pc_12 21 2000LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 21,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight (8)in number.
II.Members Present:Fred Allen,Jr.
Craig Berry
Bob Lowry
Hugh Earnest
Judith Faust
Mizan Rahman
Pam AdcockBillRector
Members Absent:Richard Downing
Rohn Muse
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
City Attorney:Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
AGENDA
DECEMBER 21,2000
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Z —5682-A Country Club of Little Rock Conditional
Use Permit
B.G-25-179 Street Name Change;a portion of East Markham
Street to President Clinton Avenue
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.Z —6952 9119-9213-9215 Asher Avenue R-2,C-3
and C-4
to C-4
2.Z —6956 12900 I-30 R-2 to C-4
3.Z —6957 SE corner of Colonel Glenn R-2 to 0-3
and I-430 and C-3
3.1 LUOO-12-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the 65 Street
West Planning District,located at the SE
corner of Colonel Glenn and I-430;from MX
and SO to C and 0.
III.OTHER MATTERS:
4.Proposed PR,Park and Recreation Zoning District
5.Report from Plans Committee regarding Special Use Permit
procedure for Day Care Family Homes
6.Z-6781-A Telecorp Revised Tower Use Permit
OOO
t,t ill ",'-I.!
g B,.':-a)r.o
1 'S
n
l
'tl :I
YVY'1Y Jdi
-L
;IY 7
11
WYWddd J,JhnzJB
t,;Wl 'll
ttl'll :..YJt:',l
p
',.-.-'=-,'
S
t »'C
.'l'33
1 nl JJ'J
C
J Y JWJJY 05
CL
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:Z-5682 —A
NAME:Country Club of Little Rock
Conditional Use Permit
LOCATION:4200 Country Club Blvd.
OWNER/APPLICANT:Country Club of Little Rock
PROPOSAL:A conditional use permit is requested to
erect two temporary (bubble)structures
over two pairs of tennis courts.The
structures will be erected around
December 1 of each year and removed
around March 31 of each year.The
Country Club property is zoned R-2.
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
The Country Club of Little Rock is located at the
eastern perimeter of The Heights neighborhood.The
tennis courts are located at the southwest corner of
the site,near Country Club Lane.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
The Country Club has existed as a component of the
Heights neighborhood for many years.The proposal is
not to add any new activities to the site,but rather
to cover a total of four existing tennis courts for
approximately 4 months each winter.The Club has
agreed to plant additional trees along the perimeter of
the property to provide more screening of the tennis
court area from the nearby residences along Country
Club Lane.As such,allowing the proposed court covers
should not affect the Club'continued compatibility
with the neighborhood.
The Heights Neighborhood Association was notified of
the pending application.Additionally,all residents
within 300 feet of the southwest perimeter of the Club
property and all owners of property located within
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z —5682-A
200 feet of the southwest perimeter were notified of
the application.
The following individuals who live closest to the
tennis courts have submitted letters stating that they
have no objection to the proposed temporary structures:
~Mr.and Mrs.Jim Atkins 1904 Country Club Lane
~Mr.and Mrs.Curtis Bailey 2110 Country Club Lane
~Mr.and Mrs.Dan Bailey 2112 Country Club Lane
~Mrs.Boots Barnett 1921 Country Club Lane
~Mr.J.W.Benafield 2120 Country Club Lane
~Dr.and Mrs.Ralph Downs 2020 Country Club Lane
~Judge and Mrs.Robert Dudley 1900 Country Club Lane
~Mr.and Mrs.Joe Ford 2100 Country Club Lane
~Dr.and Mrs.Jim Landers 1910 Country Club Lane
~Mr.&Mrs.Russ McDonough,III 2000 Country Club Lane
~Mr.and Mrs.David Snowden 1911 Country Club Lane
3.ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING:
No change is proposed.Existing driveways and parking
areas will be utilized.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
No additional screening or buf fering is required.The
Country Club has agreed to plant 40 loblolly pine trees
inside the fence along Country Club Lane.The trees
will be at least 8 feet tall at planting.The Club
also plans to plant a few white dogwoods in this area.
5 .PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No Comments.
6.UTILITY,FIRE DEPT.,AND CATA COMMENTS:
No Comments.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Country Club of Little Rock proposes to erect two
temporary structures (bubbles)over two pairs of tennis
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z —5682-A
courts .The bubbles will be approximately 36 f eet in
height at the tallest point.The structures will be
erected on or around December 1 of each year and
removed on or around the following March 31.These
structures will allow for use of the courts through the
harshest winter months.One bubble will cover Courts
¹1 and ¹2.The second bubble will cover Courts ¹3 and
¹4.These are the easternmost tennis courts,located
adjacent to the 8 "Fairway and farthest away from the
Country Club Lane perimeter of the site.Immediate
plans are to erect one structure.Fund raising
continues for the second structure.
In order to provide a natural screen for the
structures,the Club proposes to plant 40 loblolly
pines inside the fence along Country Club Lane.The
trees will be at least 8 feet tall at planting.The
Club also plans to plant a few white dogwoods in this
area.The Club has committed to maintain the sprinkler
system in this area to ensure the steady growth of
these trees.No other improvements are proposed for
the Club property and no new use areas are proposed.
Letters have been submitted by the adj acent property
owners along Country Club Lane voicing no objection to
the Club's plans.
Staff is supportive of this proposal to erect temporary
structures over the existing tennis courts.The
increased landscaping along the perimeter of the site
should mitigate any potential visual impact of the
structures.
8 .STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional
use permit subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1.The structures are to be erected on or within
one week of December 1 of each year and removed
on or within one week of the following March 31.
2.Forty,8 foot tall loblolly pine trees and a few
white dogwood trees are to be planted inside the
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z —5682-A
fence of the Club property along Country Club
Lane as proposed by the applicant.
3.The sprinkler system is to be maintained in this
area to insure the steady rate of growth of
these new trees.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(OCTOBER 5,2000)
The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item.
It was felt there were no outstanding issues and the item
was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 9,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
The applicant has submitted a letter on November 7,2000,
requesting that the item be deferred to allow him an
opportunity to meet with a concerned neighbor.
A motion was made to waive the Commission'bylaws and to
accept the late request for deferral.The motion was
approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the December 21,2000 commission meeting.The
vote was 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
William Rector and Bob Lowry abstained on this issue.Ron
Tabor was present representing the application.There were
no objectors present.A letter had been received from Eva
Park Riley on behalf of Mrs.Neil Park of g2 Cantrell Road
and Mrs.George Rose Smith of 4300 Cantrell Road requesting
that the item be deferred to allow for a meeting with the
applicant.
