pc_04 29 1999I
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
APRIL 29,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum,
A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number.
II.Members Present:Craig Berry
Herb HawnBillPutnam
Judith Faust
Rohn Muse
Bob Lowry
Obray Nunnley,Jr.
Pam Adcock
Mizan Rahman
Richard Downing
Members Absent:Hugh Earnest
City Attorney:Steve Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
APRIL 29,1999
4:00 P.M.
I.DEFERRED ITEMS:
A.Pfeifer —East Annexation
B.1998 Subdivision Ordinance Amendments
C.Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road Corridor
II.NEW ITEMS:
1.LU99-02-02 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Rodney
Parham Planning District at 9002 West Markham;from
Single Family to Suburban Office.
2.LU99-08-07 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central
City Planning District on the north side of the 2200
block of Wright Avenue;from Single Family to Mixed Use
and the south side of the 2200 block of Wright Avenue;
from Single Family to Public Institutional.
3.LU99-15-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Geyer
Springs West Planning District at 9620 West Baseline;
from Single Family to Service Trades District.
4.LU99-17-01 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Crystal
Valley Planning District on the south side of Lawson
Road west of Sullivan;from Single Family to
Neighborhood Commercial.
5.Z-6646 1710 East 16 Street R-3 to I-2
6.Z-6649 4323 West 29 Street I-2 to C-3
7.LU99-08-08 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Central
City Planning District for an area bounded by ArchStreet,I-30 and the northern edge of the CRI&P Railroadtracks;from Mining to Park/Open Space.
8.South End Area Improvement Plan Rezonings
9.Central City Redevelopment Corridor Design OverlayDistrict
PU
B
L
I
C
HE
A
R
I
N
G
IT
E
M
S
60
~
7R
I
'g
g
YP
1
IA
I
i
S
RI
V
E
LE
E
VE
R
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
S
e+
MA
R
K
MA
R
PR
I
D
E
VA
L
L
14
3
14
0
0
KA
N
I
IS
12
T
12
T
H
ST
H
6
2
IG
H
I
+I
f
+
RO
D
S
CO
L
O
I
30
SE
V
E
RO
g
36
T
H
I
1-
4
4
6
LA
W
S
O
N
0
~7
S
FR
A
Z
I
E
R
PI
K
E
LA
W
B
O
N
0 Z
ZE
U
B
E
R
4
DA
V
I
0 +i
O'
D
O
%M
65
T
H
4l
0
RA
I
N
E
S
VA
L
L
E
Y
1-
4
3
0
3
0
CI
T
Y
UM
I
S
CO
5
II
I
16
7
DI
X
O
N
BA
S
E
U
N
E
I
0
DI
X
O
N
36
5
OT
T
E
R
MA
B
E
L
V
MA
B
E
L
V
CU
T
O
SL
I
N
K
E
CR
E
E
K
WE
S
T
VI
N
S
O
N
RO
DR
E
H
AL
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
GE
Y
E
R
SP
S'
R
'
0
CU
T
O
F
F
CU
T
O
F
F
g
0
EL
AS
H
E
R
CI
T
Y
LI
M
I
T
g
16
7
PR
A
T
T
14
5
T
H
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
d
a
Ap
r
i
l
29
,
19
9
9
~March 18,1999
ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:292
ANNEXATION ANALYSIS Pfeifer —East Annexation
Due to scheduling conflicts the staff is requesting this
item be deferred to the March 18,1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(FEBRUARY 4,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved fordeferraltotheMarch18,1999 meeting.The vote was
10 ayes,Onoes and 1 absent.
ANNEXATION UPDATE Pfeifer —East Annexation
Due to unresolved issues,the applicant is requesting this
item be deferred to the April 29,1999 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral,as requested by the applicant.The vote was
11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent.
ANNEXATION UPDATE Pfeifer —East Annexation
Due to unresolved issues,the applicant requests that this
item be withdrawn.It will be refiled at a later date.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
Staff advised the Commission that,due to unresolved issues,
the applicant had requested that the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:B DEFERRED MATTERS
~ruh'ect:1998 Subdivision and M.S.P.Amendments,Public Hearing
R~e est:That the Planning Commission receive the draft presented,
hear comment from the Public and direct staff as to
follow up action.
History:Zn January of 1998,the Plans Cosssittee began a pear long
review process,working with Planning Staff and the
Public Works staff.Public input was requested,little
offered.In the beginning the single task assigned the
committee was to perform a review of the Subdivision
Ordinance with respect to problem areas or updating text.
During the course of its review,the committee received a
request from Public Works staff to consider removal ofallstreetrelateddesignfromtheSubdivisionOrdinance
and place it in the Master Street Plan text.This was
favorably received and over the summer and fall months.
Public Works produced two ordinance drafts to accomplish
the task.
The first of these was an ordinance extracting certain
text elements from the Subdivision regulations and
inserting in their place a reference to the Master Street
Plan.
The second was reconstruction of the M.S.P.text to
redirect it from a general plan document to a specific
design regulation.
All of the basic committee and staff work was finished
before the end of the year with only one element
remaining to be resolved,that being resolution of
certain design standards.There were street curvature,
sidewalks,and sight distance in particular.Public
Works staff met with various engineers and development
community persons over January and the instruments now
before the Commission are,we think,representative of
the common committee,staff and developer position with
the exception of the increase in sidewalk standards.
Planning and Public Works staff will be available to
answer questions.
The following will give a brief review of changes:
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:B (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
1998 Subdivision and Master Street Plan Ordinance Amendments
There are three elements to the years work program:
~The basic subdivision ordinance multiple change amendments.
~The restructure of the Master Street Plan Ordinance to
absorb street design standards from the subdivision
ordinance.
~The ordinance amendment restructuring the subdivision
ordinance to delete design and refer to Master Street Plan.
The basic subdivision amendment Ordinance contains thirty-four (34)
areas of change with forty (40)specific amendments.
There are:
12 Design related changes
9 Language/Structure
13 Procedural Related Changes
6 Definitions Changes
(These numbers do not include the Master Street Plan/Subdivision
Ordinance changes proposed)
The three Ordinances should be adopted in the following order:
~Basic Amendments
~Master Street Plan restructure
~Subdivision Ordinance Modification for Master Street Plan
The Subdivision Ordinance changes proposed include seven (7)
amendments that can be construed to be controversial
These are:(a)(b)(1)(o)(u)(w)(mm)
(a)This revisits the driveway spacing for all non-
residential development.Public Works is major involved
party.
(b)This grants Public Works variance authority over major
design elements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
(1)This requires engineers to submit more detailed
information on final plat filing.
(o)This requires a new approach to platting small commercial
subdivisions by eliminating the use of culs-de-sac to
terminate streets.
2
1998 SUBDIVISION AND M.S.P.AMENDMENTS (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
(u)This provides for design standards for pipe stems when
they are prohibited by ordinance.It would only apply
when the City Board grants a waiver.
(v)This provides for tightened regulations for design of
minor residential streets.
(mm)This provides for a totally new way to regulate design oflargeparkinglots,make them function better for traffic
flow and pedestrian safety.
The M.S.P.proposals include one area of change that will becontroversial,that being.Sidewalks required on more residentialstreets.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
The Chair introduced this item by saying that Commissioner Adcockrequeststheamendmentsbedeferredforfurtherdiscussion,.Several commissioners asked for clarification of the request.It
was reported that there were some street issues that required
more work.
Richard Wood,of the staff,suggested that a deferral was not a
problem.The Ordinance will be held over to the next meeting,April 29,1999.
STAFF UPDATE:
The Planning Staff received a verbal note from Mr.Turner of Public
Works Department that an afternoon was spent with Commissioner
Adcock to discuss her concerns.It appears at this writing that thelastissuesofconcernhavebeenaddressedsatisfactorily.PlanningStafffeelsthattheordinanceamendmentsarenowreadyforfinalactionbytheCommission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The staff reported to the Commission that concerns have been raisedaboutcertainelementsoftheMasterStreetPlanOrdinanceandalliedsubdivisionregulations.Staff suggested that the amendment
package be divided with the first ordinance of general amendments beforwardedtotheBoardandthesecondandthirdordinancesbedeferred.Public Works staff suggested four weeks to May 27,1999.
The Chairman noted two cards from speakers.These were on thedeferredordinances.There were several persons present but
appeared to accept the deferral and offered no comment.
3
1998 SUBDIVISION AND M.S.P.AMENDMENTS (Cont.)DEFERRED MATTERS
The Chairman placed the issue on the floor for discussion.A motion
was made to split the hearing on this item with part 1 being added
to the Consent Approval agenda and parts 2 and 3 being placed on
Consent Deferral for four weeks (May 27,1999).
After a brief discussion of the proposal a motion"was made to
approve the Consent Agenda as presented.The Consent Agenda was
approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent.
April 29,1999
I
ITEM NO.:C KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
NAME:Kanis Road Design Overlay District
LOCATION:Kanis Road from the intersection of Shackleford Road
and the intersection of Chenal Parkway
REQUEST:Establishment of a Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Kanis Road Task Force
STAFF REPORT:
In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed staff to
under take a study of the Kanis Road Corridor .A nine membercitizencommitteewasappointedtoserveastheKanisRoad
Corridor Study Committee.The Committee began meeting in
December of 1996.The group met on a regular basis for 9 months
and discussed items related to the Kanis Road Corridor.One of
the items discussed was the concept of a Design Overlay District.
Some of the things discussed for inclusion in an overlay were;
shared parking,limited curb cuts,building heights,buildingsetbacks,a 50 foot natural strip to be included in the buildingsetback,the development of a mature tree ordinance and
pedestrian friendly sidewalks.
The Kanis Committee presented several recommendations for roadway
design,future land use and the concept of a Design OverlayDistricttothePlanningCommissioninOctober1997.There was
not a majority vote by the Planning Commission on one
recommendation and the study was not forwarded to the Board.
In March 1998 staff developed and presented to the Board
recommendations for future land use,roadway design and items for
inclusion in a Design Overlay District.In May 1998 the Board ofDirectorsreferredtheKanisRoadCorridorstudybacktothe
Planning Commission which heard the item in June 1998.The
Commission recommended:the future land use plan presented bystaff;an enhanced two-lane roadway with bike paths and center
turn lane at major intersections with a 90 foot right of way;and
the concept of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road
Corridor .
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
As this was happening the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan
Committee began meeting in January of 1998.Kanis Road was the
Neighborhood Action Plan'southern boundary.Over the 10 months
the committee met issues related to the Kanis Road Corridor were
discussed.A concern of the group is as the city expands west,
there is a significant reduction of mature trees and natural
vegetation.
The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan was presented to the
Planning Commission (October 1998)and the Board of Directors
(December 1998).The Neighborhood Action Plan committee
recommended the adoption of a Design Overlay District for the
Kanis Road Corridor,which includes:preservation of the
character;facilitation of vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian
movement.
On November 17,1998 (Resolution No.10 409)of the City ofLittleRockBoardofDirectorsendorsedtheconceptoftwo
separate Design Overlay Districts for the Kanis Road corridor anddirectedstafftoworkwiththePlanningCommissionandproperty
owners along the Kanis Road corridor to develop and complete the
Kanis Road Overlay Design District Ordinance.
To obtain public input a meeting was held on December 14,1998 at
the Parkway Place Baptist Church to discuss with interested
persons the Design Overlay District concepts.Participants were
informed to the proposed roadway design,proposed land use plan
and the proposed Design Overlay District concepts for the Kanis
Road Corridor.
Mr.Lawson also presented the concept of two Design OverlayDistrictsfortheKanisRoadCorridor.Overlay One (1)extends
from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road and Overlay Two (2)extends
from Bowman Road to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal
Parkway.
Mr.Lawson explained in Overlay One there would be a two acre
minimum development size,a 30 foot natural buffer fronting Kanis
Road and parking would be allowed fronting the roadway.
Buildings would have a minimum 60 foot setback,rear yards would
have a 40 foot set back and side yards have a 30 foot set back.
Mr.Lawson indicated ground mounted signs would be no more than 8feetinheightand100squarefeetinarea.Wall mounted signs
would be no more than 8%of the building faqade.Curb cuts would
be allowed at a minimum of 600 feet apart.Currently curb cuts
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
are allowed a 300 foot spacing.He also indicated properties,
which are located on corner lots,would have their primary
entrance fronting a side street and the Kanis Road access would
be a right-in/right-out only access.He also indicated this
design concept would be a major change to the Master Street Plan.
Should a property owner be unable to meet these requirements the
property owner would file for a Planned Zoning Development.
He then addressed the primary differences in Overlay One and
Overlay Two.With Overlay Two the buildings would be placed 45footfromtheright-of-way of the roadway,rear yards have a 15footsetbackandsideyardshavea10footsetback.Signage
allowances are less with the maximum allowance being two squarefeetinareaforeverylinearfootoffrontagenottoexceed84
square feet and eight feet in height.Wall mounted signs shall
be no more than 4%of the building faqade.
In response to a question concerning the depth of the Design
Overlay District,Mr.Lawson stated the depth would be the firstlotor300feetshouldthelotsbelongandnarrowasinthecaseofWhiteRoad.
Several comments addressed the current policy of roadwayconstruction.Citizens felt the property owners should not bear
the cost of the development of the roadway.Some suggested thecityissuebondstopayfortheconstructionoftheroadway.One
person asked if the design standards for Kanis Road were tocorrectthemistakemadewithdecidingtokeepChenalParkwaya
four lane roadway.
Several people questioned the donation of lands for the
development of bike trails and walking trails.The comments
suggested that if the city wanted these amenities along Kanis
Road then the right-of-way should be purchased,or thesefacilitiesshouldbelocatedelsewherethanalongamajorroadway
where land prices were valuable.A survey for the proposed
roadway design and the Design Overlay District was presented to
the participants.Also written comments were solicited.
The Commission deferred this item from the January 21,1999
agenda to the February 4,1999 agenda.Several issues werediscussedasapartoftheKanisRoadCorridorStudywiththe
3
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Design Overlay District not being forwarded to the Board ofDirectors.The motion was made to support the Kanis Road Design
Overlay District in concept only with more discussion on issuesofconcern.
Since the February 4,1999 public hearing staff has met with
persons who raised concerns at the public hearing.Some of theissueshavebeenaddressedandcorrectedothersareattachedfor
review by the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Design Overlay District for the
Kanis Road Corridor.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 4,1999)
This item was deferred by the Planning Commission until
March 18,1999 agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Mr.Jim Lawson,Planning and Development Director introduced the
item indicating the Kanis Road Design Overlay District was not a
new concept to the Commission.He stated the Commission andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforquitesometime.He
asked the Commission as to the approach for discussion the
Commission wished to pursue.
Chairman Earnest indicated the Commission received a copy of the
proposed Design Overlay,which included the current proposal,as
well as the contents of the all-previous.The bold italicizedaremodificationsanddeletionshavebeenstricken.ChairmanEarnestalsosuggestednotgoingthroughtheproposallinebylinebuttoaddressspecificquestionsoftheCommission.Healsoindicatedthestaffmemberwhomhadworkedmostcloselywith
the modifications respond to the specific questions.
Ms.Donna James of the office of Planning and Development
addressed these concerns.
4
April 29,1999
I
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Chairman Earnest questioned concerning cutting,filling and
grading of the entire site.
Ms.James stated the intent of the original language was not to
control grading,cutting and filling of the entire site but the
30 foot buffer area.The changes were made for clarification.
Commissioner Hawn questioned the section of protection and
replacement of trees.His concern was there were not any
guidelines for the tree density requirement.He also indicateditwasnotclearwhichareaofthesitewascoveredbythe
minimal tree removal provision.He questioned if this was theentiresiteorthe30footnaturalbuffer.
