwest corner of
3
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
Edge Street and Springer Boulevard for an existing church.
A small tract of Commercial is also shown at the southeast
corner of Gillam Park Road and Springer Boulevard for a
grocery store and liquor store.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Confederate Boulevard/Springer Boulevard are shown as minor
arterials on the Master Street Plan.There are no other
streets or bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan affected
by this amendment.
PARKS:
Four parks are shown in the area.Booker Homes Park,
Granite Mountain Park,Granite Heights Park,and Gillam Park
are all shown on the Park System Master Plan.None of these
parks would be affected by this amendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a
city recognized neighborhood action plan.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is located south of I-440 in the
southeast section of the city.The Granite Heights
subdivision served mainly by Baltimore Street is a built out
subdivision with single-family homes.The Booker Heights
housing project served by California Drive is a large vacant
apartment complex.Both the Apollo Terrace apartments and
the Granite Mountain Elementary School were demolished on
the property between Gilliam Park Road and Edge Street.A
majority of the business structures located on the south
side Springer Boulevard between Gillam Park Road and
Caroline Street are boarded up.
The proposed changes to MX along Springer Boulevard would
recognize existing uses fronting on State Highway 365 (area
¹3)and provide a buffer between the residential
neighborhood to the south and the large tract of Mining land
use to the north in area ¹2.Moving the Commercial line to
the north in area ¹4would recognize the single family uses
to the south.Preserving the Commercial along the highway
and expanding the Single Family will prevent an over
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
abundance of non-residential in the area.A new Public
Institutional Use would recognize the campus of the Mt.
Calvary Church and parsonage on Simpson Street in area ¹5.
The proposed Low Density Residential between Gillam Park
Road and Edge Street will recognize the proposed Granite
Mountain Homes four-plex housing project in area ¹6.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:College Station Progressive League,and
Granite Mountain Neighborhood Association.Staff has
received two comments:one from area resident and one from a
representative of a property owner,both of which were
neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the changes are appropriate.The changes in
areas ¹1and ¹2will buffer the Single Family uses form the
Mining uses while the changes in area ¹3-¹6will recognize
existing land use patterns.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.Dana Carney made a presentation of item 2 so
the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item
2 .1.See item 2 for a complete discussion concerning the
zoning change request from R-2 Single Family to 0-1 Quiet
Office.
Commissioner Nunnley,expressed concerns that the audience
might get confused about the difference between the Future
Land Use Plan and Zoning.
Planning Commission Chair Adcock,asked how much
communication was received concerning this item.
Brian Minyard,City Staff,stated that staff received
7 phone calls in which 1 was opposed and 6 were neutral.
Mr.Minyard then explained the difference between the Future
Land Use Plan and Zoning.Mr.Minyard finished by stating
that the proposed land use plan amendments located south of
5
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:2.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-24-01
Springer Boulevard were intended to recognize existing land
uses in the neighborhood while the changes proposed change
to Mixed Use north of Springer Boulevard were intended to
allow a variety of developments to take place.The Mixed
Use area would benefit the neighborhood by allowing zone
changes under the Planned Zoning District process.
Mr.Rickey Toney,the applicant,spoke on behalf to the
application.
Mrs.Pat Williams spoke in opposition to the application and
expressed concerns about the large number of area residents
who did not know about the proposed changes.
Planning Commission Chair Adcock,asked if the neighborhood
was willing to meet with city staff to discuss the land use
plan amendments and zone changes in the neighborhood.Mrs.
Williams stated that the neighborhood was willing.
Commissioner Faust reminded that the Commissioners and the
audience that the Future Land Use Plan amendments and the
Zone change requests were two separate issues.
Commissioner Allen asked Mrs.Williams if the neighborhood
was opposed to the proposed mortuary or the Zoning change
request.Mrs.Williams stated that the neighborhood was
opposed to a mortuary locating in their neighborhood but
would like to understand what the Future Land Use Plan is
for their neighborhood.Planning Commission Chair Adcock
spoke of a need for a meeting between city staff and
neighborhood residents to describe the Future Land Use Plan
for the neighborhood.
A motion to defer item 2 and 2.1 to the November 11,2000
meeting and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,and
2 absent.