Mr.Tabor requested deferral of the item.A motion was made
to waive the Commission's bylaws to accept the late request
for deferral.The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes,3 absent and 2 abstaining (Rector,Lowry).
4
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)FILE NO.:G-25-179
Interstate 30,the Board of Directors passed Resolution No.
10,122 stating their intent to rename portions of East and
West Markham Street to President Clinton Avenue.On July 27,
1999,that Resolution was amended by Resolution No.10,608
which stated the Board's intent to rename only that portion
of East Markham Street,between Cumberland and Collins
Streets.That portion of East Markham is located within what
is known as The River Market District,the recently developed
entertainment and shopping district located along the
Arkansas River.The street will serve as a primary entrance
to the Presidential Park and Library that are to be located
immediately east of Interstate 30.The proposed name change
is to take effect when President Clinton completes his term
of office on January 20,2001.
7.Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed street name change.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 7,2 00 0 )
Staf f requested that this item be deferred to the December 21,
2000 meeting to allow for continued meetings with the affected
business and property owners.A motion was made to waive
the Commission'bylaws and to accept the late request f or
deferral.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes
and 3 absent.The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and
deferred to the December 21,2000 meeting by a vote of 8 ayes,
0 noes and 3 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
Public Works staf f was present representing the item.There were
no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a
recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved by a vote
of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:Z-6952
Owner:Jeff Jenkins
Applicant:Jeff Jenkins
Location:9119—9213—9215 Asher Avenue
Request:Rezone from R-2,C-3 and C-4 to
C —4
Purpose:Wrecker Service
Size:2+acres
Existing Use:Wrecker Service and
Office/Vacant Lot
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Nor th —Vacant;zoned C-3
South —Single Family;zoned R-2
East —Vacant;zoned C-3 and R-2
West —Commercial;zoned C-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
9119 Asher Ave.
1.Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial;dedication of right-of-way to 45
feet from centerline is required.
WITH BUILDING PERMIT
2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master
Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
18,031.
4.Plans of all work in right-of —way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressing
streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952
Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic
Engineering.
7.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
9213 &9215 Asher Ave.
8.Asher Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as
a principal arterial,dedication of right-of-way to 55
feet from centerline is required.
WITH BUILDING PERMIT
9.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.
10.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31 —210 or Ordinance
18,031.
11.Plans of work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
12.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
13.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.
14.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA Bus Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the John Barrow,Westwood,Pecan Lake,SWLR UP and
Stagecoach/Dodd Neighborhood Associations were notified of
the rezoning request.
2
December 2 1,2 00 0
'
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the Boyle Park Planning District.
The adopted Plan recommends Commercial and Single Family for
the area proposed for rezoning.The biggest portion of that
area shown as Single Family is already zoned C-4 or C-3.
With the loss of a substantial portion of the applicant'
property to the Asher Avenue widening project,allowing this
minor expansion of the commercial zoning will result in a
very small net gain of commercially zoned property.Staff
believes it would be appropriate to zone a 20 foot wide OS
buffer strip along the sides of the R-2 zoned portion of the
applicant'property proposed for rezoning.This would
provide a buffer for the adjacent residentially zonedtracts.Staff does not believe a Plan Amendment is
necessary.
The property lies within the area covered by the Pecan Lake—
Stagecoach/Dodd —Westwood neighborhood action plan that was
adopted on April 4,2000.The site is on the perimeter of
the Westwood area,although this 3-part neighborhood plan
covered a much larger area along the Asher-Colonel Glenn-
Stagecoach corridors.Objectives within the Westwood Plan
were to "maintain adequate or sufficient buffering between
residential and non-residential uses"and that "commercial
and office activities should remain on Asher Avenue."With
the staff-suggested 20-foot buffer,this rezoning request
should meet the intent of the action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone these tracts,
totaling 2+acres,from "R-2"Single Family,"C-3"General
Commercial and "C-4"Open Display Commercial to "C-4"Open
Display Commercial.The area proposed for rezoning consists
of 4 identifiable tracts:
~A vacant tract located at 9119 Asher Avenue.This tract
was previously occupied by Claghorn Shoe Store.ThistractiszonedC-3,General Commercial.
~The Asher Wrecker Service property located at 9213-9215
Asher Avenue.This tract comprises the largest portion
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6952
of the properties proposed for rezoning.The bulk ofthissiteisalreadyzonedC-4 and is occupied by an auto
repair/wrecker service.The rear portion of this tractislocatedonasmallbluff,behind and above the wrecker
service buildings,and is used for vehicle
parking/storage.
~A small remnant of C-3 zoned property located adjacent to
and west of the wrecker service property.This property
was previously occupied by a veterinary clinic that was
removed as a result of the street —widening project,
leaving an undevelopable remnant.
~A tract wrapping around the wrecker service and
veterinary clinic tracts.Portions of this tract are
zoned C-3,C-4 and R-2 and are already used for parking
and vehicle storage.
The properties are located on the south side of Asher
Avenue,within the commercial node established at the Asher
Avenue/Colonel Glenn/Stagecoach Road intersection.Several
vacant,C-3 zoned tracts are located across Asher Avenue to
the north.The C —3 zoned property across Stagecoach Road is
occupied by a gift/variety shop.This property will be
substantially impacted by the realignment of theintersection.Vacant,C-3 zoned tracts and an R-2 zoned
City of Little Rock Parks Department maintenance facilityarelocatedeastofthesite.Single-family homes are
located southwest of the site.A large area of R-2 zoning
extends southwest and southeast of the property.The
property to the southeast is undeveloped.
As a result of the Asher Avenue widening project,
substantial right —of-way was taken from these properties.
The amount acquired from the Asher Wrecker property varied
from 20+feet to 30+feet,virtually eliminating the parkingarealocatedinfrontofthebuildings.The right-of-way
acquisition for the veterinary clinic property caused the
building to be removed,leaving only the remnant of
property.The other properties were similarly,though not
as dramatically,impacted.To mitigate the loss of parkingarea,the applicant has acquired the adjacent properties and
seeks their rezoning to accommodate needed parking/vehicle
storage space.
4
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:Z-6956
Owner:Jeff M.Brown and Aliza Brown
Applicant:Jeb Burnett
Location:12,900 I-30
Request:Rezone from R-2 to C-4
Purpose:Retail sales with some outside
display
Size:1.5+acres
Existing Use:Vacant,wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Undeveloped,floodway;zoned R-2
South —I-30 right-of-way
East —Undeveloped,wooded;zoned R-2
West —Expo Center and parking lots,zoned C-4
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Dedicate regulatory floodway easement to the City of
Little Rock.Contact Melvin Hall for details.
WITH BUILDING PERMIT
2.A grading permit and development permit for special flood
hazard area is required prior to construction.