Ms.James indicated this requirement was for the 30 foot natural
buffer area along with the side and rear yard setbacks.A
section to clarify the replacement requirements would be added to
the proposal.
Commissioner Putnam requested the Commission hear the citizen
comments before discussion of individual items.With citizen
input,the Commission could also address the concerns of the
property owners.
Commissioner Rahman asked if land alteration of the remainder of
the site was addressed in the proposal.
Ms.James indicated it was not but could be added.
Commissioner Downing stated that the proposal be morespecificallyidentifiedforthosewhowouldbeviewingathome.
Chairman Earnest indicated the proposal before the Commission was
a proposal of a Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road
Corridor.He also stated the Commission,Property Owners andstaffhadbeenworkingonaproposalforseveralmonthsandasaresulttherewereitems,which had been stricken as well as
items,which had been added.Chairman Earnest also indicated the
Commission would hear citizen input on the proposal.
Dotty Funk,City Beautiful Commission stated she was working with
a committee established by the Mayor to examine the current
landscaping and land alteration ordinances.She indicated the
Task Force has established a listing of trees,which were native
to the area and at maturity would produce more desirable trees.
5
April 29,1999
I
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
She requested the complete listing of trees be added to the
proposal.She stated when the citizens of Little Rock say
replant trees they are saying replant trees which will grow up to
be big trees.She also indicated the need to address excavation
as a part of the Design Overlay.
Mr.Elmer Tucker,Jr.did not address the Commission.
Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,stated two concerns.It is
understandable that some properties would require an exception to
allow for development.The topographical situations along Kanis
Road would require site reviews.The lack of written guidelinesforstaffandfutureCommissionstodeterminewhatconstitutesan
exception is a concern.Also the League would prefer allutilitiesbelocatedunderground.The League understands this is
very costly but the future benefits,less power outages,would beofgreaterbenefit.
Ms.Gladys Post,White Road resident,stated she and others were
trying to protect the residential nature of the White Road area.
She indicated in the proposal access was to be taken from
secondary roads when such properties were located on corner lots.
Ms.Post indicated White Road was a 16 foot wide residentialstreetwithdeepditchesoneachside.Currently two cars can
not pass and with the addition of traffic from corner lot
development this would only exerzerbate the situation.
Currently a development along the southwest corner of Kanis Road
and White Road does not have access to White Road due to a
Planned Development approved by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors.The residents'equest the Commission not
allow access to White Road from the southeast corner of Kanis
Road and White Road as well.
Mr.Bob Wilson,property owner along Kanis Road,stated his
concern was the real effect of the Design Overlay on such a largearea.This is not a neighborhood plan he stated.The
implementation of a Design Overlay District along the Kanis Roadcorridorwouldbeatremendousexpensetopropertyowners.HealsosuggesteditwasearlytobediscussingaDesignOverlay,
when the City Board of Directors had just approved what type of
roadway design.The proposed alignment is not an engineered
alignment for the roadway.He stated the importance of locationofthecenterlinebeforepropertyownerscouldexaminetherealeffectsoftheproposalwithregardtotheirproperties.
6
April 29,1999
1
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Mr.Wilson also stated his concern with the city wanting property
owners to pay for the development of an area that would benefit
the city as a whole.The city should be willing to pay for
lands for the placement of bicycle paths and sidewalks.In
addition the city should be willing to maintain the 30 foot
natural buffer area and not leave cleaning up to the property
owners.
Mr.Ray Robbins,property owner along Kanis Road,questioned why
the Design Overlay stopped at the Rock Creek Bridge rather than
the proceed to the intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway.
He stated a four lane roadway dumping into a two lane roadway
would be a traffic nightmare.
Mr.Lawson stated the item being discussed was not the roadway
design.Mr.Lawson suggested Mr.Bob Turner,Assistant DirectorofPublicWorks,address the question.
Mr.Turner stated the roadway proposed was a four lane divided
roadway from Bowman Road to the intersection of the Rock Creek
Bridge.He stated the bridge would be widened and the roadway
then becomes a five lane roadway.The roadway design from the
Rock Creek Bridge to the intersection with Chenal Parkway would
be similar to the roadway from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.
Mr.Robbins questioned if the City would purchase the property in
the 30 foot buffer area.If the owner was unable to develop the
property,and the City would not purchase the property in the 30footarea,in his opinion this was a taking.
Mr.Sid Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated for years
the City was not interested in Kanis Road.Now with developmenttothewest,the City was suddenly concerned with the Kanis Road
Corridor.In his opinion the City now was interested in a
parkway for people to travel.He commented on the two persons
speaking prior to him and the listing of trees presented by the
Land Alteration Task Force were both City bodies indicating what
was good for the City.He stated the setback area resulted in a
taking of lands.
Mr.Brain stated his basic objection was to set backs.In his
opinion the set backs were excessive.He questioned the setback
requirements of the two sections of roadway and suggested they betreatedthesame.He commented on only allowing two storybuildings.This results in a reduction of the value of
7
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
properties to owners along the corridor.Bike paths and the
placement in the 30 foot natural buffer area is a taking of
property.
Mr.James Brain,property owner along Kanis Road,stated the
result of the proposal was a taking of lands.He stated the city
was taking something with the required setbacks and the tree set
backs.His property was located along Kanis Road in the Autumn
Road and Bowman Road areas.The proposal for the Kanis Road
Corridor indicates a maximum building height of two story
buildings.In close proximity to his property there is a five
story office building and mini warehouses.One street north,
Chenal Parkway has intense uses such as large office and
commercial facilities between Shackleford Road and Bowman Road.It is anticipated the more intense development along Kanis Road
will also occur from Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.The
proposed,setbacks are outrageous stated Mr.Brain.If the City
wishes to build a park,then the City needs to purchase lands and
build a park.
Mr.Tim Dennis,of Precision Builders,agreed with Mr.Wilson's
comments that the Overlay was premature.Property owners can not
determine if and how the proposal will affect their propertyuntilthecenterlineoftheroadwayisdetermined.
Mr.Greg Slocum,property owner along Kanis Road,questioned how
the project was to be funded.
Chairman Earnest stated the project was in the Mayor's tax
package.
Mr.Lawson explained that the project was a part of the tax
package.However,the Board of Directors did not say if the tax
package does not pass the road would not be built.The Board has
said bring us back a Design Overlay District for the Kanis Road
Corridor,which will protect the scenic beauty of the area.
Commissioner Hawn questioned the passage of a four lane roadway
by the Board of Directors for the Kanis Road Corridor.He
commented the Commission had approved an enhanced two lane
roadway,which would protect the scenic corridor.With the
development of a four lane roadway the uses expected would be
more intense developments.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission approved an enhanced
two lane if developers were to pay for the roadway or a four lane
8
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
roadway if the City would pay for the difference in a two lane
and a four lane roadway.If developers were to pay for the
entire four lane roadway more intense developments would be
required to recoup the cost.
Commissioner Putnam suggested the Commission was not ready to act
on a Design Overlay for the Corridor.He suggested the
Commission should wait on the vote for the tax package and also
wait on the engineering study for road placement.
Chairman Earnest reminded the Commission there was a moratorium
on building along Kanis Road.The Design Overlay is to protect
the area and at some point the moratorium will end.
Commissioner Adcock questioned how the Commission was to address
the roadway concerns when the layout was not determined.It was
impossible to visualize a roadway without knowing the exactlocationandtheaffectonproperties.
Mr.Lawson stated the roadway was determined as set by the MasterStreetPlan.It was a four lane median roadway.All that isleftisanengineeringstudyfortheplacementoftheroad.
Mr.Bob Turner stated the proposed roadway would attempt to
follow the current centerline.In some areas there will beverticalchangesandgradechangesaswellasalignmentchanges.
The design of the road may change but not the 90 foot right-of-
way.
Mr.Lawson explained some buildings are in the current right-of-
way.Any road,which is 50 to 60 years old with structures builtclosetotheroad,will have this problem.
Commissioner Rahman stated the document before the Commission wasnotacompletedocument.In his opinion the role of the
Commission was to determine the next step.
Commissioner Downing stated staff had done a good job of placing
words staff understands but not everyone understands what was
being presented.He questioned if staff could show visually the
proposal verses the current standards.
Mr.Lawson stated staff had previously presented drawings to the
Commission and those drawings were available for review.Healsocommentedthereweretwoproposedareas.Area one was a
more Chenal like design and area two was a more Heights/Hillcrest
9
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
design.Area one setbacks would allow for two rows of parking in
front of the building and area two would allow for no parking in
the front.
Mr.Lawson also stated the Board of Directors had given a
deadline of April 20 for receiving the proposed Design OverlayDistrict.
Commissioner Faust stated there were two to three things that
needed to be added to the proposed Design Overlay District.She
wished to support the City Board and to move on the proposal as
soon as possible.The addition of information recpxested by the
Commission,land alteration and tree density and the addition of
visual representations should allow the Commission to continue
the discussion.
Commissioner Rahman commented land alteration should be a major
component of the Design Overlay.As development occurs lands
will be altered.Also it is important to coordinate with the
Land Alteration Task Force to ensure the Design Overlay District
and the Task Force proposals are complimentary.
Commissioner Putnam made the motion to delay discussions for
future thinking.
Commissioner Adcock recpxested a special meeting to hear
suggestions for additions to the Design Overlay from allinterestedparties.Comments should be solicited from the Land
Alteration Task Force.
Commissioner Berry suggested the Commission not act on the item
but to establish a time certain for forwarding a proposal to the
Board of Directors.He suggested the Commission make every
attempt to meet the Board deadline of April 20~.
Commissioner Nunnley suggested the discussion be heard at the
April 1'nformal meeting of the Commission.He also stated the
item should be placed first on the agenda.
Chairman Earnest called the cpxestion.The motion passed 7-4-0.
Commissioner Faust made a motion to complete the work on the
Design Overlay District and to make diligent efforts to meet the
Board of Directors April 20 deadline.
10
~April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commissioner Downing seconded the motion.
Chairman Earnest called the question.The motion passed 10-1-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
This item was placed on consent deferral to be heard at the
April 29,1999 Public Hearing.The vote 10-0-1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
Mr.Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,suggested staff
present the changes made to the proposed Design Overlay District
since the April 1,1999 informal meeting.He indicated these
changes were the result of discussions with property owners and
persons with an interest in property along the Kanis Road
Corridor.He also indicated the staff felt the proposed Design
Overlay's were at the point for a vote,either in support of the
or denial if the Commission felt this was not something needed.
Ms.Donna James,Planner II,City of Little Rock Planning and
Development presented the changes to the item.There is a change
from the printed agenda,which is Section 2,District Boundaries.
The new wording is exactly as the wording of the Chenal Parkway
Design Overlay District and the Highway 10 Design OverlayDistrictwithrespecttoKanisRoad.The key areas of changes
have been with setbacks,buffers,parking lot access or curb
cuts,tree placement,trash receptacles,bike/walking path and
building
heights'ice-Chairman
Adcock indicated the Commission would hear citizen
comments but since this issue had been before the Commission on
several occasions to limit the discussion to only new information
and or issues.She indicated the Commission would exercise the
20 time limit rule for hearing citizen comments.
Mr.Jim Brain questioned the right-of-way of the roadway design
and the construction of the center turn lane in the area from
Shackleford Road to Bowman Road.
Mr.Bob Turner,Assistant Director of Public Works,indicated
there were two roadway design standards for the corridor.One
from Shackleford to Bowman Roads and one from Bowman Road to the
11
~April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Rock Creek Bridge.Each was to be constructed in a 90 footright-of-way with the first being four travel lanes with a
continuos center turn lane.The second area will be four travel
lanes with a median and median breaks at 600 foot intervals.
Mr.Brain indicated his concerns were with the building setbacks,
the buffer requirements,the restrictions of signage,the
limiting of access of corner lots and the need for a bike path.
He stated signage with multiple tenants would create safetyissueswithpersonsslowingtoreadthelettering.Properties,
which were in excess of 300 feet,should be allowed access to
Kanis Road to limit parking lot congestion.He indicated the
need for a bike path on Kanis Road was questionable.His
concerns were when bicyclist crossed driveways who would have the
right-of-way.Also the Design Overlay District should state the
building height adheres to the current zoning ordinance and not
be limited to 45 feet.Should the zoning ordinance change the
building height as worded would not be changed.He questionedtreesandshrubsnotbeingplacedintheutilityeasements.The
sewer easements are located on the side property lines which
would limit the side yard buffers and if the overhead utilities
were placed on the back property lines this would also create a
hardship in meeting the required buffer areas.He requested the
Commission take two separate votes.One pertaining to the needforaDesignOverlayDistrictforAreaOneandthesecondthe
need for a Design Overlay District for Area Two.
Mr.Sid Brain stated the area east of Bowman Road was developing
in a more intense development pattern than the area west of
Bowman Road.He requested the area be allowed to develop as the
surrounding area of Bowman,Hermitage,Autumn Roads and Chenal
Parkway.He suggested with the implementation of the Design
Overlay District in Area One this would further contribute to
Urban Sprawl by forcing development to locate further west.
Ray Robbins requested the Commission treat the two areas the
same.This was with respect to roadway design as well as the
design controls.He stated with the continued development
westward along Chenal Parkway the pressures on Kanis Road would
continue and both areas would develop in a similar manner.
Ms.Ruth Craw,League of Women Voters,addressed the Commission
with regard to the changes to the Design Overlay District.She
questioned the removal of trees and shrubs from the utility
easements,the placement of curb cuts every 300 feet and the
placement of trees on 40 foot intervals.The tree placement at
12
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
20 foot intervals was designed to limit the visual effects of
rows of cars in parking lots.The League supports the limitationoftwostorybuildingsandtheparkingratios.
Mr.Jim Hathaway,The Hathaway Group,spoke in representation of
eight property owners along the corridor and as a citizen ofLittleRock.He indicated he was not a property owner along thecorridornordidhisfirmownproperty.He stated as a
representative of property owners he had prepared an analysis of
the properties and the effects on these properties should the
Design Overlay District be implemented.The properties were aslittleassix-tenths of an acre to as large as 20 acres.He also
indicated the properties were zoned for commercial or office
development or were shown on the Future Land Use Plan for office
or commercial uses.He stated the properties had a cumulative
market value of $4,945,000 based on today's valuation.He stated
he looked at each property and assessed the negative impacts on
each property.The loss due to unusable lands with respect to
buffers,the increased cost of retaining walls due to grading,
the loss of signage rights,the loss of visibility to the site
and the limiting of building heights would be 20 to 25 percent.
The impact on these eight properties at twenty percent was just
under $1 million and at twenty-five percent would be $1.2
million.He indicated there were 207 property owners along the
roadway.Each property is different and the need to assess each
on its own merits,some would be no impact,some would be little
impact,and some would be significant impacts.The conclusion is
the taking of property.The result is a large amount of money bythetakingofvaluefrompropertieswithoutcompensation.
Investment slows in a city when there is uncertainty of the
outcome.The ability to develop properties to the fullest extentisbeingtakenaway.The funding for the roadway is in the tax
package with the remainder to be responsibility of the property
owners.With a Design Overlay District this will create a
hindrance on development.The city should be looking for
development standards,which would encourage development to
complete the roadway and facilitate the movement of traffic.He
requested the Commission vote no to the proposal before them.
Ms.Dottie Funk,City Beautiful Commission,stated the current
version had "taken the teeth"out of the proposed Design OverlayDistrict.The need for the placement of trees on 20 foot
intervals for a canopy effect and lessen the impacts of
development on the area.Curb cuts at 300 feet would only createtrafficconcerns.She stated she also did not see the need for a
bike path in the area.The negative impact on land is not true.