6
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6915
Owner:Max and Carolyn Davis
Applicant:Max Davis
Location:13000 Chenal Parkway
Request:Rezone from 0-3 to C-3
Purpose:Future retail development
Size:3.22 acres
Existing Use:Vacant land and medical clinic
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Wooded,floodplain;zoned R-2
South —Large,automobile sales business;zoned PCD
East —New shopping center,under construction;
zoned PCD
West —Apartment Complex;zoned R-5
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Chenal Parkway is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet
from centerline will be required.
2.Gamble Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street,dedication of right-of-way to 30 will
be required,or file for right-of-way abandonment with
the city clerk's office.
With Buildin Permit
3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to
these streets including 5 foot sidewalks with planned
development.
4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.A bus route is
located two blocks east of the site,at Chenal Parkway and
West Markham Street.
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet and the Parkway Place and
Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood
Associations were notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Chenal Planning District.The
adopted Plan currently recommends MF,Multifamily for the
site although it is zoned 0-3,General Office.A land use
plan amendment has been filed asking that the Land Use
designation be changed from Multifamily to Commercial;see
LU00-19-02.Staff does not believe it is appropriate to
change the plan to commercial,allowing potential commercial
development to extend even farther down the Parkway.Staff
believes it is appropriate to change the plan to Office toreflecttheexisting0-3 zoning and to serve as a transition
from the commercial the east to the multifamily on the west.
The property lies within the area covered by the Rock Creek
Neighborhood Action Plan which was approved by the Planning
Commission on October 29,1998 and the Board of Directors on
December 15,1998.Three actions within the "Office and
Commercial Development Goal"of the action plan were:
~Adopt a policy of adhering to the Land Use Plan.
Amendments should be made very rarely,only with
neighborhood input,and only when it can be clearly
demonstrated that the amendment will enhance the
quality of life in the Rock Creek Neighborhood.
~Restrict the overgrowth of commercial development
relative to residential development.
~Aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts (PZDs)to
influence more neighborhood-friendly and better quality
developments.
The only land use plan changes that came out of the action
plan were to recognize two existing church sites as PI,
Public Institutional.
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915
The proposed rezoning and associated Land Use Plan Amendment
do not conform to the goals and objectives of the
Neighborhood Action Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 3.22+
acre tract from "0-3"General Office to "C-3"General
Commercial district.A two-story building housing a medical
clinic and a parking lot occupy the southwest 4 of thetract.The remainder is undeveloped.The property slopes
down from Chenal Parkway to the rear so that the building
has the appearance of one-story from the front and two-
stories from the rear.No specific development has been
proposed by the applicant.
The property is located at the northwest corner of Chenal
Parkway and Gamble Road.An area of undeveloped,R-2 zoned,
floodplain is located north of the site.An apartment
complex occupies the R-5 zoned property adjacent to the
west.A large automobile sales business and a new shopping
center occupy the PCD and C-3 zoned properties across Chenal
Parkway to the south.A new shopping center is being built
on the PCD zoned property across Gamble Road to the east.A
large area of intense commercial development extends farther
to the east,along Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street.
Staff is not supportive of the rezoning request.The
continued westward crawl of commercial development along the
north side of Chenal Parkway has now reached a logical
stopping point.At this point,the nature of Chenal changes
to a divided,"scenic"parkway.The properties along and
off of the parkway are more residential.This existing,O-3
zoned tract serves as a reasonable transition between the
commercial development and the existing residential uses.
The next commercial node,at Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road,
has already recently been expanded to the east.Staff
believes it is appropriate to limit further commercial
expansion between the Chenal/Markham area and Chenal/Kirk.
The property is zoned 0-3 which allows for a broad range of
uses,by-right and conditional,beyond simply generaloffice.
3
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6915
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
This item was discussed concurrently with the Associated
Land Use Amendment,LU00-19-02;see item 3.1 on this agenda.
The applicant,Max Davis,was present.There were no
objectors present.Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of denial.Commission Chair Pam Adcock noted
that there were only 8 commissioners present and offered the
applicant the opportunity to defer the item.The applicant
chose to pursue the issue.
Max Davis addressed the Commission in support of his
application.He stated that the existing medical clinic
would remain and that he wanted to develop a small
commercial use on the remaining undeveloped portion of the
property.Mr.Davis made note of the number of nearby
commercial uses.He also noted that there was no objection
to the rezoning from area property owners,residents or
neighborhood associations.