3.A sketch grading and drainage plan,a special flood
hazard permit,and a special grading permit for flood
hazard areas are required.ADEQ and NPDES permit is also
required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,
all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6956
the SWLR UP and Otter Creek Neighborhood Associations were
notified of the rezoning request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located within the Otter Creek PlanningDistrict.The adopted Plan recommends MCI,Mixed Commercial
Industrial for the site.This C-4 request conforms to the
plan and is appropriate for this site.The site is locatedatthesouthernperimeteroftheareacoveredbytheOtter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan that was
adopted on April 4,2000.That plan focused more
specifically on the "heart"of the planning area;Stagecoach
Road between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.This area
along I-30 was recognized as being intensely commercial in
nature and no changes were proposed to the Land Use Plan
along the I-30 boundary of the plan area.This C-4 request
conforms to the neighborhood action plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped,1.5+acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to"C-4"Open Display Commercial.The applicant has indicated
the proposed use of the site to be "retail sales with some
outside display."
The property is located on the north side of I-30,east of
and adjacent to the Expo Center development.The Expo
Center and its parking lots are zoned C-4.A large area of
undevelopable floodway is located to the north of the site.
An undeveloped,R-2 zoned tract and an R-2 zoned,
nonconforming motel are located to the east.The interstate
right-of-way is south of the site.Beyond the interstate
are large tracts of C-4 and I-2 zoned property.A small
portion of the western perimeter of the site abuts a
recently expanded,R-7 zoned mobile home park.The C-4
rezoning request is compatible with uses and zoning in thearea.Any portion of this site which lies within the
regulatory floodway should be zoned OS,Open Space,and
protected by a drainage easement.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan and the Otter
Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan recommend
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6956
Mixed Commercial Industrial for this site and the properties
extending to the east.This commercial rezoning request is
the less intensive of the categories permitted under MCI.
The C-4 request conforms to the Plans and is appropriately
located on the Interstate Frontage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning request with
any portion of the site that lies within the regulatory
floodway to be zoned OS.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
A letter of support had been received from Janet Berry,
President of SWLR United for Progress.Staff presented the
item and recommended approval of the C-4 zoning with any
portion of the site that lies within the regulatory floodway
to be zoned OS.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as
recommended by staff.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes and
3 absent.
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6957
Owner:Leonard Boen
Applicant:Patrick McGetrick
Location:SE corner of Colonel Glenn Road
and I-430
Reques t:Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 and C-3
Purpose:Future development
Size:59.46+acres
Existing Use:Vacant,wooded
SURROUND IN G LAND USE AND ZON IN G
North —Vacant;zoned C-3 and Clear Channel Radio andTelevisionStudioComplex;zoned C-2
South —Sparsely developed single family;zoned R-2East—Sparsely developed single family and
undeveloped;zoned R-2
West —Wooded,undeveloped;zoned POD
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.Colonel Glenn Road is classified on the Master Street
Plan as a principal arterial,dedication of right —of-way
to 55 feet from centerline is required.
2.Talley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a
commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline.
3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is requiredatthecornerofColonelGlennRoadandTalleyRoad.
WI TH BUILD ING PERMI T
4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.
5.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvement to
these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned
development.
6.Plans of all work in right —of —way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.8.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6957
are required.
9.Obtain permi ts for improvements within State Highway
right-of-way from AHTD,District VI.
10.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.
11.Grading permit will be required on this development,ifitdisturbsmorethanacre.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and
the John Barrow and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations werenotifiedoftherezoningrequest.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the 65 Street West PlanningDistrict.The adopted Plan currently recommends MX,Mixed
Use,and SO,Suburban Office,for the site.Prior to
December 1998,the entirety of the site was shown as
Suburban Office.The MX designation was added in
conjunction with a Planned Development that never came tofruition.The applicant has filed a plan amendment,askingthatthePlanbechangedtoC,Commercial,and 0,Office.Staff is supporting the plan change,see item no.3.1 on
this agenda;LUOO-12-01.The rezoning request will conform
to the amended Plan.
The property lies at the western edge of the area covered bythePecanLake-Westwood —Stagecoach/Dodd Neighborhood Action
Plan that was adopted on April 4,2000.Those neighborhoods
involved in developing the plan are located well east of thissite,along the Asher Avenue/Stagecoach Road corridor.The
zoning and land use section of the Stagecoach/Dodd element
of the Action Plan does recommend that nonresidential
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6957
developments be "congregated in the area bounded by I-430,
Shackleford,Colonel Glenn and David O'Dodd Roads.This
rezoning request conforms to that goal.
STAFF ANAL YS I S
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped 59.46+acre tract from "R-2"Single Family to"C-3"General Commercial and "0-3"General Office.The
northern 35.8 acres adjacent to Colonel Glenn Road are
proposed for C-3 zoning.The remaining southern 23.66 acres
are proposed for 0-3 zoning.The site is heavily wooded.
No specific development has been proposed.
The property is located at the southeast corner of Colonel
Glenn Road and I —430.The undeveloped property adjacent to
the site,between this site and the Interstate,was recently
rezoned POD for a multi-building office development.The
R —2 property to the south is sparsely developed with 4
single family homes and large areas of pasture.The R-2
zoned property across Talley Road to the east contains 4
single family homes and larger areas of undeveloped,wooded
property.The I —1 zoned property southeast of this site
contains Little Rock Municipal Water Works and Little Rock
Wastewater Utility facilities.Clear Channel,a multiple
television and radio station complex,occupies the former
"Sam's Club"building on the C-2 zoned property across
Colonel Glenn,to the north.Other uses in the immediate
vicinity include an undeveloped,C-3 zoned tract across
Colonel Glenn and an I-1 zoned office/warehouse complex to
the northeast.Farther west,beyond I —430,are large areas
of C —2,C —3 and C-4 zoned properties.A car dealership is
currently under construction on a portion of the C-4 zoned
property at the southwest corner of I-430 and Colonel Glenn
Road.Staff believes the rezoning request is compatible
with uses and zoning in the area.The commercial zoning
will be oriented to the north,at the Colonel Glenn/I-430
interchange.The office zoning will be to the south,where
the land use plan recommends Suburban office across Tally
Road.
The Land Use Plan currently recommends MX,Mixed Use,and
SO,Suburban Office,for the site.A land use plan
amendment has been filed asking that the site be changed to
commercial and office,corresponding with this rezoning
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6957
request.Staff is supportive of the proposed change.The
Plan recommends LI,Light Industrial for the properties to
the east and SO,Suburban Office,to the south.The
applicant'proposal seems to be reasonable in light of the
surrounding land use designations.This rezoning request
also meets the intent of the adopted neighborhood action
plan.