13
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Other areas with more restrictive codes have indicated increased
property values with the implementation of design controls by as
much as 25 percent.She stated with a Koger Center look
development stretching the length of Kanis Road would not
decrease property values in the area.
Dickson Flake,Barnes Quinn,Flake and Anderson indicated he was
representing three properties west of Bowman Road.He stated
design standards could increase property values up to a certain
point.When the line is crossed values begin the devaluation
process.The line has been crossed along the Kanis Road
Corridor.In real estate economics this amounts to a taking with
out compensation.He indicated at the informal meeting and here
today the only persons supporting the proposal were persons who
had no investment or risk should the Design Overlay District is
implemented.He stated if the Commission was to follow the
recommendation of the staff and vote on the proposal to vote no.
The proposal is not ready for implementation.When questioned
the three areas of major concern were the parking rations,the
proposal not workable for subdivision development by requiringallpermitsbeobtainedpriortoconstructionandthegrading
requirements.
Stephen Giles,City Attorney stated the passage of a zoning
ordinance was not a taking of properties.The devaluation of
value would have to be determined at the time of development.
Commissioner Putnam,stated when you take away rights to develop
property you have reduced the value of the property.If the
sales tax does not pass then we will not have the money to build
the roadway.Highway 10 and Chenal Design Overlay'were put
into place after the roadway was completed.He indicated the
need to vote no to the proposals for the Kanis Road Corridor
until the funding for the roadway was identified and put in
place.When the roadway is funded then development will begin to
occur.To place restrictions on lands in these areas will create
a devaluation of lands.
Vice-Chairman Adcock opened the discussion to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Lowry requested Bob Turner address the utilities and
locations.He questioned if one property owner placed theutilitiesonthefrontandtheadjacentpropertyownersplaced
the utilities on the back and yet another placed utilities on the
front who was responsible for connection of the lines.
14
April 29,1999
ZTEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANZS ROAD DESZGN OVERLAY DZSTRZCT
Mr.Turner stated this was a problem.The assumption is property
owners will be responsible for providing a continuos loop.
Commissioner Rahman commented this would arise and in most cases
Entergy would participate in the placement of lines when
development occurs.
Commissioner Downing asked how this situation could be resolved.
Commissioner Lowry replied this is not an either/or situation.
The lines need to be placed on the back property line or
underground on the front.
Commissioner Hawn indicated the back property line would also be
a problem due to the irregular depths of lots.
Commissioner Putman recgxested the Commission take a vote on the
proposal before them.
Commissioner Muse stated he did not believe this Design OverlayDistrictwasagoodthingforthearea.He also reminded the
Commission of the task currently before them refereed to as
"Smart Growth".He commented as a part of this task the
Commission had focused on the three E's.One of which was
ecgxity.Zf the City believes the rural character should be
preserved and protected then the City should develop an ordinance
to do so citywide.
Commissioner Berry stated the statement of takings should not
influence the Commission.The proposal is reasonable and
adjustments can be made as time goes along.Several months ago
Mayor Dailey recgxested a moratorium on building along the
Corridor.We need to forward to the Board of Directors a Design
Overlay,which would protect the unicgxeness of Kanis Road.Let
the Board of Directors have the final decision as to what action
should be taken to preserve the character of Kanis Road.
Commissioner Downing stated a Design Overlay District is a tool
to use when an area is defined for preservation.East of Bowman
Road is different than west of Bowman Road.He recgxested the
Commission separate the two areas and take two votes.
Commissioner Nunnley indicated the Commission had spent a great
deal of time on the issue and it was important to forward to the
Board of Directors the reasoning why the item failed if in fact
the Commission voted the Design Overlay District down.This
15
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
would give some guidance to the Board of Directors in makingtheirfinaldecision.
Commissioner Rahman stated the time to act is now.It is
important to act before development begins to occur.He also
stated he did not agree the implementation of a Design OverlayDistrictwasatakingoflandsorrightstodevelop.
Mr.Jim Lawson stated it is important to remember where we are
and how we got here.The charge of staff is to pick a corridor,
develop a prototype for enhanced development,which would
indicate how development could occur in the future,and then take
to the idea entire city.It is clear people do not want an
enhanced corridor.They want things to stay the same.All over
the United States when you make something better the property
values go up.The problem with this Design Overlay is there is
not a public outcry for change.If we want to develop the same
as we always have then vote this Design Overlay District down.
Vice-Chairman Adcock questioned Mr.Turner if anyone who lived or
owned a business on Kanis Road had been into public works with
problems of the current roadway design.
Mr.Turner replied personally he had not spoken to a property
owner with a problem.
Commissioner Faust indicated the Commission was unfamiliar with
the Design Overlay District concept.The city currently has
three in place.The newness of the concept shows up in the
proposal for the Kanis Road Corridor.She also stated over the
next few years the City would become more familiar with how
growth should occur.Things may need to be reconsidered as time
goes along.
Commissioner Hawn made the motion to make two separate votes on
the proposal before the Commission.Area one,Shackleford Road
to Bowman Road,and Area Two from Bowman Road to the Rock Creek
Bridge.The vote 9-1-1.The motion passed.
Commissioner Hawn made the motion that the Design Overlay
District for Area One be approved as presented by the staff.The
vote 3-7-1.The motion failed.
Commissioner Hawn made the motion that the Design Overlay
District for Area Two be approved as presented by the staff.The
vote 5-5-1.
16
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:C (Cont.)KANIS ROAD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Mr.Giles stated the item must receive six votes for passage.
Therefore,the item fails.
Vice-Chairman Adcock commented earlier she had stated someone
would have to convenience her a Design Overlay District was
needed for the area.I'm still not convenience.
17
I
04/15/99
Area 1 —Shackleford Road to Bowman Road
.:.District Boundaries entire depth of the property when more than 300 feet.:.Side 15'nd Rear 25'ard set backs,previously 30'nd 40'especffully
Parking lot access 300 feet,previously 600 feet
Trees planted or existing 40 feet,previously 20 feet:"Side and Rear yard buffer comply with currerit zoning ordinance (5%,Min
6'ax50'),previously 30'nd
40'"
Trash receptacles not located beyond the front setback previously not
adjacent to Kanis Road and not adjacent to residential development":Trees or shrubs shall not be planted in the utility easement
Bike/walking path constructed in the public right-of-way,previously in the 30-
foot buffer":No roof pitch,No required building materials,No building to glass ratio
Building height comply with current zoning requirements (45'),previously 2
story buildings and 24 feet in height
Area 2 —Bowman Road to Rock Creek
District Boundaries entire depth of the property when more than 300 feet,
previously first 300 feet.:.Parking lot access 300 feet with right-in/right-out,previously 600 feet
'"Parking on one side the building with a 45 foot setback,previously 60 foot
setback
'"Trash receptacles not located beyond the build-to line,previously not
adjacent to Kanis Road and not adjacent to residential development.:.Trees or shrubs shall not be planted in the utility easement:"Bike/walking path constructed in the public right-of-way,previously in the 30-
foot buffer'"Building height 36',previously 24'
~~c
Area 1 —04/15/99
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Office/Commercial
(From the intersection of Shackleford Road to the intersection of Bowman Road)
Purpose and intent.The purpose of the Kanis Road Overlay District is to superimpose an
overlay zone utilizing landscaped and buffer standards to enhance the general quality of
commercial and office development or structures located on Kanis Road;by providing buffers to
neighboring residences and other commercial uses;increase public safety by guiding traffic;by
minimizing the impact of commercial development and structures on the drainage system;by
decreasing the amount of paved area;and by coordinating green space and signage in
commercial and office areas while reducing visual clutter.
1.Application of district regulations.
A.The regulations in this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning
districts and other ordinance requirements regulating the development of land so that any
parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one or more of the other
underlying zoning districts.Therefore,all property within this overlay district will have
requirements of both the underlying and overlay-zoning district in addition to other
ordinance requirements regulating the development of land.In case of conflicting
standards between this ordinance and other City of Little Rock Ordinances,the overlay
requirements shall control.
B.These regulations apply to all development,redevelopment or expansion of existing
development with the exception of single family and duplex development under zoning
districts R-l,R-2,R-3,and R-4,or PUD submissions as required.
2.District boundaries.The Kanis Road Overlay District shall encompass all land with Kanis
Road frontage for a depth of 300 feet as measured from the &ont property line in accordance
with the requirements of the Master Street Plan or for tracts with Kanis Road frontage and a
depth greater than 300 feet the entire depth of the tract from the west intersection of Kanis
Road and Shackleford Road (eastern boundary)and the intersection of Kanis Road and
Bowman Road (western boundary).
3.Building setbacks.
A.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a sixty (60)foot
building setback from the property line abutting Kanis Road.
B.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a twenty-five (25)
foot building setback from the rear property line.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a fifteen (15)foot
building setback from the side property line.
4.Fences.
A.Chain link fences are prohibited in the front yard setback or side yard setback when
located on a corner lot.
Area 1 —04/15/99
B.Razor or barbed wire fences are prohibited.
C.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the style of the
development.
D.The use of shrubs or hedges as an alternative to fencing is encouraged along rear and
side property lines when a nonresidential development abuts a residential
development.
5.Signage.
A.All wall-mounted signs shall cover no more than eight (8)percent of the building facade.
B.All ground-mounted signs shall be of a monument type design,which may be installed in
the landscaped areas of the front and side yards.
C.Each separate development will be allowed a single ground mounted sign located on the
building site or in the landscaped front yard of the development.Multiple tenants of the
same development will be required to share a single ground mounted sign.The sign shall
be a maximum of eight feet in height and one hundred (100)square feet in area.
6.Access Points and Parking Lots.
A.If a parcel has frontage on a secondary road,the access points shall occur on the
secondary roadway.
B.There shall be one common point for entrance and exit on Kanis Road and the
driveway shall be shared between two (2)parcels with the center of the access point
being located on the property line.In no instance will the access points be less than
300 feet.
7.Front yard buffer.
A.All properties fronting Kanis Road shall have a thirty (30)foot natural or planted buffer
zone adjacent to the public right-of-way line.The public right-of-way and areas reserved
for future rights-of-way in compliance with the adopted Master Street Plan shall not be
used to satisfy the requirements of this section.
B.Within the natural buffer and landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least
every forty feet in a staggered grid pattern and if planted have a minimum of a three (3)
inch diameter measured 12 inches above grade.
C.The 30 foot natural buffer area shall attempt to incorporate existing on site trees and
shrubbery into the landscaping scheme.No grading or cutting of trees exceeding three
(3)inch DBH (diameter at breast height),or disturbance of prominent natural features
shall be performed except for minimal disturbance necessary to permit streets,driveways,
or utility corridors.Planted trees shall be placed at least two (2)feet from existing right-
of-way as dictated by the Master Street Plan for roadway design.Landscaping shall be
used to establish a visual and physical boundary between parking lots and roadways.
~~C/
Area 1 —04/15/99
8.Side and rear yard buffer.
A.Side and rear yard buffers shall comply with Section 36-522 Buffers and Screening as
described in Chapter 36 of the current zoning ordinance.
B.In a development,which allows for a shared parking lot the development does not need to
comply with side yard natural or planted buffer in the area the parking lots adjoin.
9.Landscaping.
A.All interior landscaping shall comply with Interior landscaping and Building landscaping
and Protection of landscaping as described in Chapter 15.
B.Trash receptacles and dumpster areas shall not be located beyond the front yard setback
adjacent to Kanis Road.
C.Trash receptacles and dumpster area must be screened by a fence.The fence shall exceed
the height of the dumpster or trash receptacle by at least two (2)feet on at least three
sides.The fence shall consist of wood,brick or masonry material.This fence is in
addition to perimeter landscape requirements.
10.Grading.
A.Any excavation or fill that requires the movement of more than 1000 cubic yards of materials
shall be required to obtain a grading permit.
B.Any excavation or fill greater than 10 foot vertically will be required to terrace with 10 foot
horizontal widths.The terraces shall be landscaped as required by the most recent
requirements of the Landscape Ordinance.The maximum height of excavation or fill will be
30 feet.
C.A grading permit shall be required for any clearing or cutting of trees on all property except
for Agriculture and Forestry (AF),Mining (M)and properties of one acre or less zoned single
family district R-1,R-2 or R-3.
D.In addition to the requirements of Section 29-190 Grading and Drainage plan guidelines,the
following shall be required:
1)29-190-5;Open areas or exposed soil left bare for more than two (2)weeks shall be
required to be seeded,mulched or otherwise revegetated to protect the area from erosion.
2)29-190-10;Install and maintain a temporary or permanent sediment basin.The required
size of the sediment basin is to be three thousand (3000)cubic feet per acre for property
with a average slope of greater than five (5)percent,or fifteen-hundred (1500)cubic feet
per acre for property with a average slope of less than five (5)percent.
3)This section added to 29-190;Construction access shall be limited to one (1)location
(location shall be at a permanent access point)unless otherwise approved by the City.It
is also required that construction access points be graveled or otherwise protected from
tracking onto the city street.
11.Removal,protection and replacement of trees.
Area 1 —04/15/99
A.It is the intent of this section to minimize the removal of trees and to ensure that
developers take reasonable measures to design and locate the proposed improvements so
that the number of existing trees to be removed is minimized.In particular,the design
shall attempt to preserve specimen and historic trees.
B.No tree may be removed in excess of six (6)inch DBH (diameter at breast height)
without prior approval of the designee of the Office of the City Manager.
C.The tree density shall remain at twenty-five (25)percent of the existing tree population
covering the lot excluding the front,side and rear buffer areas.
D.Existing trees may be counted for full credit of the required tree density requirement if in
the opinion of the designee of the Office of the City Manager,they are healthy existing
trees.Single-trunk replacement trees shall be a minimum of three-(3)inch diameter
measured twelve (12)inches above grade.
E.A tree removal permit is required when more than one (1)acre is proposed for
development.To acquire a tree removal permit the applicant shall submit a tree
preservation plan which indicates the location of all trees three (3)inches DBH (diameter
at breast height)or greater and the locations of trees which will remain as a part of the
twenty-five (25)percent tree density population.
F.Clear-cutting,the removal of all or a significant majority of the trees within an area of
land,is prohibited except for properties "AF"Agriculture and Forestry,"M"Mining and
properties of one acre or less zoned single family district R-l,R-2 or R-3.
G.No land alteration permits shall be issued until all permits,including building permits,
have been issued and construction is immediately eminent.
H.Protection of trees during development activities.Generally to assure the healthy and
survival of protected trees that are not to be removed,the following kinds of tree injuries
shall be avoided during all development activities:
i)Mechanical injuries to roots,trucks and branches;
ii)Injuries by chemical poisoning;
iii)Injuries by grade changes;
iv)Injuries by excavating;and
v)Injuries by paving.
I.Replacement of dead materials.The property owner shall replace required plants,which
die.Replacement shall be installed at the earliest possible time within a planting season,
and replacements shall be as shown on the approved tree preservation plan.Any tree
planted shall be replaced by a tree of equal or greater diameter than originally planted if
the tree dies within a period of five-(5)years.Under no circumstances shall any tree
three (3)inches DBH (diameter at breast height)be removed by the owner or developer
without prior permission of the designee of the Office of the City Manager.