Commissioner Earnest stated that he wanted to commend staff
for their recommendation of denial.He stated that he
recalled the acrimonious debate over the Target Store site,
east of this property.
Commissioner Rector asked Mr.Davis why he was requesting
commercial zoning for the entire site when the medical
office was to remain.Mr.Davis responded that he was
agreeable to rezoning only the eastern half of the site,
that portion that is undeveloped.
Staff responded that the applicant could request rezoning of
only the eastern portion of the lot but staff's
recommendation would not change.
Mr.Davis confirmed that he was amending his application to
include only the eastern,undeveloped portion of the tract.
A motion was made to approve the amended application.The
motion failed with a vote of 1 aye,7 noes and 3 absent.
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-19-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Chenal Planning District
Location:13000 Chenal Parkway
Receuest:Multi-Family to Commercial
Source:Max Davis
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Chenal Planning District from
Multi-Family to Commercial.The Commercial category includes
a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,
personal and professional services,and general businessactivities.Commercial activities vary in type and scale,
depending on the trade area they serve.The applicant
wishes to develop the property for retail uses.
Staff is not expanding the application since the land Use
Plan in this area was reviewed less than two years ago.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned 0-3 General Office and is
approximately 3.22+acres in size.The property to the
north is the floodway for Rock Creek and is zoned R-2 Single
Family.To the east is a retail business in a Planned
Commercial Development zone.To the south is retail and
automobile sales businesses located in a C-3 General
Commercial zone.To the west is an apartment complex on
land zoned R-5 Urban Residence.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
On December 15,2000 a change took place from Single Family
to Low Density Residential on the west side of Gamble Road
south of Kanis Road about 1 mile south of the applicant's
property.
On March 2,1999 multiple changes took place along Kanis
Road about 1 mile south of the applicant's property.
On April 6,1999 a change took place from Single Family to
Public Institutional on the west side of Kirby Road at Kings
Point about 1 mile west of the applicant's property.
On December 15,1998 a change to place from Multi-Family to
Suburban Office on Kanis Road at Point West about 1 mile
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-02
south of the applicant's property.
On December 15,1998 a change to place from Single Family to
Public Institutional on the south side of Chenal Parkway at
Pride Valley Drive about 1 mile west of the applicant's
property.
On May 20,1997 a change took place from Office to
Commercial on the north side of Chenal Parkway east of
Bowman Road about 8 of a mile southeast of the applicant's
property.
The applicant's property is shown as Multi-Family on the
Future Land Use Plan.The property to the north is shown as
Park/Open Space.The property east of Gamble Road,as well
as the properties south of Chenal Parkway,are all shown as
Commercial.The neighboring property to the west is shown
as Multi-Family.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Chenal Parkway is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan.The section of Gamble Road next to the
applicant's property is shown on the Master Street Plan as a
residential street.A Class I bikeway is shown on Chenal
Parkway connecting Bowman Road to State Highway 10.The
Master Street Plan also states that Class I bikeways built
as part of an arterial will require an additional 10 feet of
right-of-way (5 foot each side for one-way path)or an
easement in which the path is placed.The required sidewalk
along these streets can be incorporated into the bike path.
The result would be a 9-foot wide path on each side of the
road.A four-foot section of the path should be marked for
pedestrian use.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan shows existing Park Land north
of the applicant'property inside the Park/Open Space strip
running along Rock Creek.The existing parkland to is along
the floodway of Rock Creek.Any further development of thissiteshouldaddressnegativeimpactsonthefloodwayand
ecological balance of the natural area.With the build out
of this site,access points to the park area will be
limited.
2
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-02
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant'property lies in the area covered by the
Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and
Commercial Development goal listed three objectives relevant
to this case.The first objective is promotion of
commercial development to meet the needs of neighborhood
residents.The second objective is maintaining as much as
possible the existing topography,trees,and green space.
The third objective is enhancing the primarily residential
character of the community.The plan also states,
"Aggressively use Planned Zoning Districts to influence more
neighborhood-friendly and better quality developments."