S TAFF RE COMMENDAT ION
Staf f recommends approval of the requested C-3 and 0-3
zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.
A letter of support had been received from Janet Berry,
President of SWLR United for Progress.In response to a
concern raised by a neighboring property owner.The
applicant amended the application to include a 35-foot wide
OS zoned buffer strip along the south perimeter of the site.
The OS strip is to be measured from the new property line,
once required right-of-way is dedicated.Staff recommended
approval of the amended application.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved,as
amended.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent.
4
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 FILE NO.:LUOO-12-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —65th Street —West
Planning District
Location:Southeast corner of Col.Glenn Rd.&I-430
Receuest:Mixed Use &Suburban Office to Commercial &Office
Source:Leonard Boen,Boen &Associates Inc.
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the 65th Street —West PlanningDistrictfromMixedUse&Suburban Office to Commercial &Office.The Commercial category includes a broad range ofretailandwholesalesalesofproducts,personal and
professional services,and general business activities.
Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on
the trade area they serve.The Office category represents
services provided directly to consumers (e.g.,legal,
financial,medical)as well as general offices,which
support more basic economic activities.The applicant
wishes to use the property for office,warehouse,and
commercial developments.
Staff is not expanding the application since the Land Use
Plan in this area was reviewed in April 2000.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The applicant's property is vacant wooded land and currently
zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 59.46+acres in
size.The C-3 General Commercial on the north side of Col.
Glenn Road at the I-430 interchange is vacant.A T.V.
station and an expo center is located on property to the
north of the application area on land zoned C-2 Shopping
Center.Office and warehouse structures occupy the I-1
Industrial Park property northeast of the Col.Glenn /
Talley Road intersection.Four houses located along the
east side of Talley Road sit on property zoned R-2 Single
Family.A waterworks plant is located to the southeast on
property zoned I-1 Industrial Park.The property to the
south of the application area consists of five houses built
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO —12-01
on large lots zoned R-2 Single Family.A vacant PlannedOfficeDevelopmenttouchingthewestboundaryoftheapplicationarealiesbetweentheapplicant's property andI-430.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
~On September 19,2000 a change took place from Low
Density Residential to Mixed Office Commercial on W.36StreetatI-430 about 2/3 of a mile north of theapplicant's property.
~On April 6,1999 a change took place from Office and
Community Shopping to Mixed Office Commercial at the
northwest corner of Col.Glenn and Bowman Road about a 4
mile west of the application area.
~On December 1,1998 a change took place from SuburbanOfficetoMixedUseontractAoftheapplicant's
property resulting in the current land use shown for the
proper ty under review .
~On August 5,1997 multiple changes took place on the on
the south side of Col.Glenn between I-430 and David O.
Dodd Road west of the applicant's property on the
opposite side of I-430.
~On June 3,1997 a change took place from Single Family to
Commercial on the east side of Marigold Drive about 1
mile east of the applicant'property.
~On June 18,1996 various changes took place along
Shackleford and Col.Glenn Road about a 4 north and eastoftheareaunderreview.
~On May 7,1996 multiple changes took place between I-430
and Bowman Road and David O.Dodd Road west of the
applicant'property on the opposite side of I-430.
Tract A of the applicant'property is shown as Mixed Use
while tract B is shown as Suburban Office.The land on the
north side of Col.Glenn Road is shown as Commercial.The
land east of Talley Road is shown as Light Industrial.The
property to the south and west is shown as Suburban Office.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Col.Glenn Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the
Master Street Plan while I-430 is shown as a FreeWay.
Talley Road is shown as a local street.The Master Street
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU00-12 —01
Plan shows a proposed collector street linking Talley RoadtoShacklefordRoadabouta4milenorthoftheapplicant'property.Development of this property would be subject totherequirementfor4streetimprovementsonthesouthsideofCol.Glenn Road and for 4 street improvements on TalleyRoad.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Planthatwouldbeaffectedbythisamendment.
PARKS:
The Park System Master Plan does not show any parks or openspacesthatwouldbeaffectedbythisamendment.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the
Stagecoach/Dodd section of the Pecan Lake,Stagecoach/Dodd,
Westwood Neighborhood Action Plan.The neighborhood actionplanstatesintheintroductionofZoningandLandUseGoals
and Objectives that the neighborhood requests "...that non-residential developments congregate in the area bounded byI-430,Shackleford,Col.Glenn,and David O.Dodd Roads."
The zoning and land use goal states:"maintain and encouragesingle—family and low density residential developments intheresidentialareaoftheneighborhood,while encouragingresponsiblenon—residential development in areas currentlyreservedforsuchusesontheFutureLandUsePlan."
Objective 51 states:"Protect the residential integrity oftheneighborhoodbymaintainingadequateseparationorsufficientbufferingbetweenresidentialandnon-residentialuses."The plan also includes the following actionstatement:"Encourage new non —residential development westofShacklefordRoadandnorthofDavid0.Dodd Road.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant's property is buffered from residential areas.
The requested change maintains the transition between theintensenon-residential uses along Col.Glen Road and thelessintenseresidentialusesalongDavidO.Dodd Road.TherequestedchangeisalsobufferedbythetransitionfromintenseusesalongCol.Glenn Road and the less intense uses
on W.36 Street.The proposed changes also fits as atransitionfromthelessintenseCommercialusesnear theI-430 Col.Glenn Interchange and the more intense LightIndustrialusestotheeast.I-430 acts as a barrier and
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:3.1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LUOO —12 —01
any development of the applicant'property is not likely toaffect,or be affected by,the development of property on
the west side of the freeway.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood
associations:John Barrow Neighborhood Association,
Meadowcliff/Brookwood Neighborhood Association,Pecan Lake
Property Owners Association,South Brookwood Ponderosa,and
Stagecoach-Dodd Neighborhood Association.
Staff has received two comments from area residents that
were neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.The requested
amendment fits the pattern of land use located in the
vicinity of the application area.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 2 1 I 2 000)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval .
A motion was made to approve and was passed with a vote of
8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.
4
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:4
SUBJECT:Proposed "PR"Park and Recreation Zoning District
REQUEST:That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on
the adoption of the proposed new zoning classification,"PR"Park
and Recreation District.
STAFF REPORT:
At the request of the Parks and Recreation Department,the
Planning Staff initiated a review of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the placement of municipal and private recreation uses.
The Parks Department is interested in the creation of a new
zoning district specifically for such uses.In conjunction with
an updated Master Parks Plan,the Parks Department feels that
placing municipal Parks property in a "Parks"zoning district
will help lead to accreditation of the City'Park System.The
new district will be designed to accommodate the wide variety of
uses found in a large municipal parks system,ranging from
passive use areas and small picnic/playground parks to large
regional facilities such as Interstate Park,McArthur Park and
the proposed Clinton Library Park.