J.Tree replacement shall be trees,which are vase shaped (trees with less foliage near the
bottom two-thirds of the tree),a species that normally sheds the lower branches of the
tree,or one that tolerates pruning well.A list follows:
Botanical Name Common Name
Celtis aevigata Sugar Hackberry
Fagus grandifolia American Beech
Area 1 —04/15/99
Fraximus pennsyvanica Green Ash
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Magnolia acuminata Cucumber Magnoliz
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus acutissima Sawtooth Oak
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus mihauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus nuttallii Nuttall Oak
Quercus palustris Pin Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak
K.Shrubs and trees to be considered in the side and rear yards for buffer zones are evergreen
(keeping their leaves throughout the winter),which retain their lower branches.Trees
and shrubbery should be allowed to reach mature height.Trees or shrubs shall not be
planted in the utility easement.
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees:
Camellia japonica Camellia
Camellia sasanqua Sasanqua Camellia
Ilex attenuata 'Fosteri'oster's Holly
Ilex cornuta "Burfordii'ufford Chinese Holly
Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly
Juniperus virginiana 'Canaertii'anaert Red Cedar
Juniperus virginiana 'Glauca'ilver Red Cedar
Ilex opaca American Holly
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar
Magonolia virginiana Sweet Bay Magnoha
Magnoila grandifloria Southern Magnolia
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Quercus virginiana Souther Live Oak
Shrubs:
Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii'uford Chinese Holly
Ilex cornuta "Rotunda'warf Rotunda Holly
Ilex crenata "Compacta'warf Japanese Holly
Ilex vomitoria 'Nana"Dwarf Yaupon
Jasminum mesnyi Primrose Jasmine
Nandina domestica Nandina
Ternstroemia gymnanthera Cleyera
MLLE
Area 1 —04/15/99
12.Utilities.
A.All overhead utilities shall be located on the back property line or shall be located
underground.
13.Lighting.
A.Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner so as not to disturb
the scenic appearance of the corridor.Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and
not reflected to adjacent parcels.
B.Parking lot lighting shall have a maximum height of thirty (30)feet.
14.Bike/walking path.
A.The bike/walking path shall be constructed in accordance with the Master Street Plan
construction standards.
B.Bike/walking path shall have a four-(4)foot minimum grass strip measured from the
back of curb to the edge to allow for pedestrian safety.
15.Building form.
A.All principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'-
0")in height.
16.Exceptions.
A.Property,due to topography,size,irregular shapes or other constraints,such as
adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility,and thus cannot be
developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the
planned zoning development section of the zoning ordinance,with the intent to devise
a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
overlay standards.
B.Improvements or repairs to interior and exterior features of existing structures which
do not result in expansions,changes in land use or the removal or destruction of trees.
C.Construction previously authorized by a building permit,a Final Site Plan of a
Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission,or an approved
subdivision plat,any one of which remains valid on the effective date of this
ordinance.Any development whose permit or approval expires shall not be exempt.
D.A platted lot zoned for single family or two-family dwellings.This exception shall
not apply to unplatted parcels of land being developed for non-residential uses in
residential districts nor to the process of subdividing property for the purpose of
creating streets and extending utilities,or to other residential developments that
require Final Site Plan approval.
Area 2 —04/15/99
Design Overlay District —Kanis Road Suburban Office/Residential Parkway
(From the intersection of Bowman Road to the intersection of the Rock Creek Bridge)
Purpose and intent.The purpose of the Kanis Road Overlay District is to superimpose an
overlay zone utilizing landscaped and buffer standards to enhance the general quality of
commercial and office development or structures located on Kanis Road;by providing buffers to
neighboring residences and other commercial uses;increase public safety by guiding traffic;by
minimizing the impact of commercial development and structures on the drainage system;by
decreasing the amount of paved area;and by coordinating green space and signage in
commercial and office areas while reducing visual clutter.
1.Application of district regulations.
A.The regulations in this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning
districts and other ordinance requirements regulating the development of land so that any
parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one or more of the other
underlying zoning districts.Therefore,all property within this overlay district will have
requirements of both the underlying and overlay-zoning district in addition to other
ordinance requirements regulating the development of land.In case of conflicting
standards between this ordinance and other City of Little Rock Ordinances,the overlay
requirements shall control.
B.These regulations apply to all development,redevelopment or expansion of existing
development with the exception of single family and duplex development under zoning
districts R-l,R-2,R-3,and R-4,or PUD submissions as required.
2.District boundaries.The Kanis Road Overlay District shall encompass all land with Kanis
Road frontage for a depth of 300 feet as measured from the front property line in accordance
with the requirements of the Master Street Plan or for tracts with Kanis Road frontage and a
depth greater than 300 feet the entire depth of the tract from the west intersection of Kanis
Road and Bowman Road (eastern boundary)and the intersection of Kanis Road and the Rock
Creek (western boundary).
3.Building setbacks.
A.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a forty-five
(45)foot building build-to line from the property line abutting Kanis Road.
B.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a fifteen (15)
foot building setback from the rear property line.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a ten (10)foot
building setback from the side property line.
4.Fences.
A.Chain link fences are prohibited in the front yard setback or side yard when
located on a corner lot.
I
Area 2 —04/15/99
B.Razor or barbed wire fences are prohibited.
C.Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate when compatible with the style of the
development.
D.The use of shrubs or hedges as an alternative to fencing is encouraged along rear
and side property lines when a nonresidential development abuts a residential
development.
5.Signage.
A.Each separate development will be allowed a single monument type design ground
mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the
development.Multiple tenants of the same development will be required to share a single
ground mounted sign.Signage identifying development shall not exceed two square feet
in area for every linear foot of frontage,not to exceed eighty-four (84)square feet and
eight (8)feet in height.
B.Lettering on the sign shall not exceed 1'6"in height and not exceed three-quarters of the
height of the sign.Lettering shall not exceed sixty percent of the total area of the sign.
C.All wall-mounted signs shall cover no more than four (4)percent of the building facade.
6.Access Points and Parking Lots.
A.If a parcel has &ontage on a secondary road,access points shall occur on the secondary
roadway.
B.There shall be one common point for entrance and exit and shall be a right-in/right-out
access and the driveway shall be shared between two (2)parcels with the center of the
access point being located on the property line.In no instance will the access points be
less than 300 feet.Median breaks shall be no less than 600 feet.
C.Parking lots shall not totally surround a building or structure and shall be situated in a
manner as to allow for shared parking between development on adjacent parcels
D.The maximum number of off-street parking spaces are to be no more than 125 percent of
the minimum as set forth in Section 36-502 (b)of Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Little Rock.Any development requiring parking in excess of the aforestated
requirement will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a variance of parking
requirements.
E.Parking on one side of the building will be allowed.A 45 foot setback shall be required.
Additional parking shall be located beyond a 60 foot setback.
7.Front yard buffer.
A.All properties fronting Kanis Road shall have a thirty (30)foot natural or planted buffer
zone adjacent to the public right-of-way line.The public right-of-way and areas reserved
for future rights-of-way in compliance with the adopted Master Street Plan shall not be
used to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Area 2 —04/15/99
B.Within the natural buffer and landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least
every twenty feet in a staggered grid pattern and if planted have a minimum of a three (3)
inch diameter measured 12 inches above grade.
C.The 30 foot natural buffer area shall attempt to incorporate existing on site trees and
shrubbery into the landscaping scheme.No grading or cutting of trees exceeding three
(3)inch DBH (diameter at breast height),or disturbance of prominent natural features
shall be performed except for minimal disturbance necessary to permit streets,driveways,
or utility corridors.Planted trees shall be placed at least two (2)feet from existing right-
of-way as dictated by the Master Street Plan for roadway design.Landscaping shall be
used to establish a visual and physical boundary between parking lots and roadways.
8.Side and rear yard buffer.
A.Side and rear yard shall have a natural or planted landscaped buffer averaging a
minimum depth of ten (10)feet from the property line.Where such yards abut a street
right-of-way,other than Kanis Road,a fifteen foot natural or planted landscape strip
shall be required.
B.In developments with shared parking lots the development does not need to comply with
side yard buffers in the area the parking lots adjoin.
9.Landscaping.
A.All interior landscaping shall compy with Interior landscaping and Building landscaping
and Protection of landscaping as described in Chapter 15.
B.Trash receptacles and dumpster areas shall not be located beyond the build-to line.
C.Trash receptacles and dumpster area must be screened by a fence.The fence shall exceed
the height of the dumpster or trash receptacle by at least two (2)feet on at least three
sides.The fence shall consist of wood,brick or masonry material.This fence is in
addition to perimeter landscape requirements.
10.Grading.
A.Any excavation or fill that requires the movement of more than 1000 cubic yards of materials
shall be required to obtain a grading permit.
B.Any excavation or fill greater than 10 foot vertically will be required to terrace with 10 foot
horizontal widths.The terraces shall be landscaped as required by the most recent
requirements of the Landscape Ordinance.The maximum height of excavation or fill will be
30 feet.
C.A grading permit shall be required for any clearing or cutting of trees on all property except
for Agriculture and Forestry (AF),Mining (M)and properties of one acre or less zoned single
family district R-l,R-2 or R-3.
D.In addition to the requirements of Section 29-190 Grading and Drainage plan guidelines,the
following shall be required:
~w
Area 2 —04/15/99
1)29-190-5;Open areas or exposed soil left bare for more than two (2)weeks shall be
required to be seeded,mulched or otherwise revegetated to protect the area from
erosion.
2)29-190-10;Install and maintain a temporary or permanent sediment basin.The
required size of the sediment basin is to be three thousand (3000)cubic feet per acre
for property with a average slope of greater than five (5)percent,or fifteen-hundred
(1500)cubic feet per acre for property with a average slope of less than five (5)
percent.
3)This section added to 29-190;Construction access shall be limited to one (1)location
(location shall be at a permanent access point)unless otherwise approved by the City.
It is also required that construction access points be graveled or otherwise protected
from tracking onto the city street.
11.Removal,protection and replacement of trees.
A.It is the intent of this section to minimize the removal of trees and to ensure that
developers take reasonable measures to design and locate the proposed improvements so
that the number of existing trees to be removed is minimized.In particular,the design
shall attempt to preserve specimen and historic trees.
B.No tree may be removed in excess of six (6)inch DBH (diameter at breast height)
without prior approval of the designee of the Office of the City Manager.
C.The tree density shall remain at twenty-five (25)percent of the existing tree population
covering the lot excluding the front,side and rear buffer areas.
D.Existing trees may be counted for full credit of the required tree density requirement if in
the opinion of the designee of the Office of the City Manager,they are healthy existing
trees.Single-trunk replacement trees shall be a minimum of three-(3)inch diameter
measured twelve (12)inches above grade.
E.A tree removal permit is required when more than one (1)acre is proposed for
development.To acquire a tree removal permit the applicant shall submit a tree
preservation plan which indicates the location of all trees three (3)inches DBH (diameter
at breast height)or greater and the locations of trees which will remain as a part of the
twenty-five (25)percent tree density population.
F.Clear-cutting,the removal of all or a significant majority of the trees within an area of
land,is prohibited except for properties "AF"Agriculture and Forestry,"M"Mining and
properties of one acre or less zoned single family district R-l,R-2 or R-3.
G.No land alteration permits shall be issued until all permits,including building permits,
have been issued and construction is immediately eminent.
H.Protection of trees during development activities.Generally to assure the healthy and
survival of protected trees that are not to be removed,the following kinds of tree injuries
shall be avoided during all development activities:
i.Mechanical injuries to roots,trucks and branches;
ii.Injuries by chemical poisoning;
iii.Injuries by grade changes;
iv.Injuries by excavating;and
v.Injuries by paving.
'Area 2 —04/15/99
I.Replacement of dead materials.The property owner shall replace required plants,which
die.Replacement shall be installed at the earliest possible time within a planting season,
and replacements shall be as shown on the approved tree preservation plan.Any tree
planted shall be replaced by a tree of equal or greater diameter than originally planted if
the tree dies within a period of five-(5)years.Under no circumstances shall any tree
three (3)inches DBH (diameter at breast height)be removed by the owner or developer
without prior permission of the designee of the Office of the City Manager.
J.Tree replacement shall be trees,which are vase shaped (trees with less foliage near the
bottom two-thirds of the tree),a species that normally sheds the lower branches of the
tree,or one that tolerates pruning well.A list follows:
Botanical Name Common Name
Celtis aevigata Sugar Hackberry
Fagus grandifolia American Beech
Fraximus pennsyvanica Green Ash
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum
Liriodendron tulipi fera Tulip Tree
Magnolia acuminata Cucumber Magnoliz
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus acutissima Sawtooth Oak
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak
Quercus mihauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus nigra Water Oak
Quercus nuttallii Nuttall Oak
Quercus palustris Pin Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak
K.Shrubs and trees to be considered in the side and rear yards for buffer zones are evergreen
(keeping their leaves throughout the winter),which retain their lower branches.Trees
and shrubbery should be allowed to reach mature height.Trees shall not be planted in the
utility easement.
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees:
Camellia japonica Camellia
Camellia sasanqua Sasanqua Camellia
Ilex attenuata 'Fosteri'oster's Holly
Ilex cornuta "Burfordii'ufford Chinese Holly
Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly
Juniperus virginiana 'Canaertii'anaert Red Cedar
Juniperus virginiana 'Glauca'ilver Red Cedar
Ilex opaca American Holly
Area 2 —04/15/99
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar
Magonolia virginiana Sweet Bay Magnolia
Magnoila grandifloria Southern Magnolia
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine
Quercus virginiana Souther Live Oak
Shrubs:
Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii'uford Chinese Holly
Ilex cornuta "Rotunda'warf Rotunda Holly
Ilex crenata "Compacta'warf Japanese Holly
Ilex vomitoria 'Nana"Dwarf Yaupon
Jasminum mesnyi Primrose Jasmine
Nandina domestica Nandina
Ternstroemia gymnanthera Cleyera
12.Utilities.
A.All overhead utilities shall be located on the back property line or shall be located
underground.
13.Lighting.
A.Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner so as not to disturb
the scenic appearance of the corridor.Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and
not reflected to adjacent parcels.
B.Parking lot lighting shall have a maximum height of thirty (30)feet.
14.Bike/walking path.
A.The bike/walking path shall be constructed in accordance with the Master Street Plan
construction standards.
B.Bike/walking path shall have a four-(4)foot minimum grass strip measured from the
back of curb to the edge to allow for pedestrian safety.
15.Building form.
A.Materials.Native materials such as stone,brick,wood and glass may be used in the
construction of the building exterior.The building-to-glass ration shall be a minimum of
twenty-five (25)percent and a maximum of forty (40)percent per facade.
B.Roof types.The roof must be a pitched roof not less than of 3:12 and constructed of
nonreflective materials.
C.All principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed two stories in height
or 36'-0"in height.
~&4m ~
1
Area 2 —04/15/99
16.Exceptions.
A.Property,due to topography,size,irregular shapes or other constraints,such as
adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility,and thus cannot be
developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the
planned zohing development section of the zoning ordinance,with the intent to devise
a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
overlay standards.
B.Improvements or repairs to interior and exterior features of existing structures which
do not result in expansions,changes in land use or the removal or destruction of trees.
C.Construction previously authorized by a building permit,a Final Site Plan of a
Planned Unit Development approved by the Planning Commission,or an approved
subdivision plat,any one of which remains valid on the effective date of this
ordinance.Any development whose permit or approval expires shall not be exempt.
D.A platted lot zoned for single family or two-family dwellings.This exception shall
not apply to unplatted parcels of land being developed for non-residential uses in
residential districts nor to the process of subdividing property for the purpose of
creating streets and extending utilities,or to other residential developments that
require Final Site Plan approval.