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is an established office use
occupied by a clinic located across the street from intense
commercial uses.On the north side of Chenal Parkway,the
applicant'property is located in an area that transitions
from intense Commercial to the east and less intense Multi-
Family to the west.A little further to the west is an open
area where Rock Creek crosses the west bound lanes of Chenal
Parkway from the median to the Park/Open Space area to the
north of the applicant's property.Currently,there is a
step-down from Commercial to Office to Multifamily which
functions well as a transition from more to less intense
uses.Historically,Gamble Road served as a dividing line
between the commercial and residential uses in this area.
NEI GHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:Gibraltar/Pt.West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place
P.O.A.,Aberdeen Court P.O.A.,Bayonne Place P.O.A.,
Carriage Creek P.O.A.,Eagle Pointe P.O.A.,Glen Eagles
P.O.A.,Hillsborough P.O.A.,Hunters Cove P.O.A.,Hunters
Green P.O.A.,Johnson Ranch N.A.,Marlowe Manor P.O.A.,and
St Charles P.O.A.Staff has received no comments from area
residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.The current
use is a link in a reasonable pattern of transition from the
3
September 28,2000
4
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO-19-02
intense commercial uses to the east and the less intense
residential uses to the west.Staff would support a change
in the Land Use Plan to Office to recognize the current use.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.Dana Carney made a presentation of item 3 so
the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item3.1.See item 3 for a complete discussion concerning the
zoning change recpxest from 0-3 General Office to C-3 General
Commercial.
Planning Commission Chair Adcock,gave the warning that
there were only eight Commissioners present and that the
item needed 6 affirmative votes to pass and gave the
applicant the opportunity to defer the item to the November
9,2000 Planning Commission Meeting.The applicant refused
deferral.
Mr.Max Davis,the applicant,spoke on behalf of the
application.
A discussion concerning the transition of land uses and
zoning along the north side of Chenal Parkway west of
Markham Street ensued.
Commissioner Rector suggested amending the application to
provide a land use change from Multi-Family to Office on the
west half of the property and changing the land use on the
east half of the property from Multi-Family to Commercial to
accommodate a zoning change on that half of the property.
A motion was made to approve item 3.1 as amended by
Commissioner Rector.The item was denied with a vote of
1 ayes,7 noes,and 3 absent.
4
September 28,2000
ITEM NO.:4
Name:West Markham Neighborhoods Action Plan
STAFF REPORT:
In the November of 1999,the Planning and Development
Department met with representatives of the Sante Fe,
Treasure Hills and Clover Hill/Pennebrook Neighborhood
Associations and area citizens about starting a neighborhood
plan for their area.
A phone survey was conducted by the UALR Institute of
Government to ask residents about various topics of concern
in their area.This statistically correct survey of 320
interviews provided a good representation of the
neighborhood and its'oncerns.The survey was conducted to
identify those concerns and problems so that they could be
addressed with suggested remedies and/or steps to lessen the
negative impacts.
A saturation mailing (approx.1900)was performed with
addresses obtained from the GIS system with an invitation to
the first meeting.Along with the invitation to the meeting
was a brief explanation of the planning process and a
portion of the document to send back to Planning Staff that
contained three open ended questions concerning drainage,
street improvements and general issues concerning their
neighborhood that were not addressed in great detail in the
phone survey.Citizens had the option of requesting to
serve on the committee or asking for survey results in the
mailer.
Informational meetings were held from January 2000 through
July 2000.Those who responded to the survey,churches and
all businesses in the area were invited to attend these
meetings.From these meetings,goals and objectives were
developed and refined.
After a draft plan was finished,a "Plan Preview"meeting
was held on July 31,2000.This meeting was to present the
plan back to the residents.All persons who attended one or
more meetings,in addition to area churches,were invited to
attend.
As part of the neighborhood planning efforts,changes to the
Future Land Use Plan are forthcoming.These plan changes
September 28,2000
4
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)
are scheduled to be presented at the November 9,2000
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:(SEPTEMBER 28,2000)
Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the
commission.
Mr.James Kovach,member of the West Markham Neighborhood
Action Plan Steering Committee,read a prepared statement in
support for adoption of the neighborhood action plan.
A discussion followed about city priorities in the vicinity
of the Markham Street /Brookside Drive intersection and
possible methods to solve the traffic problem in the area.
A motion was made to approve the item 4 as presented.
The item was approved with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,and
4 absent.
2
September 28,2000
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Date /~P 58
Se ret r Chairman