Ordinances were reviewed from other jurisdictions and,in
conjunction with the Parks Department staff,the Planning Staff
developed a draft "Parks and Recreation"District following a
format similar to the other zoning districts in the City.
On August 23,2000,the initial draft of the proposed ordinance
was distributed to the Plans Committee for review and discussion.
Copies of the proposal and an informational letter requesting
comments were sent to approximately 50 people on the ordinance
amendment mailing list.No comments were received from persons
other than staff and the Plans Committee members.The issue was
discussed at length at the September 6,2000 Plans Committee
meeting.The text of the draft ordinance was accepted and
forwarded to the full Commission.The sole remaining issue of
concern seems to be the question of public notification of
pending park improvements on properties that are zoned PR.
The Commission is asked to set the date of public hearing as
December 21,2000.Notices will be sent to the persons on the
ordinance amendment mailing list.Notices will also be sent to
all persons on the neighborhood association notification list.
December 2 1,2 00 0
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)
PLYING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 9,2000)
Staf f presented the item to the Commission.Severalcommissionersexpressedconcernthattherewasnomechanism forsiteplanrevieworpublicnotificationofpendingparkimprovements.Staff was instructed to prepare a draft containingsuchaprovision.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda to set the publichearingforDecember21,2000.The vote was 8 ayes,0 noes and3absent.
STAFF REPORT:
At its November 15,2000 meeting,the Plans Committee discussedtheconcernraisedbytheCommissionregardingsiteplanrevieworpublicnotificationofpendingparkimprovements.Staffofferedasasuggestionthatthefollowingstatementbeadded asSubsection(4)under development criteria:
All properties within this district shall be
developed under a unified site plan submitted to
and adopted by the Planning Commission to assure
compliance with the adopted Master Parks Plan.
A lengthy discussion f ollowed between the Committee members andthestaffsofthePlanningandParksDepartments.The committee
members felt strongly that the new subsection or some otherprocesstoassurepublicinvolvementshouldbeadded.During thediscussion,it became apparent that the new subsection offeredthebestprocesstoassurecontinuedpublicawarenessofpendingparkimprovementsanddevelopments.Staff was directed to makethechangeinthedraftandtobegintheprocessofnotificationoftheDecember21,2000 public hearing.
On November 20,2000,staff sent a copy of the draft and a noticeofthepublichearingto168persons,including the ordinance
amendment notice list and all neighborhood associations.
Comments were solicited and will be forwarded to the Commission.
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
Bryan Day,Director of Parks and Recreation,was present.There
were no objectors present.Only 3 comments had been received bystaffinresponsetothenotificationofthepublichearing.Two
comments were from City Staff and a letter of support had been
sent by the Hillcrest Residents Association.Staff presented the
item and a recommendation of approval with the following change:
It was suggested that Subsection (c)(2)be changed
to read as follows:
"Accessory uses and structures are permitted when
they are normally appurtenant to the permitted uses
and structures.Such uses may include,but are notlimitedto,related residences and retreatfacilitiesandrecreation,refreshment and service
buildings in parks,playgrounds and golf courses."
Chair Adcock questioned the maximum permitted height of 120 feet.Staff responded that the increased height would accommodatefacilitiessuchasanobservationtower.Staff noted that theincreasedheightwaspermittedonlywithacorrespondingincreaseinsetback.
Ruth Bell,of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County,spokeinsupportoftheproposedOrdinance.She stated that the League
would like to see privately owned recreation areas included.
Bryan Day stated that a new Master Parks Plan was being developed
and that privately owned recreation areas would be shown on theParksPlan.He stated that those owners would be encouraged to
zone their property "PR".Mr.Day stated that it was his
department'intent to rezone all of the City'park land in one"fell swoop."Mr.Day stated that zoning the park property to"PR"would protect it from other development.
A motion was made to approve the item with staff'suggested
change.The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and
3 absent.
3
2000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 3
DATE December 5,2000
STAFF REPORT:()
At the request of the Parks and Recreation Department,the Planning StaffinitiatedareviewoftheZoningOrdinanceregardingtheplacementof
municipal and private recreation uses.The Parks Department is interested in
the creation of a new zoning District specifically for such uses.In
conjunction with an updated Master Parks Plan,the Parks Department feels
that placing municipal Parks property in a "Parks"zoning district will help
lead to accreditation of the City's Park System.The new district will be
designed to accommodate the wide variety of uses found in a large municipal
parks system,ranging from passive use areas and small picnic/playground
parks to large regional facilities such as Interstate Park,McArthur Park and
the proposed Clinton Library Park.
Ordinances were reviewed from other jurisdictions and,in conjunction with
the parks Department staff,the Planning Staff developed a draft "parks andRecreation"District following a format similar to the other zoning districts
in the City.
There are f ive important points to note:
~No land can be zoned to "PR"Parks and Recreation District unless that
land is first established on the Master Parks Plan.
~Development of any "PR"zoned property must conform to the standards
established by the Master Parks Plan for that specific site.
~Properties within the "PR"district must be developed under a unifiedsiteplansubmittedtoandadoptedbythePlanningCommissiontoassure
compliance with the adopted Master Parks Plan.
~The "pR"zoning district also encompasses private uses such as private
golf courses and subdivision recreation areas if the owners of thosesitesfirstaddthosesitestotheCity's Master Parks plan.There is
no re irement that an rivate use rezone its ro ert to PR
~There is no change in the current language of the ordinance reqarding
the placement of recreational and cultural uses.Those uses are still
permitted by-right or as a conditional use in the various districts
described previously.The "PR"district becomes an option,one that is
preferred by the Parks Department.
'00,ORD.ZON.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OP
THE CODE OP ORDINANCES OP THE CZ1Y OP
ZITTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS PROVZDZNG FOR
THE CREATION OF A NEW SONING DISTRICT
TO BE TZTLED "PR"PARK AND RECREATION
SONZNG DZSTRZC1,MODZPZCATZON OP
VARIOUS PROCEDURES,DEFZNZTZOES p LAND
USE REGUIATIONS AND FOR 01HBR
PURPOSES .
NHEREAS,it has been detezsd.nsd that it is
advantageous to the City of Little Rook to have a soningdistzictwhichspecificallyencompassesthewidevariety ofmunioipalandprivatereczeationusesavailabletothecitizensoftheCity;and
NHEREAS,the City of Little Rock Planning CommissionhasreviewedandzeconmendedapprovaloftheproposednewParkandRecreationSoningDistrict.