March 25,1999 ~„~p,&"„.-.t999
Dear Mr.Carney:
(L
Our late Father lived on Kanis Road for close to forty years.When he was no longer able
to stay in his home,his grandson lived there.His two great-grandchildren still live in the
house where he and our mother raised two of their four children.It was always our
father's wish that the property on Kanis road (West 12th Street,we called it)would
benefit his children and grandchildren,either as a place to live,or through viable
development or sale,as the city grew to encompass it.We are sure he aevv.envisioned
that the City would seek to limit the value of his property for viable development in the
manner of that developed around it,and,to require expensive measures to be taken to
"beautify"the property,simply for the enjoyment of others who might choose to drive by.
We believe if you look critically at the proposal being put forward by the City Planning
Staff (Kanis Road Design Overlay District)you will see that it seeks to DRASTICALLY
limit the type development allowed on Kanis road,specifically that portion between
Shackleford and Bowman.We believe these limitations go beyond the veil of "planning
and zoning"and enter the realm of "Restrictive Covenants."We have no quarrel with
restrictive covenants,when they are placed on the property by the OWNERS and not by
third parties,and persons who buy restricted property are aware of the restrictions before
hand.
We liA out a few of the restrictions proposed,in order of their abusiveness (worst listed
first):
No building over two stories
Minimum roof pitch of 3:12
(THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD LIMIT A TWO STORY BUILDING TO
APPROXIMATELY 32 FEET WIDE)
Restrictions on Building Materials
Minimum and maximum %of glass in buildings
Limitation of sign sizes
Only one building per acre
Thirty (forty if next to residential)side set-back with planted buffer
Forty foot rear setback with planted buffer
S'f f -1 i ihyf p Wb If dSMUSXK
I
I
Asking permission to cut a tree over 6"in diameter
Requirements for planting certain types of trees.
Requirement for maintenence of the buffers we are FORCED to install
Ladies and Gentlemen,the last time we checked,Little Rock was still in the USA.This is
not the type of treatment we expect in a free country,which has as one of it basic rights,
the private ownership of property.We realize that our freedoms stop at our neighbors
noses.We hope the City of Little Rock will accept that the City's rights should stop at our
noses.
Please place yourself in the position of a Kanis Road land owner and consider if you
would like these restrictions placed on the use and enjoyment of your property.
Then consider your duty to be fair and equitable,and vote to NOT place this burden on
the people of Kanis Road to benefit others who drive past on their way home.
We are not objecting to the road widening,and realize that we would gain from a
widening,if we are allowed to develop reasonably,and in the manner of surrounding
properties.However it appears that any benefits of the widening are being eliminated by
the restrictions placed on the land.This begs the question,why should the landowner
participate in a widening which will not benefit him?
Again,we ask your help in protecting us from "over zealous",if well meaning,public
employees.
Sincerely,
Jim Brain Sid Brain
3118 Hazy Ridge Court 601 Dalewood Court
Little Rock Ar 72227 Russellville,AR 72801
Richard Brain Pat Brain
34 N.Meadowcliff 2104 Brownwood
Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72207
I
TURPIN PAINTING CO.,INC.
P.Q.BQX 2272 ~PMQNE:228-5400
Lm'LE ROCK,ARKANSAS 72203
FAX (501)228-7012
March 3l l999
Dear planning Oommissiori,
l'm totally opposed to the Kanis Road Design overlay District
ordinance.l can't imagine board members voting for this ridzculous
plan.There isn't one person on the planning commission that lives
on Kanis Road.l grew up here and currently have a business on
Kanis Road.Ny parents have owned land and lived here for over fiftyyears.My parents are also in negotiations right now to sell their
property.Not only would this destroy their retirement hopes&hutalsootherpeople's including mine You need to set back and see howthiswouldaffectyou,iJ this land was yours.VOTE NO
Si ».re&
~e
COMMISSIONERS:
I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND THE WORKINGS OF THE CITY LONG
ENOUGH TO REALIZE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS KANIS DESIGN AFFAIR.
WHAT YOU ARE WITNESSING IS A STONEWAIJ ING TACTIC.THIS ISSUE
HAS GONE ON SO LONG THAT THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE DESIGN
ARE DELAYINGAND DELAYING.THEY HOPE THAT.PEOPLE LIKE ME WILL
GET TIRED OF BEING HERE AND WILL THROW UP OUR HANDS AND GO
AWAY.THAT WILL LEAVE THEM AS THE ONLY ONES LEFT TO SPEAK.
I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE.KANIS IS A LOVELY,
COUNTRY ROAD WITH LOTS OF TREES AND ROLLING HILLS.IT JUST
HAPPENS TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEAVILY DEVELOPING AREA OF TOWN
THAT SEEMS HELL-BENT IN BEING DESTROYED BY SELFISH PEOPLE WHO
DON'T WANT TO CONCEDE ANY EXTRA MONEY TO DEVELOP IT WITH THE
NATURAL BEAUTY IN MIND.
THAT WAS THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE KANIS TASK FORCE,THE DESIGN
OVERLY,AND THIS MORATORIAM THAT WILL SOON EXPIRE.TO FIGURE
OUTA WAY THAT IT COULD BE DEVELOPED SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO
BE PROUD OF AND ENJOYED AS PEOPLE DRIVE DOWN IT.SOME
ALTERNATIVE TO RODNEY PARHAM,MARKHAM,CHENAL,ASHER:ALL
STREETS THAT PEOPLE HURRY THROUGH AND SHAKE THEIR HEADS AND
SAY,"REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS A NICE PART OF TOWN?"OR "WHY
COULDN'T THEY HAVE MADE THIS PRETTIER?"OR "WHAT MAKES THIS Sa
UGLY?"
I REMND YOU OF YOUR CHALLENGE TO MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE.NOT
JUST FOR TODAY AND THOSE WHO LIVE HERE TODAY AND DRIVE ON IT
TODAY.BUT FOR TOMORROW.FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR
GRANDCHILDREN.YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY TO THEM ONE
DAY,"I WAS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THIS STREET LOOK AS IT
DOES TODAY.IT WAS A REAL STRUGGLE,AND I AM PROUD OF WHAT I DID
FOR LITTLE ROCK."
r
PARKS ANO REC 501 371 6832 04/05 '99 11:32 N0.645 02/02~
Lr T ~ECK
April l,1999
Mr.Hugh Earnest,Chairman
Planning Commission
City Hall
Little Rock,AR 72201
Dear Chairman Earnest:
On behalf of the City Beautiful Commission,I urge you and the other members of thePlanningCommissiontorecommendtotheLittleRockCityBoardofDirectorstoadopttherecommendationsforKanisRoadasoutiinedinthereportpreparedbytheMehlburgerFirm.
The City Beautiful Commission supports and endorses the plan for Kanis Road CorridorasoutlinedinthisreportaswellastheproposedrequirementsoftheDesignOverlayDistrictforKanisRoadaspresentedbyMr.Jim Lawson of the Department of PlanningandDevelopment.We feel these recommendations are reasonable and warranted in ordertopreservethecharacterofthecorridor.
This type of efFort is needed by the City of Little Rock and we commend you and theCommissionforconsideringsuchlegislation.Please let me know if I or any member oftheCityBeautifulCommi.ssion can be of assistance in this matter.
Yours truly,
/Ac
Prank Riggins
Chairman
FR:go
City Beautiful Commission +500 West Marlcbam,Room 108 +Little Rack,AR 7220I +(501)37I~770
League of Women Voters
Pulaski County
5209 6 Street,Little Rock,Arkansas 72205
Phone 8 FAX (501)664-1136
April 9,1999
TO:D A JAMES LR PLANNING DEPT.
FROM:LWVOTERS PC ACTION CHAIR
RE:Design Overlay District for Kanis Road
The Pulaski County League of Women Voters,as a long-time supporter of
DODs,is very supportive of almost all provisions of the DOD ordinance presented
to the Planning Commission and public at the public hearing in March and the "info al
meeting of the Commission on April 1".We have two concerns:one is with n of
utility cables,and the other is with how exceptions to the DOD would be handled.
As to the latitude regarding cable burial,we feel the DOD ordinance should
offer some "trade offs"to encourage utility line burial.Not only are the lines unsightly,
but utility lines on poles are subject to suspension of service due to wind,sleet,or
pole collapse.Not only is it better visually but also provides a higher level of
uninterrupted service to the consumers,
Of greater concern to us is;how much latitude will be allowed redevelopers
due to the topography of Kanis Road.We all agree that the rolling hills that make Kanis
charming also are more of a challenge to redevelopment than flat,cleared land,and that
some latitude should be allowed to developers in the design of their projects.
However during the many years that League of Women Voters,in the person of
Kathleen Oleson and myself,have monitored the LR Planning Commission,we have too
often seen the exception"become the "rule"for redevelopment.The very things
that pose such a challenge to developers -hills,trees gentle streams-are those things
that the community at large wishes retained to keep the feel of the earlier rural Kanis
Road.We are very concerned with the open ended nature of that section of
the Kanis DOD ordinance that deals with exceptions for special circumstances,
We ask that the Kanis DOD ordinance spell out a range between which exceptions
will be made,and/or some built in "trade-offs"so that a large amount of grading,for
example,would be balanced with more landscaping.
AFFILIATED WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE LINITED STATES
Zd WUTZ:TT 666'8 '+~U SBCC 522+T85 :'ON XUd S1138 3Hl:W08d
0=-Entergy Entergy Distribution
¹9 Entergy Court
Little Rock,AR 72211
April 5,1999
City of Little Rock Planning &Development
Attn.Jim Lawson
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
RE:KANIS ROAD REDEVELOPMENT CONCERNS
Mr.Lawson,
Entergy-Arkansas stated its stance in an earlier letter (see attached)with regards to the financing of the
underground utilities as outlined in the Kanis Road Concept Study.The latest development in the plans for
the redevelopment of the road corridor occurred when the Board of Directors for the City of Little Rock
approved the roadway design for Kanis Road between Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway.The approved
roadway design calls for the City of Little Rock to build a 2-lane roadway with plans to eventually build a
4-lane roadway with a median.The developer will pay for the cost differential between the two roadway
designs.The development along this corridor will occur in different locations,not in one continuous strip.
This is not a problem when relocating overhead lines within the same city rights-of way.However,when
designing an underground system it is not possible to do this in some instances nor is it safe to operate and
maintain.This leads us to discuss the Design Overlay District.
The City of Little Rock Planning Commission is still discussing the Design Overlay District.The main
concern that Entergy-Arkansas has with the Design Overlay District is the fact that the electrical utilities
will be located either underground on the front lot line or overhead on the rear lot line.Entergy-Arkansas's
design standard calls for the utilities to be placed on the front lot line either overhead or underground.If
the developer or other entity requires the utilities to be on the rear lot line,a 15-foot alley is to be provided
and maintained to access the utilities.If the front lot line underground utilities layout passes,Entergy-
Arkansas will be hard pressed to first design,then build,and safely maintain an underground system piece
meal.This will bc due to lack of contiguous de&-.opment of property by developers.Once the entire
system has been installed,it will be costly for a new developer to tap the underground utilities.
Please call if you have any questions or concerns.I can be reached at 954-5167 (office)and 373-9076
(pager).I am also free to meet with you on this subject if you feel it is necessary.
Sincerely,
Scott Jordan
Area Design Supervisor
Entergy-Arkansas
=-Entergy Entergy Distribution
¹9 Entergy Court
Little Rock,AR 72211
January 28,1999
City of Little Rock Planning &Dcvclopmcnt
Attn.Jim Lavrson
723 West Markham
Little Rock,AR 72201-1334
RE:KANIS STREET CONCEPT STUDY CONCERNS
Mr.Lawson,
Entergy-Arkansas has reviewed the Kanis Street Concept Study and has some concerns from a customer
relations perspective,costs for electrical facility relocation to comply with the study,and design and
operation of electrical facilities.The study implies that utility facilities will be located underground along
the fronts of the lot lines.This means that Entergy-Arkansas will not just be relocating overhead facilities
inside of a ROW to comply with street widening,but will placing the facilities underground.Entergy-
Arkansas will not bare the cost of this type of relocation due to its filed tariffs with the Arkansas Public
Service Commission.The filed tariffs define underground electrical service as premium service.This
means the difference in cost between overhead and underground facilities requires a payment by the
customer or developer.Entergy-Arkansas will have to work closely with the City of Little Rock when and
if the proposal passes.
Please feel free to contact me if you questions or if further discussion is needed.
Scott Jordan
Area Design Supervisor
Entergy-Arkansas
Agri 1 29,1999
ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Rodney Parham Planning District
Location:9002 West Markham Street
~Re est:Single Family tc Suburban Office
Source:Elizabeth Anne Short
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Rodney Parham Planning District from
Single Family to Suburban Office.Suburban Office provides for lowintensitydevelopmentofofficeorofficeparksincloseproximity to
lower density residential areas to assure compatibility.A Planned
Zoning District is required.The proposed use of the property is a"quiet office".
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2,Single Family,and is
approximately 0.31+acres in size.To the north,east and west are
single family houses zoned R-2,Single Family.Directly to the southisashoppingcenterzonedC-3,General Commercial.Rock Creek,
which intersects Markham Street just east of the John Barrow
Road/Brookside Drive intersection is zoned R-2,Single Family.
LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
To the north,east and west is shown as Single Family on the Land Use
Plan.Directly to the south is shown as Commercial on the Plan.Rock
Creek,which intersects Markham Street just east of the John Barrow
Road/Brookside Drive intersection is shown as Park/Open Space on the
plan.
Recent changes include:
October 20,1998,a change from Suburban Office to Commercial on
Markham Street Center Drive and from Single Family to Suburban Office
on the east side of natural Resources Drive.
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Markham Street is shown as a minor arterial on the plan and is a five
lane at the subject property.Brookside Drive is also shown as a
minor arterial,but is built as a two-lane section.
PARKS:
There are no existing parks in the immediate area.There is open
space with Rock Creek at the intersection of John Barrow Road and
Markham Street and at the playground /soccer fields of the Henderson
Junior High School to the southeast.
BACKGROUND:
Single family homes dominate this section of Markham Street on the
north side from west of Rodney Parham Road to Sante Fe and on the
south side from Pryor to Wedgwood.On the north side of the street,
they mainly face the side streets.This application is one of four
houses that face Markham Street.
This general area has been the subject of Land Use Plan amendments
before.Most recently (February 4,1999),there was an application
for Suburban Office at the intersection of Pryor and Markham Street,
two blocks west of the site.That area had been the subject of three
rezoning attempts in the past.All of the above actions drew
considerable opposition from the neighborhood.
This amendment will create an island of Suburban Office in the Single
Family area.Zn this particular case,the argument of the Suburban
Office providing a buffer to the homes to the north does not apply
because of the street layout.Brookridge and the homes off
Brookridge bear no relation to Markham Street so any buffering would
not be required.The change to Suburban Office would only further
the intensification of Markham Street to the north.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
This area is not covered by a neighborhood action plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Walnut
Valley Neighborhood Association,Echo Valley N.A.,Colony West
Homeowners Assoc.,Treasure Hills N.A.,Sturbridge Property Owners
2
April 29,1999
ZTEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:LU99-02-02
Homeowners Assoc.,Treasure Hills N.A.,Sturbridge Property Owners
Association,Beverly Hills N.A.,Santa Fe Heights N.A.,Rainwood Cove
N.A.,and Pennbrook/Clover Hill Place N.A.Staff has received three
comments from area residents.One is in support,one was neutral,
and one is in opposition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATZONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate.
PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON ACTZON:(APRZL 29,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented this item to the
Commission.Elizabeth Anne Short,the applicant,spoke to the
Commission about the history of the structure and the rental history.
She continued to speak of traffic volumes,views of commercial across
the street,and traffic accidents in the area.She stated that with
the congestion of the intersection,that it was more suitable forofficethansinglefamily.