NON,TREREPORE BE ZT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OP LZTTLE ROCK,ARKANSAS.
SECTION l.That various provisions of Chapter 36 oftheLittleRockCodeoi'zdinanoes be amended as follows:
Subsection (a).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-222whichwaspreviouslyazeservedsectionbeamended tozeadasfollows':
Section 36-322.PR Park and Recreation District.
(a)Purpose snd intent.The PR park snd zeczeationdistrioti.s intended to pz'ovi&e areas whezeactiveandpassiverecreationactivitiesmay bsconductedandforconservationofnatuzalandculturalareasandresources,allowingflexibilityadequatetopezmitreasonable
development of the site to meet the recreation
and conservation needs of the city.Thisdistrictisintendedtoincludethosepublic andprivateparksndrecreationandconservationazeaswhicharsdesignatedasparksintheadoptedCityMasterParksPlan.
(b)Development czitszis.Unless otherwise
specifically provided in this chapter,the
following development criteria shall apply to the
PR park and recreation district:
(1)Development of all pzopszties in the PR
Di.strict shall confozm to the Park System
Standards established hy the Master Parks
Plan.
(2)Ro property shall be zoned PR until that
property has been established on the Master
Parks Plan by the Board of Directors.Por
puxposes of the official land Use Plan of
the city,the adopted Mastez Parks Plan
shall control.
(3)Multiple uses and structures shall be
permitted on individual park sites as
specified by the Master Parks Plan.
(4)All properties within this district shall be
developed under a unified site plan
submitted to and adopted by the Planning
Commission to assure compliance with the
adopted Master Parks Plan.
(c)Permitted uses.The following uses aze pezmitted
in the PR parks and zeczeation district:
(1)Municipal,goveznmental,private or
philanthropic parks and recreational uses
which confozm to the Masters Pazks Plan,
including but not limited to,parks,
playgzounds,athletic playing fields,tennis
courts,golf courses,natural areas,
swimsd.ng pools,country clubs,educational
exhibits and cultural attractions.
(2)Accessory uses and structures are permitted
when they are normally appurtenant to the
pezmitted uses and structures such ss
recreation,refreshment and service
buildings in parks,playgzounds and golf
courses
(e)Eefght regulations.Mo building hereafter
exected or structurally altezed shal'1 exceed a height
of forty —five (45)feet at the required front,side or
rear yard setback lines.Building heights proposed in
excess of forty-five (45)feet are authorized using
the following formula:At the height permitted at
said yard setback lines,one (1)foot may be added to
the height of the building for each foot that the
building or portion thereof is set back from the
required yard lines.In no instance shall the maximum
height of the building exceed one hundred twenty (120)feet.
(f )Area regula ti ons.
(1)The required front,side and rear yard
setbacks shall be a distance of not less
than twenty-five (25)feet from the property
line to the respective face of any building
or structure other than for perimeter
fences.
(g)Lot coverage.The main building and all
accessory buildings in the PR district shall not
occupy more than thirty-five (35)percent of thetotallotarea.
Subsection (b).That Chapter 36.,Section 36-176 be
amended to insert between the zoning classifications"I-3 Heavy Industrial District"and "AF Agriculture
and Forestry District"a new zoning classificationtitled"PR Park and Recreation District".
SECTION 2.That this Ordinance shall take effect
thirty (30)days from and after its passage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
MEAIORANDI JM
TO:Little Rock Planning Commission
FROM:I'lans Committee of thc Planning Commission
SIJBJECT:Plans Committee Rcport and Recommendation on thc Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Proposal —2000 Work Program,being a proposal to restructure
the current Special IJse Permit process for day care family home.
DATE:November 20,2000
RKCOAIMENDATION:
~That the proposal as submitted to the conunittee not be developed as offered by Ms.Jan
Taylor or any other form at this time.
~That the curient ordinance language be retained as being appropriate and morc than
adequate to regulate this activity.
~That the enforcement history is too small to w'urant disruption of a broadly developed
service.
HISTORY/REPORT:
This subject has as a beginning enforccmcnt activities by both Planning personnel and
Dcpartmcnt of Human Services (DHS)over 1999 and into 2000.Thcrc werc many visits by both
staffs to a single S.U.P.site on Pleasant Cove in West Little Rock.On almost every visit
Planning Staff dctcrmincd no violation and DHS found few complaints that were easily
remedied.
Ms.Jan Taylor,a neighbor to this use had many complaints about noise,traffic,parking and
activity that she felt inappropriate to a residential area.Her primary concern apparently was an
inability to cause revocation or a hearing to pursue such.
Over the past six months,Ms.Taylor has contacted or made appearances before the City Board
or any individual that she felt could offer assistance or solution.
Early on this year,Plannin&r Staff committed to include the subject in the year 2000 Amendmcnt
Work Program and invited Ms.Taylor to be a participant.She was placed on the mailin&r list for
committee materials.
The staff completed its development of the 2000 Work Program in July of this year and gained
full Commission endorsement as the needed chan&res for review on August 3.The Plans
Committee set a firs work session on the items for August 23 and instructed staff to structure the
list to deal with S.U.P.flrst.Staff was instructed to invite Ms.Taylor as well as a representative
from the DHS.For several reasons the meeting could not be held on August 23 and was deferred
to September.I'his was done and all assembled on this date.
Meetin on Se tember 6 2000
Ms.Taylor was offered the opportunity to present a case for changes to the ordinance.She
presented a thorough overview of what she felt were the pertinent issues and problems.
Mr.David Griffin of DHS staff divas present to answer questions.Mr.Griffln stated there were a
few violations his staff had found,but they had been retnedied.%1r.Griffln also stated that there
were over 100 of these uses in this area in residential neighborhoods and they did not present a
problem.
Ihe committee and visitors discussed the subject briefly with comment by the chair that the
committee would continue this discussion at a later nseeting and determine direction.
Meetin on October 4 2000
On October 4,2000,the committee meeting was scheduled for discussion of this item.
Present at the meeting were:Judith Faust,Chairperson
Dana Carney,Staff
Brian Minyard,Staff
Richard Wood,Staff
Staff offered an options list for discussion that offered as options,no further action and
recommending that to the full Commission or proceed in the direction as recommended by Ms.
Taylor.
The discussion centered on whether there was in fact any problem cityv ide with current uses,
ordinance language problems,or anything that suggested change was in order.The consensus
was that no action was needed at this time.The chair stated that it would bc appropriate to
submit this determination to the balance of the committee for their thou&rhts and later to the full
Commission and City Hoard.
Meetin~on November.15 2000
On November 15,2000.thc Plans Committcc reviewed a draft memorandum.It was determined
that thc draft correctly cxprcsscd the thoughts of the Conunittee.Thc committee members
reiterated their opinion that the current ordinance language did not need to bc revised.Staff v as
dircctcd to forward the rncrnorandurn to the Full Commission and to notify Ms.Jan Taylor that
the item would be on the Commission's Dcccmber 21,2000 Agenda.
Present at the meeting werc:Judith Faust,Chairperson
Hugh Ernest,Commissioner
Obray Nunnlcy,Jr.,Commissioner
Tony Bozynski,Staff
Dana Carney,Staff
Brian Minyard,Staff
Walter Malone,Staff
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:DECEMBER 21 2000
Staff and Commissioner Judith Faust,Chair of thc Plans Committee,presented the report.
Commissioner Faust bricfly discussed thc process followed by thc Plans Committee and stated
that thc Committee felt no change in current policies or procedures divas warranted.
Jan Taylor addressed the Commission.She stated that shc thought it was thc Board of
Directors'irectivethattheCommissiondraftanamendmcnttotheCodetoincludearevocationprocedure
for Special Use Permits.
Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated that it divas not staff's understanding
that the Board issued such a directive.Mr.Lawson stated that the Board asked the Commission
to look at the process to detertnine if changes were warranted,including a revocation clause.
Ms.Taylor asked if the issue was still open for discussion.Staff responded that the Plans
Committee had made its rcport to thc Conznission and that the Conwnission was to discuss the
issue prior to forv,arding its own rcport to the Board of Directors.Ms.Taylor v as encouraged to
make any continents shc felt vvcrc pertinent.
Ms.Taylor asked vvhy no revocation clause w'as added.Staff responded that thc City'
cnforccmcnt policics made such a provision unncccssary,that any violation of the Special Use
Permit would result in cnforccmcnt and thc possible issuance of a citation to appear in court.It
divas noted that day care family homes had thc additional level of regulation and supervision by
the State Department of IIuman Services.
Corrllnissioncr IIugh Earnest commcntcd that the issue was thoroughly discussed at the Plans
Committee's Scptcmbcr 6,2000 rnccting.IIc stated that there was a frank and open discussion
of the issue and that the Plans Committee felt no change to existing policics or procedures divas
warranted.
Commissioner Bob Lowry commented that Ms.Taylor also had available private remedy
through the courts.
In response to a question from Ms.Taylor,Mr.Lawson stated that staff would enforce against
any violation of the Special Use Permit regulations,including the limit of 10 children.
A motion was made to adopt the Plans Committee rcport and to forward it to the Board of
Directors.The motion was approved by a vote of eight (8)ycs,zero (0)noes,and three (3)
absent.
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
NAME:Telecorp —Tower Use Permit
LOCATION:4500 Alpine Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT:Ralph and Melissa Farish
PROPOSAL:To obtain a revised tower use permit for
a Wireless Communication Facility with a
312.5-foot triangular self-supporting
lattice style tower on property zoned
R-2,Single Family Residential,located
south southwest from the current
terminus of Alpine Lane,south of
Colonel Glenn Road.
ORD INANCE DES I GN STANDARDS:
1.SITE LOCATION:
This site is located approximately 1000 feet south—
southwest from the current terminus of Alpine Lane,
south of Colonel Glenn Road.
2.COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD:
This site is zoned R-2,Single Family Residential,and
is surrounded by R-2 zoning.The area is rural
consisting mostly of large tracts of land,many of which
are still undeveloped,and some contain site-built
and/or manufactured homes.There is currently no road to
the proposed site.The distance from the proposed site
to any other existing structure is well beyond the
height of the tower.
Staff believes that given the rural nature of the
proposed site,that even with the style and slightly
increased height of the proposed tower and slightly
reduced setback,the proposal should not have an adverse
impact on the surrounding area.
This site is not served by any neighborhood association.
However,Staff notified the closest association,which
was The Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
of the public hearing.The applicant notified all
property owners within 200 feet of the public hearing.
3 .ON S I TE DRIVE S AND PARKING:
An unimproved 1647 linear foot access road was
constructed to the site from the current terminus of
Alpine Lane.Parking for maintenance vehicles is
adequate.The site would be unmanned.
4 .SCREENING AND BUFFERS:
The applicant was not required to screen or landscape
the site originally.The site would be brought into
compliance with the current ordinance standards for
landscaping and screening when Alltel collocates on thissite.
5.PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS:
No comment.
6.UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT.COMMENTS:
Water:No objection.
Wastewater:No sewer service required for this project.
Southwestern Bell:No comments received.
ARKLA:Approved as submitted.
Entergy:No comments received.
Fire Department:Approved as submitted.
CATA:No comments requested.
7.STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant acquired a Tower Use Permit (T.U.P.)from
the Planning Commission on January 6,2000 for a
Wireless Communication Facility (WCF)with a 300 foot
triangular self —supporting lattice style tower with
supporting equipment cabinets on a 100x100 foot leased
area.The approved T.U.P.included setback variances for
2
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
a 236 foot set back to the west and a 30 foot setback to
the south f or the tower .Normally the tower would have
to be set back from the abutting residential property
lines the height of the tower .The proposed equipment
location met the required setbacks for R —2 zoning.
Alltel Mobile applied to collocate on this same tower.
During the review of the collocation request,Staff
discovered from the drawings submitted by Alltel that
the height of the tower and the location of the
equipment were not constructed as originally approved.
The applicant has requested to amend their Tower Use
Permit to allow the facility to remain as currently
constructed,with a 312.5 foot tall triangular self—
supporting lattice style tower with supporting equipment
cabinets located on the northwest side of the tower
instead of the northeast side of the tower.The current
setback to the west is 234 feet and to the south is
20.83 feet versus originally approved set backs of 236
feet and 30 feet respectively.
When the original request was made the property owner to
the south opposed the location because he said it would
be located only 100 feet from the prime spot for a
future house on his property to the south.He felt this
tower would negatively impact the view from,and value
of,his property.
Staff still supports its original belief that this is
good location for a single tower,which can provide the
widest coverage and support multiple users.Therefore,
that would mitigate the impact of the style and height
of this tower on the surrounding area.While it is
unfortunate that the actual construction of the facility
was not as originally approved,Staff believes the
revisions would not create a significant change in the
impact of this WCF on the surrounding area.
3
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
8.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the revised tower use
permit sub j ect to compliance with the f ol lowing
conditions:
a.Comply with the City's current Landscape and
Screening requirements for WCFs.
b.Only sign allowed would be one with a small message
containing provider identification and emergency
telephone numbers.c.Only lighting allowed would be that required byStateorFederallaw,and that required for safety
and security of equipment.Any lighting must be down
shielded and kept within the boundaries of the site.