Patricia Dolan,owner of 102 Brookside Drive,supports the Land Use
change proposed by the applicant.There was discussion of where her
property was in relation to the applicant's.
Commissioner Lowery asked if Mrs.Dolan would desire that her
property also be changed to Suburban Office.Mrs.Dolan stated that
she would.He continued to ask about the rest of Markham Street.
Her reply was that those who front commercial areas should.
Commissioner Lowery continued and asked Mrs.Dolan if she agreed with
the number of traffic accidents in the intersection.She commentedthatitwasatleastthatmany,if not more.
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,stated that at first,Staff viewed theareaasalargeblockofSingleFamilyandthatonepieceofSuburbanOfficedidnotmakesense.He also stated that this application is
not unlike the application at University and Cantrell.The effect ontheresidentialneighborhoodshouldbetakenintoaccountifitisto
be changed to Suburban Office with a PUD required.He asked will the
change be compatible,or will it start decline of the area?
Commissioner Nunnley stated that he traveled the area and has noticed
a lot of for sale signs.He asked if the character of the
neighborhood has changed from owner occupied to rental.He continuedthatifithad,the existing use has outgrown the original use.
3
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:1 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-02-02
Commissioner Nunnley and Mr.Lawson continued to have a discussion
concerning Brookside Drive.Mr.Lawson spoke of the history of
Brookside Drive as an arterial.
Mr.John Dolan spoke in favor of the plan change.
Commissioner Putnam asked Mr.Lawson to clarify his as statement that
he made.Mr.Lawson responded that it was a difficult issue and has
two sides.Commissioner Putnam asked if Mr.Lawson was supportive of
the change or not.
Commissioner Rahman spoke of expanding the area and is fearful of the
change and the effect on the Neighborhood.
Commissioner Putnam asked if this could be changed to a PZD.It was
stated that it could not.
Commissioner Faust spoke of expanding the application and also spoke
on issues concerning Brookside Drive.
Mr.Lawson offered the option of expanding the area and deferring the
application for six weeks.The new area would cover the four lots
that face Markham.A PUD would be recpxired and must be compatible
with the neighborhood.He stated that Staff would notify the
property owners of the expanded area.
Commissioner Adcock asked Mrs.Short if she understood the option as
outlined.Mrs.Short commented that she has spoken to two of the
three property owners and that they would be supportive of being
included in the application.
Discussion followed concerning deferral or withdrawal of the
application.
Commissioner Downing asked if June 10 was enough time to notify the
new area owners.
Commissioner Nunnley asked Mrs.Dolan if she had any additional
comments to give to the Commission.She asked if 102 Brookside could
be included in the expanded area.Mr.Lawson stated that her
property at 102 Brookside would be included and added the house at
101 Brookside.
A motion was made for deferral to June 10,1999 by Commissioner
Putnam and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:LU99-08-07
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City Planning District
Location:North side of 2200 block of Wright Ave.
R~e est:Single Family tn Mixed Use
Source:Gyst House
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from
Single Family to Mixed Use.Mixed Use provides for a mixture of
residential,office and commercial uses to occur.A Planned ZoningDistrictisrequirediftheuseisentirelyofficeorcommercialoriftheuseisamixtureofthethree.
The applicant wishes to "expand car wash and detail shop."Prompted
by this Land Use Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the
area of review to include property on the north side of Wright Ave to
Dennison Street.With these changes,the eastern boundary of the MX
area on the north side of Wright Avenue would move from Dennison
Street to a new location at Park Street.This would recognize
existing uses of an antique store and a vacant commercial building.
Staff also expanded the request to include.expansion of the Public
Institutional to recognize an existing church on the west half of the
block bounded by Roosevelt,26 ,Park Street and Howard Streets.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned C-3 Commercial and R-3 residential
and is approximately .44 acres in size.Nearby zoning includes a R-3
Single Family District to the north,a C-3 General Commercial
District to the south,a R-3 Single Family District to the east,and
a R-3 Single Family District to the west.
Currently,a car wash and detail shop is located at the site in
question.Neighboring the proponents'roperty is a small
barbershop.On the same block further to the west is an antique shop
on the corner of Wright Ave.and Dennison Street.Across the streetistheNewHopeBaptistChurch.Across the street from the antique
shop is an auto glass shop.
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-07
LAND USE PLANS 6 RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The property is located in a larger area of Single Family on the Land
Use Plan.MX Mixed Use is shown west of Dennison Street on both
sides of Wright Avenue.Mixed Use is also shown on the south side of
Wright Avenue ending half way between Dennison and Howard Streets.
PI Public Institutional is shown on the southwest corner of Wright
Avenue /Park Street intersection.Recent land use changes have not
taken place in the area.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
The plan shows Wright Avenue as a minor arterial.The street isbuiltasafourlanearterialwithcurbs,gutters,and sidewalks.
The street plan makes no indication of proposed changes to Wright
Avenue.
PARKS:
The master parks plan does not display any existing or proposed parks
in the area.
BACKGROUND:
This urban neighborhood serves as an entry into the historic area
around Little Rock Central High School.Little Rock Central High
School received notoriety during the Civil Rights Movement.Mixed
Use Land Use designation of Wright Avenue would reflect current
commercial land uses in the area and allow greater control of
non-residential development through the use of PZD zoning.
A MX designation recognizes current land uses on the north side of
Wright Avenue and creates a buffer to protect the historic integrity
of the neighborhood to the north.A change is to Public
Institutional recognizes the current land use on the southeast corner
of the Wright Avenue /Park Street intersection.
Park Street serves as an entry into the Central High Neighborhood.
Both Wright Avenue and Park Street are shown on the Centennial Park
Neighborhood map as routes leading into the Central High
Neighborhood.Streetscape development on both streets should protect
the residential and historical character of the neighborhood.
Single Family houses are located on Park Street.Development of
property bordering on Park Street should by compatible with the
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:2 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-07
character of the neighborhood.Siting of buildings 6 parking lots at
the corner of Wright Avenue and Park Street should not interfere with
the residential character of the neighborhood.Commercial buildings
should be buffered from the neighboring residential land uses.
Parking lots for commercial uses should be situated in a manor to
encourage access to the property from Wright Avenue,not Park Street.
Wright Avenue is shown as a minor arterial serving as a route
connected the Central High neighborhood to the rest of the city.
Wright Avenue also serves as a by-pass for traffic skirting the
neighborhood.As a minor arterial,Wright Avenue is the ideal choice
for business access.Park Street serves as a neighborhood collector
in a residential area.
THE CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
None.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,Central High Neighborhood
Association,South End Neighborhood Association,East of Broadway
N.A.,Capitol Hill N.A.,Community Outreach N.A.,South Little Rock
Community Development,and South End Neighborhood Developers.Staff
has not any received comments from area residents at the time of this
printing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes change is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:LU99-15-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict
Location:9620 Baseline Road
~Re est:Single Family tc Service Trades District
Source:Morris 6 Donna Moore
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Geyer Springs West Planning District
from Single Family to Service Trades District.Service TradesDistrictprovidesforaselectionofoffice,warehousing,and
industrial park activities that primarily serve other office service
or industrial businesses.The district is intended to allow support
services to these businesses and to provide for uses with an office
component.A Planning district is required for any development not
wholly office.The proposed use is "office and light industrial"
uses.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned R-2,Single Family,with a non-
conforming and is approximately 2.3+acres in size.To the north and
west is a residential area zoned R-2,Single Family.The Arkansas
Highway Department Headquarters lies to the east and is zoned R-2.
Directly south across Baseline Road is a mobile home park and three
single family homes.
LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The property is currently shown on the Land Use Plan as Single
Family.To the north and west is shown as Single Family.The land
to the east and is shown as Public Institutional.Directly south
across Baseline Road is shown as Single Family.
Recent amendments include:
October 6,1998,a change was made from Community Shopping to
Commercial at the northwest corner of I-430 and I-30.
February 21,1995,changes from Single Family,Multi Family and Light
Industrial to Mixed Office Industrial,Mixed Office Warehouse,Public
Institutional and park/Open Space for an area west of the site to
I-430 on both sides of Baseline Road.
April 29,1999
ZTEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:LU99-15-01
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Baseline Road is shown as a Principal Arterial and Mabelvale Pike is
shown as a Minor Arterial.The current plans for improvements to Z-30
include the removal of the existing overpass.-Two bridges will be
constructed to replace it.Mabelvale Pike will be an overpass over
Z-30.Z-30 will be an overpass over Baseline Road,which will be
connected under the freeway to facilitate east west movement.When
finished,this property will sit at the intersection of Mabelvale
Pike and Baseline Road.
PARKS:
There are no existing parks in the immediate area.A band of
Park/Open Space lies to the west of the site to encompass a tributary
of the Fourche Creek.
BACKGROUND
This property has been the site of an Z-2 non-conforming use for
several years.The site has three buildings on it,a two-story
residence on the front and two shop buildings to the rear.Several
houses back up to the property on the west and north.The parking
area of the Highway Department adjoins the property to the east.
Although the Highway Department is shown on the Plan as Public
Znstitutional,it functions as an Office.To place an area of STD
between the Single Family and the Public Znstitutional (Office)would
not make for an appropriate transition.A more realistic transition
would be a change to Suburban Office or Office.
CZTY RECOGNZZED NEZGHBORHOOD PLAN:
This area is not covered by a neighborhood plan.
NEZGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Yorkwood Neighborhood Association,West Baseline Neighborhood
Association,Cloverdale Neighborhood Association,Pinedale N.A.,
Santa Monica N.A.,Allendale N.A.,Town and Country Estates N.A.,
Shiloh Homeowners,Chicot N.A Rob Roy Way N.A.,Legion Hut N.A.,
Mavis Circle N.A.,and Deer Meadow N.A.Staff has received two
comments from area residents in support.
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:3 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-15-01
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change to Service Trades District is not
appropriate.Staff would be supportive of a change to Office or
Suburban Office.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented this item to the
Commission.There was a discussion why Office would be better than
Service Trades District.
Donna Moore,the applicant,spoke of the history of the property.
She stated that of changing the property to Service Trades District
would best utilize the existing buildings.She continued to state
that they were a good neighbor.
Commissioner Putnam asked a question concerning the overpasses and
underpasses for Baseline and Mabelvale Pike.Mr.Minyard explained
the highway plan.
A motion was made for approval by Commissioner Hawn.The motion
failed with a vote of 5 ayes,5 noes and 1 absent.The motion failed
because it did not receive the six votes necessary for approval.
Discussion followed concerning appealing this action to the Board of
Directors.
3
~April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:LU99-17-01
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Crystal Valley Planning District
Location:17415 Lawson Road
Receuest:Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial
Source:Byron New
PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Land Use Plan amendment in the Crystal Valley Planning District from
Single Family to Neighborhood Commercial.Neighborhood Commercial
category includes limited small scale commercial development in close
proximity to a neighborhood,providing goods and services to that
neighborhood market area.
The proponent wishes to locate a "furniture repair and refinishing
shop"at this location.Prompted by this Land Use Amendment request,
the Planning Staff expanded the area of review to include the area on
the south side of Lawson Road to connect with the NC tract at the
intersection of Sullivan Road.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently outside the city limits and is
approximately .71 acres in size.The immediate neighboring
properties to the north,south,east and west are zoned R-2 Single
Family.Near by to the east is a small area zoned C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial surrounding Lawson Road /Sullivan Road intersection.On
the north side of that intersection,is an area zoned C-1 occupied by
a backhoe contracting business and a coin operated car wash.On the
southeast corner is a vacant commercial lot with two small buildings
zoned C-1.Located on the southwest corner of the intersection is a
building that contains a custom home furniture upholstery shop and a
flea market/auction zoned C-1.
LAND USE PLANS 6 RECENT AMENDMENTS:
Surrounding the site are areas shown as Single Family.At the
intersection of Lawson Road and Sullivan Road is node of Neighborhood
Commercial.
April 29,1999
ZTEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FZLE NO.:LU99-17-01
Recent changes include:
February 4,1992,a change was made from Single Family to
Neighborhood Commercial at the intersection of Lawson Road and
Sullivan Road.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
The document designates Lawson Road as a minor arterial.Sullivan
Road is also shown as a minor arterial.Both Lawson Road and
Sullivan Road are two lane rural roads with open ditches.
PARKS:
The master parks plan does not show any existing or proposed parks in
the area.
BACKGROUND:
This section of Lawson Road lies in a rural area of Pulaski County
and outside Little Rock city limits.The city established the current
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)boundary that crosses Lawson Road
on March 1,1988.The area in question lies fully within in the ETJ
boundary.Zn 1992 the zoning of the property surrounding the
intersection of Lawson Road and Sullivan Road changed from R-2
Residential to C-1 Commercial.
Zf the proposed land use change is approved,the NC uses on the
southwest corner of the intersection will extend further to the west
along the south side of Lawson Road.An extension of NC uses to the
west may encourage strip commercial development on the south side of
Lawson Road.An extension of NC land uses on the south side of
Lawson Road may encourage a similar extension of commercial
development on the north side of Lawson Road.
The district plan concentrated commercial development on major
intersections to prevent strip commercial development.
NEZGHBORHOOD PLAN:
None.
2
April 29,1999
'I
ITEM NO.:4 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-17-01
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
A notice was sent to the following neighborhood association:Crystal
Valley Neighborhood Association.Staff has received three comments
from area residents.One comment is in support and two comments were
neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is not appropriate at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
Brian Minyard,of Planning Staff,presented this item to the
Commission.
Commissioner Berry asked what the distinction was between a
neighborhood node and what could be strip development.Mr.Minyard
answered that neighborhood commercial is defined as smaller scale
development.A commercial area serves a larger market area and is
larger in scale.He continued to state differences in Cl and C3tractsizes.Discussion followed about what typically is in
neighborhood commercial.
Commissioner Rahman asked what scale the new business was going tobe.Mr.Minyard explained that the front acre abutting Lawson Road
would be for the business and the rear acre would be for their house.
Byron New,the applicant,spoke of family history and current
business location and conditions.He continued that he would like to
build a 40'80'etal building for his business.
Commissioner Rahman asked if he had purchased the land already.
Mr.New responded that he was scheduled to close on the propertyshortly.
Commissioner Faust asked where the applicant currently lives.HestatedthattheycurrentlylivedinBryant.
This motion was made for approval by Commissioner Hawn and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
April 29,1999
I
ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-6646
Owner:John Epps
Applicant:John Epps
Location:1710 East 16 Street
Request:Rezone from R-3 to I-2
Purpose:No specific development at this
time
Size:.41 acres
Existing Use:Vacant residential structure
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Large area of multiple industrial uses;
zoned I-3
South —Vacant lots and single family;zoned R-3
East —Single family;zoned 0-3 and large area of
multiple industrial uses;zoned PD-I,I-2 and I-3
West —Large area of multiple industrial uses;zoned
I-2 and I-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.East 15 "Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
principal arterial as part of East I-630 Extension.At
its May 4,1999,meeting,the Board of Directors will
consider amending this street classification to a
collector.If this street classification is not amended,
right-of-way dedication to 55 feet from centerline is
required.If the street classification is amended,no
dedication of right-of-way is required.
2.East 16 Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as an
industrial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.(5 feet dedication is required.)
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 Ordinance
16,577.
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6646
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is located on a CATA bus route.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The East End Civic League and Hanger Hill Neighborhood
Associations,all owners of property within 200 feet and all
residents within 300 feet were notified of the rezoning
request.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-30 Planning District.The plan
recommends Industrial for this property and adjacent
properties to the east and west.The I-2 zoning request
conforms to the adopted Plan.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this .41+
acre tract from R-3 Single Family to I-2 Light Industrial.
The property is currently occupied by a vacant,boarded,
single-family structure.There are no immediate plans for
development of the lot,although it is owned by the same
individual who owns the two I-2 zoned lots adjacent to the
west.These adjacent I-2 zoned lots are occupied byElectricMotorServiceCompany.
The property is located within the large,East Little Rock
Industrial district.With the exception of properties
directly to the south,there are no residential properties
in the area.Surrounding zoning and uses range from one 0-3
zoned lot to the east to large wholesaling and manufacturing
businesses on properties which are zoned I-2 and I-3
Industrial.I-3 is the predominant zoning in the area with
substantial areas of I-2 extending to the west and
southeast.A small,R-3 zoned residential neighborhood is
located south of this site.East 16 Street is the
dividing line between the industrial zoning and the
residential neighborhood.A new office/warehouse Planned
Development was recently approved on property on the east
side of Boyce Street,to the east of this site.The
2
April 29,1999
I
ITEM NO.:5 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6646
requested I-2 zoning is compatible with uses and zoning in
the area.
The I-30 District Land Use Plan recommends Industrial for
this site.The I-2 request conforms to the adopted Land Use
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The Commission placed the item on the Consent Agenda for
approval.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-6649
Owner:Bobby and Mary Stewart
Applicant:Derrick Gunn
Location:4323 West 29 Street
Request:Rezone from I-2 to C-3
Purpose:Convert existing building into
a funeral home
Size:.44 acres
Existing Use:Vacant commercial building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North —Single Family;zoned 0-3
South —Various auto related and industrial uses;
zoned I-2
East —Auto repair,beauty shop and church;zoned I-2
West —Single Family;zoned R-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
1.West 29 Street is listed on the Master Street Plan as a
collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from
centerline.
2.Peyton Street is listed 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 required
at the intersection of West 29 and Peyton Streets.
Staff supports deferral until property is redeveloped and
building is removed.
4.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.
5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
6.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance
16,577.
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6649
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The site is not located on a CATA bus route.Routes extend
down Asher Avenue,4 block to the south and down Washington
Avenue/29 Street,1 block to the west.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The Oak Forest Initiative,Love,Midway and Curran Conway
Neighborhood Associations,all owners of property within 200feetofthesiteandallresidentswithin300feetwere
notified of the rezoning recpxest.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-630 Planning District.The
plan recommends Commercial for this property.The C-3
zoning recpxest conforms to the adopted Plan.The site falls
within the area covered by the Oak Forest Neighborhood
action plan.That plan is ongoing.No land use plan
changes will come out of the action plan.The neighborhood
group has chosen to defer any potential changes in the area
to a future Asher Avenue Corridor Study.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The recgxest before the Commission is to rezone this .44+
acre tract from I-2 Light Industrial to C-3 General
Commercial.The property is currently occupied by a vacant,
one-story,commercial building and a paved parking lot and
driveway.For many years the building housed the Asher
Avenue Post Office before the postal service relocated
farther west.The applicant proposes to utilize the
existing building for a funeral home.Funeral homes are not
permitted in the I-2 district but are allowed in C-3.The
funeral home will not contain a crematory.
The property is located at the Southern fringe of the large
Oak Forest/Stephens Neighborhood,within the heavily
developed Asher Avenue commercial-industrial corridor.
Properties adjacent to the south,east and southwest are
zoned I-2 and contain a variety of uses ranging from
churches to beauty shops and automotive repair and related
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:6 (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6649
businesses.The properties across West 29 Street,to the
north are zoned 0-3 and contain single family homes,a
church and a church parking lot.Single family homes are
located to the west,across Peyton Street.The large
residential neighborhood extends farther to the north and
west.The proposed C-3 zoning and use of the property for a
funeral home are compatible with uses and zoning in the
area.
The I-630 District Land Use Plan recommends Commercial for
this site.The proposed C-3 zoning conforms to the adopted
Plan.The site falls within the area covered by the ongoing
Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan.No land use plan amendments
are proposed by this neighborhood plan.The neighborhood
has chosen to defer any potential changes in this area to a
potential future Asher Avenue Corridor Study.
Through this rezoning action,the applicant will be required
to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way for West
29 Street,10 feet for Peyton Street and a 20 foot radial
dedication at the intersection.The radial dedication will
go through a corner of the building.Staff supports a
deferral of the radial dedication until such time as the
property is redeveloped and the existing building is
removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION
Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning.
Staff also recommends approval of a deferral of the 20 foot
radial right-of-way dedication until such time as the
property is redeveloped and the existing building is
removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval.
The Commission placed the item on the Consent Agenda for
approval.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
~April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:LU99-08-08
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City Planning District
Location:Area bounded by Roosevelt Road,I-30 and the CRI &P
Railroad
geest:Mining tc Single Family,Industrial and Park/Open Space
Source:South End Area Improvement Plan
PROPOSAL /REQUEST
Land Use Plan amendment in the Central City Planning District from
Mining to Single Family,Industrial and Park/Open Space.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 homes and cluster homes,provided that the density
remain less that 6 units per acre.Industrial category encompasses a
variety of manufacturing,warehousing research and development,
processing,and industry related office and service activities.
Industrial development typically occurs on an individual tract basis
rather that according to an overall development plan.Park/Open
Space category includes all public parks,recreation facilities,
greenbelts,flood plains,and other designated open space and
recreational land.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently zoned Z-3,Heavy Industrial;R-3,Single
Family;R-2,Single Family;and C-3,General Commercial.The
southern most area is zoned R-2,Single Family and is vacant.The
central section,zoned R-3,Single Family,is also vacant.Both of
these tracts are wooded.The railroad switching yard,located in the
northern section is zoned Z-3,Heavy Industrial,and is currently
used as such.The extreme northern area,north of the railroad,is
zoned a mostly R-3,Single Family with one tract of C-3,General
Commercial,two tracts of Z-2,Light Industrial and railroad property
zoned Z-3,Heavy Industrial.
To the north of the site,lie single family homes zoned R-3,Single
Family and R-4,Two Family,with an occasional spot of commercial
zoning.Interstate Park lies to the west and is zoned R-2 and R-3,
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-08
Single Family districts.The I-30 freeway lies to the south and east
and is zoned R-2.
LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS:
The area to the north is shown as Single Family on the Plan with an.
occasional Public/Institutional area.An Industrial area lies to the
northeast bordering the freeway while Park/Open space lies to the
west of the site.The freeway lies to the south and east.
Recent changes include:
August 18,1998,a change was made from Single Family to Mixed Use in
the 1900 and 2000 blocks of Commerce Street.
May 21,1996,a change from Single Family to Mixed Use for an area
between 26 and 27 west of I-30.
March 5,1996,a change form single Family to Mixed Use west of BraggStreetfrom23to24Streets.
February 20,1996,a change from Single Family to Public
Institutional between 13 and 14 from Marshall to Battery Streets.
January 16,1996,a change from Single Family to Public InstitutionalforanareawestofI-30 between 18 and 19
January 16,1996,a change from Single Family to Public Institutionalforanareaattheintersectionof14thandPark.
MASTER STREET PLAN:
Arch Street is shown as a Principal Arterial and I-30 is shown as a
Freeway on the plan.Arch Street is built to a two-lane section inthisareaandI-30 is six lanes at this point.
PARKS:
Interstate Park is directly across Arch Street from this site and isclassifiedasaSpecialUseMetropolitanPark.Interstate Park
provides softball fields,basketball,free play football/soccer field
and playground facilities on approximately 71 acres.There are
currently no other plans to expand the area further with the
exception of canoe access point for Fourche Creek.
BACKGROUND:
A 1980's plan for the Arch Street corridor placed Mining from this
point south along Arch Street Pike.While mining is a major factor
south of this site,this area is located in the floodway and
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO.:LU99-08-08
routinely sits underwater for a majority of the year.This floodway
status prohibits development in this area.In addition,mining in
this part of the country usually consists of strip or pit mining.
This activity would not be appropriate close to residential areas or
downtown.The northern line of the proposed Park/Open space would be
the levee to the south of the railroad lines.
The Biddle Yards,a railroad-switching yard,lies between the
residential area and the floodway.A levee lies immediately to the
south of the lines.The yard has three lines running under Arch
Street and expands to eight lines running under the I-30 freeway.
The proposal would change the railroad-switching yard to Industrial.
Currently,the yard is zoned I-3 and the change to Industrial on the
Land Use Plan would be acknowledge existing conditions.
The last area under consideration is a thin strip of land immediately
to the north of the railroad lines.It is proposed to change to
Single Family to reflect the existing conditions of the neighborhood.
The two pieces of property that are zoned C-3 and I-2 are included in
Item No.8 of this agenda.These area spot zonings that are totally
surrounded to the north by R-4.
CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN:
There is not a neighborhood action plan for this area.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:
Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association,Central High Neighborhood
Association,South End Neighborhood Association,Wright Avenue N.A.,
East of Broadway N.A.,Capitol Hill N.A.,Community Outreach N.A.,
South Little Rock Community Development,and South End Neighborhood
Developers.Staff has not received any comments from area residents.
The neighborhood associations,which have been participating in the
neighborhood Action Plan,are supportive of the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff believes the change is appropriate.
3
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:7 (Cont.)FILE NO .:LU99-0 8-08
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
4
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:VARIOUS
Name:Land Use Plan Amendment —Central City Planning District
Location:Area bounded by Roosevelt Road,I-30 and the
CRI &P Railroad
Receuest:Rezone from 0-3,C-3,C-4,1-2,and 2-3 to R-3,R-4,0-3,
and C-1
Source:South End Area Improvement Plan
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Office,Mixed Office Commercial and Mixed Use are clustered along
Roosevelt Road at the eastern border.Some Commercial,Office,and
Multi-family are near the intersections of Broadway,Roosevelt and
Arch Street Pike.Public Institutional areas are scattered
throughout the study area to recognize churches and schools and
Barton Coliseum,also shown as Public Institutional,is located at
the western edge of the study area.Multifamily is in three tracts.
The western tract is southeast of 27th and Battery.The largesttractissouthandwestof26thandCumberlandandalongIversWalk.
The smallest and last tract is in the 2500 block of Gaines,ConIvey
Gardens.
Zoning is primarily R-3 and R-4 for the majority of the study area.
Higher intensity districts such as C-3,C-4,0-3 and PZD's areas are
clustered along Roosevelt,Arch,King and I-30.At the southeast
corner at I-30 and including the Biddle Yards,industrial uses occur
with I-2 and I-3 zoning.This industrial zoning extends to the west
across the entirety of the study area and includes residential areas.
Smaller areas of high intensity zoning are clustered at various
intersections:Arch and 33';Arch and 28 ;31'nd Main;29 and
King;and at Howard and Roosevelt.
The undeveloped areas to the south,lying in the floodway are zoned
R-2 and R-3 and the area to the southwest is zoned R-3,0-3 and I-3.
LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT:
These sites are located in the Central City Planning District.Item 7
in this agenda accompanies this item.The zoning requests in this
item are for the most part outside of the area considered in item N7.
The two areas where a Plan change and a rezoning are requested are as
follows:a change from C-3 to R-3 in an area to be shown as Single
Family at 3225 Main Street and a change from I-2 to R-3 in an area to
be shown as Single Family at 3328 Spring.The other zoning requests
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:VARIOUS
are in conformity to the Land Use Plan that has been reviewed by the
South End Area Improvement Plan Steering Committee.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is the rezone approximately 100
properties in the South End Area.The following spreadsheet willlisteachpropertyindetail,but they can be grouped in the
following way:
A.City of Little Rock property that haa been acquired for flood
control reasons and is currently vacant or used for park land
should be reclassified from I-3,Heavy Industrial and C-3,
General Commercial to R-3,Single Family and R-4,Two Family.
B.Single Family residences located in I-3,Heavy Industrial area,
namely High Drive,West 37 and West 36 Streets,should bereclassifiedfromI-3 to R-4,Two Family.Previously,our
zoning ordinance permitted building a lesser intensity use in a
higher zoning classification.This is no longer the case.
C.Single family residences in various spots zoned C-3,General
Commercial,sometimes with only one or two lots zoned such
should be changed to R3,Single Family and R-4,Two Family
depending on the prevailing zoning classifications.These
houses were built as residential structures and should be zonedtomatchexistingconditions.
D.Commercial zoned property (C-3,General Commercial)is being
considered to be reclassified to C-1,Neighborhood Commercial.
The committee acknowledges the existence of liquor stores and
business establishments that serve alcohol in the neighborhood.
They would like to curb additional businesses of this type in
the area.The change from C-3 to C-1 on these properties would
help achieve this goal.
E.The area in front of the Barton Coliseum is currently zoned C-3.0-3,General Office would accommodate their current needs and
any expansion of office uses on the site.Again,this change
would be more in keeping with the existing conditions.
Property owners were first notified of these changes on November 27,1998.Of the first mailing,Staff received approximately 20 refusalstorezone.Those twenty were dropped from the next mailing.On
April 5,1999,the second notices were mailed to the reduced list.
Those residing on the property were mailed certified letters,while
businesses,those owning vacant lots,and corporations were mailed
2
April 29,1999
ITEM NO.:8 (Cont.)FILE NO.:VARIOUS
certified letters with return receipt requested.Those who do not
wish to be rezoned have submitted their requests in writing and have
been taken off the list.
See accompanying chart for listing of properties.
STAFF RECCOMMENDATZONS:
Staff recommends approval of the zoning requests.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
This item was placed on the consent agenda for approval and was
approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.