Staff also recommends continued approval of the lattice
style variance,and approval of revised variances for
the height of 312.5,and reduced setbacks of 234 feet to
the west and 20.8 feet to the south.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
The Subdivision Committee did not review this revised
proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 21,2000)
Randal Frazier,attorney for the applicant,was present
representing the application.There was one registered
objector present.Staff presented the item with a
recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the
conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation,"paragraph 8
above.
Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director,commented that
the discrepancies necessitating this revision were discovered
during Staff review of the site plan for an application for
the collocation of a second antenna on the existing tower.
Therefore,it was decided to bring the site back to the
Commission for review and approval before any additional
antennas were approved on this tower.He added he did not
4
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
believe the mistakes were made intentionally,but were simply
errors which occurred during construction.
Chair Adcock expressed her concern that there is not a
specific formal building permit and inspection process for
ensuring that approved issues are constructed as approved in
the extraterritorial zoning area.She added that there have
to be consequences f or non —compliance;otherwise more non-
compliance will occur and people will build cell towers and
other things the way they want to.
Commissioner Faust stated that she didn'see the layout
dimension differences to be large enough to be of great
concern.
Commissioner Rahman stated his main concern was about the
height difference because a tower is built to a specific
height as stated in the specifications.Therefore,he felt
that if it was higher than approved that the specifications
had to have been wrong and purposely stated higher than
approved.He stated his concern about the issues of how to
ensure compliance in the construction phase and what to do in
the case of non-compliance.He also stated his concern about
setting a precedence for granting variances.He added that
allowing one variance would promote more variances.
Commissioner Berry commented that the Commission must be
careful that a remedy to deal with compliance is not self—
defeating by discouraging collocation.He added that he could
live with the 3-4%mistake made in this case,in order to
allow Alltel to collocate.
Mr.Frazier clarified that the setback to the south was off
by 9 feet and that the height was "potentially"taller than
approved.He continued that the construction process is not
an exact science and measurement methods differ.He felt the
differences in height were due to a portion of the footings
supporting the tower being constructed above ground,(3.6
feet above ground),and part of the antenna array projecting
above the top of the tower.He stated he believed the toweritselfwasprobably300foottallbyitself,but these other
physical elements caused the final height of the total
structure to exceed 300 feet.He acknowledged that the
ordinance height is based on the distance from the ground to
the top of the antenna array,but construction crews don'
5
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
understand that difference.Mr.Frazier said he asked in the
application for the liberal figure which Telecorp's surveyor
showed,to be sure the actual total height was covered by the
variance.Mr.Frazier stated he believed this height to be
higher than the actual physical height.He added that the
Alltel drawing showed the distance to the top of the antenna
array to be 299.5 feet tall sitting on a 3.6 foot concrete
footing for a total of only 303 feet.He agreed that they did
make a mistake on the setback,that the tower is 9 feet
closer to the south property line than it should have been
and they were sorry for that error.However,he added that he
didn'feel that difference would have a large impact at that
location.He also stated that they have instructed their
engineers to pay particular attention to locating the
structures correctly in the future.He apologized for the
mistakes that were made.He concluded by stating that he felt
since the tower was there,no one had complained about it
since it was constructed,the area is rural,and there are no
residences close to the location,that the best thing to do
would be to approve the revised site plan as submitted.
Commissioner Lowry asked if the mistakes were made in the
plans/drawings or in the construction.Mr.Frazier stated the
mistakes were made in construction.Commissioner Lowry also
asked Mr.Frazier for his suggestions as to how to prevent
these mistakes on the front end.Mr.Frazier responded that
he felt that the existing inspection process for those
instances where a building permit was required would address
accurate siting.Mr.Lawson suggested that Staff place more
emphasis on making sure applicants are clear that the height
measurement is from the ground to the highest element whetherit'the tower or the antenna array.He added this could be
done by stamping permits and plans with that statement,plus
verbally emphasizing the point.Commissioner Lowry concluded
by stating he felt the mistakes were not intentional,and the
project was done in good faith.
Walter Nelms,adjacent property owner to the south,explained
his concerns.First,the tower did not meet the ordinance-
required setback of the height of the tower from adjacent
residential property in two directions,to the south and the
west.He added that his property is the abutting property in
both of those directions.The tower was originally to be only
30 feet from his northern property line and now it's evencloser.His second concern was that because of the tower's
location,that there was very little area on his 5 acre
6
December 21,2000
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
property south of the site that the tower would not strike ifitfellover.
Chair Adcock asked Mr.Nelms what he felt should be done
about this situation,what would be a fair penalty.Mr.Nelms
began with the comment that penalties happen af ter the fact,
and that prevention was better.He stated that he felt that
since he was unable to attend the original hearing,the item
should have been delayed so he could have discussed in personhisobjectionsandsuggestions.He added that in his originalletterofobjectionhestatedthattherewereotherlocations
on the Farish's property that had the same or higher
elevation that would have been agreeable to him.However,the
location next to his property was chosen and that other than
the letter he submitted,he had no recourse since he had to
be out of town during the hearing.
Commissioner Berry asked Staff if the "fall"line for towers
was measured to the property line or to structures on
adjacent property.Mr.Carney from the Planning Staff
responded that the dimension asked about is considered a
setback,not a "fall line"or "fall zone",and that it was
measured to the adjacent property line not structures on the
adjacent property.
Three motions were made.The first was to adopt the Staff
recommendation to approve the variance for the height of312.5 feet.The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes,2 nays,
and 3 absent.The second motion was to adopt the Staff
recommendation to accept the setback variances to allow the
tower to be 20.8 feet from the south and 234 feet from the
west property lines.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
1 nay,and 3 absent.The third motion was to adopt the otherStaffrecommendationsandcommentsforconditionsand
collocation issues stated in the agenda report.The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays,and 3 absent.
Mr.Lawson asked that the record reflect that the applicant
had been offered the standard opportunity to defer this item
since there were only 8 Commissioners present and he chose
not to defer.
Commissioner Lowry strongly recommended to the industry andStaffthatthisproblemnotariseagainorhemightnotlook
upon it again in the same manner.
7
December 21,2000
V
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6781-A
Chair Adcock asked if there was not some way that the City
and County could work together to ensure that the rules and
regulations are followed in the City's Extraterritorial
Zoning Area.
Commissioner Earnest suggested that the Commission consider
during the next year some sort of consolidation of City and
County planning functions to deal with this and other
planning issues.He was aware of locations where that process
was working in other parts of the country.
8
IE
g~in h ~S ~3b hb 7
W'el 4 x h ~~bN x
~
8 9
~o
8
~
L
December 21,2000
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
Date
e re ry Chairman