3
MASTER COPY PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES CALL SHEET
'
case ¹¹dlr street suffi legal desc ;Current ,'Proposed
:Zoning i Zoning
z-6650 -Located at 2522 S Rock ST,PETTEFERS BLK-001 LOT-007 &8,rezone from C-3 i to C-1
z-
i 6650 Located at E 26th ST,PETTEFERS BLK-003 LOT-006 E 1/2 OF 6,rezone from i C-3 to C-1
z-!6650 -Located at W 27th &1-30 ST,PETTEFERS BLK-004 LOT4I07 &8 EXC R/W,rezone from C-3 to C-I
z-,6650 -Located at 2600 9 Commerce ST,PETTEFERS BLK4I05 LOT-012,rezone from i C-3 i to C-1
z-6650 -Located at 2705 S Commerce ST,PETTEFERS BLK4I09 LOT4I02 EXC BEG SE,rezone from
I
C-3 i to R-3
COR N 42 59'O W R/W EXP-WY SW 0 N R/W
Z-6651 -Located at i 3224 S Arch I ST CALLAWAY BLK4I01 LOT-005 ,rezone from C-3 i to C-1
Z-6651 -Located at 3220 S Arch
~
ST,CALLAWAY BLK-001 LOT4I03 S 10'F 3 &ALL,rezone from '-3
I to C-1
OF 4
Z-6651 -Located at S Arch ST CALLAWAY BLK-001 LOT-001 -,rezone from C-3 'o C-1
Z-6651 -Located at W 34th ST,CALLAWAY BLK-005 LOT-007 THRU 9,rezone from,1-3 I to 1-1
Z-6651 -Located at W 33rd ST,CALLAWAY BLK-007 LOT-007 THRU 12 &W,rezone from 1-3'to R-4
HALF OF ALLEY E &ADJ
Z-6651 -Located at 3001 S Ringo ST,BRADDOCKS BLVD BLK-027 LOT-001 W 2/3 OF,rezone from C-3 ,'to R-3
1&2
Z-6651 -Located at 'hester ST,BRADDOCKS BLK-030 LOT-011 ,rezone from C-3 to OS
Z-6651 -Located at Chester ST,BRADDOCKS BLK-030 LOT-012 LTS 12,13,14,rezone from C-3 to OS
Z-6651 -Located at 2801 S Arch ST,FERGUSON C E BLKM1 LOT-005,rezone from C-3 to C-1
Z-6651 -Located at S Arch ST,FERGUSON C E BLK-001 LOT-002 LT 2 &W140',rezone from,C-3 to C-I
OF 3 &W 140'F N1/2 OF 4
Z-6651 -Located at 1220 W 37th I ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-002,rezone from '-3 to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1216 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK4XXI LOT4X/3,rezone from j 1-3 I to R-4
Z-I 6651 -Located at 1212 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-n00 LOT-004,rezone from 1-3 I to R-4
Z-,'6651 -Located at 1208 W 37th i ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4I05,rezone from 1-3I,to R-4
Z-i 6651 -Located at 1204 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4IOS,rezone from,1-3 'o R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1200 W 37th i ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-007,rezone from,1-3 'o R-4
Z-,6651 -Located at W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-008,rezone from 1-3;to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1203 W 37th I ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-009,rezone from '-3
I to R-4
Z-'651 -Located at 1207 W 37th 'T,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-010,rezone from,1-3 i to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1211 W 37th I ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-011,rezone from.1-3 I to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1215 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4712,rezone from,l-3,to R&
Z-6651 -Located at 1219 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK4XC LOT-013,rezone from '-3,to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-015,rezone from ~1-3 ~to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1212 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4f16,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6651 -Located at 1216 Hi h,Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4I17,rezone from i 1-3 to R-4Z-'651 -Located at 1220 High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-018,rezone from 1-3 ',to R-4
Z-I 6651 -Located at 2722 S Arch ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK-003 LOT-007,rezone from '-3 to C-I
Z-
~
6651 -Located at S Arch ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK-004 LOT&11 PK,rezone from,C-3;to C-I
W50'F 11 &12
Z-.'6651 -Located at S Arch ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK-004 LOT-011 PKI,rezone from C-3
I
to C-1
E90'F 11 &12
Z-6651 -Located at 3103 S Main ST ROBINSON BLK-001 LOT-002 ,rezone from C-3 to R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 3225 S Main ST,ROBINSON BLK-001 LOT-012S30'F LT 12,rezone from C-3 to R-3
R/W
Z-I 6651 -Located at 3221 S Main ST ROBINSON BLK-001 LOT4I11,rezone from '-3 to R-3
Z-
~
6651 -Located at S
~
Main ST,ROBINSON BLK401 LOT&12 EXC S30',rezone from C-3 ',to R-3
THEREOF
Z-,6651 -Located at 3111 S Main ST ROBINSON BLK-001 LOT-003 ,rezone from C-3,I to R-3
Z-I 6651 -Located at 3101 S Main ST ROBINSON BLK-001 &OT4XII ,rezone from C-3 I to R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 3100 S 'ain ST ROBINSON BLK-002 LOT-001 ,rezone from C-3 'o C-I
Z-6651 -Located at S Main ST,ROBINSON BLK-002 LOT-002 N1/2 OF 2,rezone from C-3 t to C-I
Z-6651 -Located at 3201 Louisiana ST ROBINSON BLK-002 LOTC17 ,rezone from C-3 to C-I
Z-'651 -Located at Louisiana ST ROBINSON BLK-002 LOT-018 ,rezone from C-3 to .C-IZ-'651 -Located at 3108 S Main ST,ROBINSON BLK-002 LOT-002 SI/2 OF 2 &ALL,rezone from c-3 to R-3
3
Z-6651 -Located at 106 S:31st i ST .SOUTH MAIN STREET BLK4XI1 LOT-015,rezone from C-3 to R-3
Z-'651 -Located at 3023 S I Main 'T,SOUTH MAIN STREET BLK001 LOT-014,rezone from C-3 to R-3
Z-l 6651 -Located at 3022 S (Main 'T,SOUTH MAIN STREET BLK402 LOT@14,rezone from l C-3 'o R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 3024 S Main ST,SOUTH MAIN STREET BLK-002 LDT-015,rezone from'C-3 to R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 2914 S Main ST,SOUTH MAIN STREET BLK-002 LOT-006,rezone from 'C-3 to R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 201 E 29th ST,TUEXDO PARK BLK401 LOT-049,rezone from C-3 to C-I
Z-6651 -Located at 201 E 29th ST,TUEXDO PARK BLK4X71 LOT-050,rezone from C-3 i to C-I
Z-6651 -Located at 2903 S Scott ST,TUEXDO PARK BLK-001 LOT%48,rezone from C-3 I to C-I
Z-6651 -Located at 3328 I S rin ST TWEN CEN BLKM1 LOT-007 ,rezone from I-2 'o R-3
Z-6651 -Located at 3326 S rin ST TWEN CEN BLK4XI1 LOT-006 ,rezone from I-2 i to R-3
Z-6652 -Located at 3018 S Martin Luther Kin Drive BOWMANS BLK-010 LOT-008 ,rezone from C-3 to R-3
Z-6652 -Located at 2905 S Martin Luther King Drive,BOWMANS BLK016 LOT-001$41FT OF N 90,rezone from '-3 to C-1
FT OF LOTS I &2
Z-i 6652 -Located at 8 (Martin Luther King Drive .BOWMANS BLK-016 LOT-003 N 1/3 OF 3 &4 &,rezone from,C-3:to C-1
3I7 N &AD J FORMERLY W 29TH ST
Page t er 2
MASTER COPY PROPOSEO ZONING CHANGES CALL SHEET
e
Z-6652 -Located at S Pulaski St.,BOWMANS BLK-016 LOT-003 PT LTS 3 &4,rezone from C-3 to C-1
MPDA BEG AT PT ON ELN OF SD LT 4 TH WLY
PARA TO NLN DF
Z-6652 -Located at 2901 S Martin Luther King Drive,BOWMANS BLK-016 LOT-001N 49 FT 1 &2 &,rezone from C-3 to C-1
3ty N &ADJ FORMERLY W 29TH ST
Z-6652 -Located at 2909 S Martin Luther King Drive,BOWMANS BLK-016 LOT~1 S 50 FT OF 1 &2,rezone from C-3 to C-1
Z-6652 -Located at 2912 S Pulaski St.,BOWMANS BLK%16 LOT-003 S 44 2/3'F 3 &4,rezone from C-3 to C-1
&N40'OF 5
Z-6652 -Located at 2817 S Martin Luther King Drive,BOWMANS LTS 5 6 7 8 &30'OF &ADJ TO,rezone from C-3 to
I
C-1
LTS FORMERLY PLATTED AS 29THST
Z-6652 -Located at I 2515 S Martin Luther Kin Drive,BRADDOCKS BLVD BLK-009 LOT404,rezone from C-3 to,C-1
Z-6652 -Located at 3225 S MLK BRADDOCKS BLK 33 LOTS 4,5 &6-,rezone from C-3 to .'R-3
Z-6652 -Located at 3301 S MLK BRADDOCKS W90'f 1&2,S10'f E50'f 2,rezone from C-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at 1225 W 33rd BRADDOCKS ESO'f 1 and N50 of E50 of 2,rezone from C-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at 3601 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK~LOT-001,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-,6652 -Located at 1223 W 37th ST,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-014,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-,6652 -Located at I 3711 Martin Luther Kin BL,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT419,rezone from 1-3 to ,'R-4
Z-,6652 -Located at,3715 High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK~LOT@20,rezone from 1-3 to i R-4
Z-.6652 -Located at 3719 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-021,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT422,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-,6652
~
-Located at 3700 High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-023A REP,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
LTS 23-24 &23A
Z-i 6652 -Located at '600 High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT424,rezone from 1-3 to '-4
Z-6652 -Located at,3704 High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-024A REP OF,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
LTS 23 &24 24A
Z-6652 -Located at High Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT@25,rezone from I-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at '712 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK~LOT426,rezone from I-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at i 3716 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK~LOT&27,rezone from 1-3 to,R-4
Z-6652 -Located at '720 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT428,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located st,3724 Hi h Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK~LOT4I29,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located st '728 H'Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT4I30,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located at 'igh Drive,HIGH POINT ADDN BLK-000 LOT-031 THRU 35,rezone from 1-3 to R-4
Z-6652 -Located st 4 Whitmore Cirde,SOUTHSIDE ADDN BLK~LOT@02,rezone from C-3 to ,'R-4
Z-6652 -Located at 2 Whitmore Cirde,SOUTHSIDE ADDN BLK-000 LOT401,rezone from C-3 to '-4
Z-6653 -Located at 2100 w Roosevelt Rd,MCCATHYS BLK 4 LOT 5,11 8 12,rezone from C-3 to '-3
Z-I'6653 -Located st'2501 S Howard St,NF RIFFEL ADDN BLK 1 LOT 11-12,rezone from C-3 to 0-3
Z-6653 -Located st 2500 S Howard RD .NF RIFFEL ADDN BLK 2 LOT 1&2,rezone from C-3 to:0-3
Z-2365A -Located at 2719 S Commerce ST,PETTEFERS BLK-009 LOT4m4 EXC R/W,rezone from C-3 to.R-3
Z-2437A -Located at I 3314 Arch ST CALLAWAY BLK-005 LOT-003 ,rezone from 1-2 to C-1
Z-2767A -Located at,2500 S Broadway ST,RETAN BLK-002 LOT-011 N1/2 OF 11 &ALL 12,rezone from C-3 to,C-1
Z-'142C -Located st '223 S Arch ST TWEN CEN BLK-002 LOT-015 ,rezone from 1-2 to:R-3Z-'3142C -Located at 3221 S Arch ST TWEN CEN BLK~2 LOT%19 ,rezone from 1-2 to,.R-3Z-'570A -Located at 2508 S Arch ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK-001 LDT-010.,rezone from C-4 to C-1
N12 1/Z OF 10 &S1/2 OF 11
Z-3853B -Located at 2503 S Gaines ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK~t LOT-001 &,rezone from C-3 to
N12'OF 2
Z-4023A -Located at,2507 S Howard St,NF RIFFELADDN BLK1 LOT 9-10,rezonefrom C-3 to,0-3
Z-4157A -Located at i 2510 S Park St,NF RIFF EL ADDN BLK 1 LOT 14,rezone from C-3 to:.0-3
Z-5234A -Located at,2718 S Arch ST,KIMBALLS SOUTH PARK BLK~3 LOT-008,rezone from C-3 to C-1
Z-539A -Located SWofFairgrounds Rd,THPtS1/2NeS &WofCRI &P RR&Eof,rezonefrom 0-3 to R-3
Fouche Creek &Th Pt Se lying E of Fourche
Creek except a 50'trip being 25'ither isde of
Brick co Rr Bg aat a pt 242'E of Nw cor S1/2 NE
SW th sv/ly 620'o pt 50'of SW cor S 1/2 NE
SW161n 12w
Z-778A -Located at I Chester ST,WOODLAWN BLK-007 LOT%01 LOT 1 -THRU 4,rezone from C-3 to OS
z-6651 -Located at W 33rd ST,WoodLAWN BLK-008 LOT~I LOT 1-10,rezone from R-4 to OS
z-i 6651 -Located at W 33rd ST,WoodLAWN BLK-008 LOT~1 LOT 11,rezone from C-3 to 'S
Page 2 of 2
April 29,1999
4
ITEM NO.:9 OTHER MATTERS
NAME:Central City Redevelopment Corridor
Design Overlay District
SOURCE:Downtown Neighborhood Association
Downtown Neighborhoods Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MARCH 18,1999)
Jim Lawson,Planning Director,gave a brief background on the
status of the Central City Redevelopment Corridor (CCRC)Design
Overlay District.Mr.Lawson stated that staff had met with the
Plans Committee,and the draft that was being reviewed at the
Planning Commission reflected the comments from the Plans
Committee.He also asked the Planning Commission for direction
on public input,boundary location,and content.
Shawn Spencer of Planning Staff presented the draft ordinance.
Mr.Spencer reviewed the four definitions in the ordinance and
went into detail on the regulations.Planning Commissioners had
some reservations on the "mass"regulations and how the
regulations would relate to an undeveloped block.Discussion
followed.
Kathy Wells,President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association
(DNA),was present.Ms.Wells stated that the purpose of the
Design Overlay District was to regulate only new construction and
not additions/renovations.She also stated that there was
concern about the "mass"regulations and the section of"materials"that dealt with materials that resemble the
appearance of wood,brick or stone.She asked the Planning
Commission to act quickly on their directions to staff.
Discussion followed.
Chairman Earnest asked Mr.Lawson if staff cduld meet with Ms.
Wells and work out the concerns of the Planning Commission and
the DNA.Mr.Lawson and Ms.Wells agreed to meet on Monday March22.Ms.Wells also asked if staff could wait on mailing outnoticestopropertyownersuntiltheDNAcouldtakethe
neighborhood through an educational process on the DOD.Staff
agreed to the notice process.
april 29,1999
ITEM NO.:9 (Cont.)OTHER MATTERS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 15,1999)
Walter Malone,Planning Staff,reminded the Commission we were to
hear from Ms.Wells about the neighborhood's efforts to
communicate the issue and decide where we go from here.Ms.
Wells distributed a letter to the Commission.
Kathy Wells,Chair of Downtown Plan for future,stated she had
met with the East of Broadway and South of Roosevelt groups.The"East of Broadway"group is supportive.They believe the
standards will help the area.The South of Roosevelt group while
wanting some design standard believe this is being done to them.
Therefore,they do not wish to have these standards.
Thus the area should include the area east of Governor Mansion
area not in Historic District and exclude the area south of
Roosevelt Road.There was some discussion about the "original"
overlay.The consensus was to contact owners in the corridor.
Ms.Wells asked that a draft of the letter be shown to the
neighborhood groups prior to mailing.Mr.Malone agreed thatstaffwoulddraftaletterandpassitbytheneighborhoodsprior
to contact of the property owners.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 29,1999)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to
the June 10,1999 meeting.The vote was 10 ayes,0 noes and
1 absent.
2
AR
E
A
~
f
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
VO
T
E
RE
C
O
R
D
AA
S
4
W2
EA
E
E
~
l
NI
E
I
I
I
I
B
E
R
'
.
5
k
'
"
7
5
9
EB
B
~,
q
:
:
:
:
C
cC
f
5:
+
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
y
V
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
A
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
v
~
+
0
y
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
y
~
~
y
y'
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
V
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
v
y'
&
~
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
o
eo
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
y
e
~
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
y
0
0
+
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
~
~
Q
0
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
y
SO
L
I
'
T
Cl
g
P.
'"
'
,
T
,
II
I
I
E
'
:
:
;
l
N
'
"
A
W
O
'
:
"
;
T
I
M
E
OU
T
BE
R
R
Y
,
CR
A
I
G
EA
R
N
E
S
T
,
HU
G
H
DO
W
N
I
N
G
,
RI
C
H
A
R
D
MU
S
E
,
RO
H
N
RA
H
M
A
N
,
MI
Z
A
N
FA
U
S
T
,
JU
D
I
T
H
AD
C
O
C
K
,
PA
M
PU
T
N
A
M
,
BI
L
L
NU
N
N
L
E
Y
,
OB
R
A
Y
LO
W
R
Y
,
BO
B
OU
l
Of
'
l
H
HA
W
N
,
HE
R
B
Me
e
t
i
n
g
Ad
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
&
+3
P.
M
.
AY
E
~
NA
Y
E
A
AB
S
E
N
T
+
AB
S
T
A
I
N
4
April 29,1999
There being no further business before the Commission,the
meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Date 5 W
ec et y Chai n